Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:05 pm GMT by Skribbles
NL400 @ Party
Hero: $350
Villian: $500+
Villian limps in MP, Hero on the button raises to $15 w/ AJo, blinds fold, villian calls.
Pot: $35
Flop: 25T
Villian checks, hero bets $25, Villian calls.
Pot $85
Turn: Q
Villian checks, hero checks.
Pot $85
River: K
Villian checks.....
So I made my nut straight w/ no flushes on board. Villian had something on the flop, either top pair, a set or another PP.
So do I make an overbet here and fire out $150?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:14 pm GMT by UrAteUp
I would say call enough that you know he will pay to see that he lost. The overbet would work if you had been going back and forth with raises and re-raises but with him just check-calling he will probably fold to the overbet and you lose money in the long run. Fire out the $150 or maybe a little less if you feel he might fold.
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:15 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I think I'd probably bet about the size of the pot, but I wouldn't "overbet" unless you're pretty sure he has a set he's willing to pay you off with. Pot-size bet I think will get you pretty good value... maybe he'll even raise. 
Posted Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:59 pm GMT by kingetje
Yeah the "villain" doesnt seem that strong and will probably fold if you bet that big. I'd bet around $60-70
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:37 am GMT by fiezk
Fire out a pot sized bet. He might call with a less than premium hand, and almost certainly raise with a set . Remember, a pot sized bet + a pot sized raise adds up to quite an overbet - an overbet that'll only get called if Villain has a set.
That being said I think V will fold his underpair....?
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:25 am GMT by Jauron
Unless the player has a history of not being able to let go of a hand or you have a history of bluffing often I don't think this is the time to overbet.
Bet the pot if you are looking for a big payoff, bet 50-75% if you have any real hopes of getting called.
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:21 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Two overs fall consecutively and villain went check/check. I can't see what good an overbet would do unless you are _very_ confident villain would only call flop with a strong hand like a set and probably wanted to c/r turn.
Or if you have a very laggy table-image, which is the other good way of getting paid off handsomely on big overbets, especially against bad players.
Some people happily hands of a stack or two to keep a LAG honest, especially if they won a small pot by doing it earlier.
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:47 pm GMT by suitedaces84
$150 is probably the worst possible bet amount here. There really isn't anything he calls $150 with that he wouldn't call an all-in with. If you're going to bet big just go all-in.
That being said, I vote against all-in here. Based on the way the hand has been played he's going to fold a ton here. Usually he's got an underpair he liked on the T-high flop. He can't like his underpair now. Every now and then he's got a set or some other random strong hand, in which case he may check raise. Also the size of the pot is large enough so that you can lay him decent odds on a solid bet.
On hands where the pot is very small and you make a very strong hand on the river going all-in is usually best because an all-in will lay your opponent about the same odds as any other less than tiny bet. Example: pot = $2; effective stack = $100; you hold the nuts on the river. Going all-in gives your opponent 1.02:1. Betting $20 gives your opponent 1.05:1. The probability of the $100 bet being called is about the same as the probability of a $20 being called.
On a the same hand where the pot was $40 on the river there would be a large difference between calling a $100 bet and calling a $20 bet from your opponent's perspective.
Posted Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:33 am GMT by tame_deuces
| suitedaces84 wrote: |
On hands where the pot is very small and you make a very strong hand on the river going all-in is usually best because an all-in will lay your opponent about the same odds as any other less than tiny bet. Example: pot = $2; effective stack = $100; you hold the nuts on the river. Going all-in gives your opponent 1.02:1. Betting $20 gives your opponent 1.05:1. The probability of the $100 bet being called is about the same as the probability of a $20 being called.
On a the same hand where the pot was $40 on the river there would be a large difference between calling a $100 bet and calling a $20 bet from your opponent's perspective. |
This is true IF our opponent bases his decisions strictly on potodds. NL is filled with players who don't though. So betting amounts in small pots will have a bigger impact than the mere change in pot odds.
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 12:56 am GMT by bigrazor
hes got aces? its the only thing that makes sense...
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:08 am GMT by suitedaces84
| bigrazor wrote: | | hes got aces? its the only thing that makes sense... |
  
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:45 am GMT by Skribbles
I was debating pushing thinking he may have hit a set. But then figured he'd re-raise me all-in with a set anyway so I bet out $50.
He called and flipped KTo.
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 6:16 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| Skribbles wrote: | I was debating pushing thinking he may have hit a set. But then figured he'd re-raise me all-in with a set anyway so I bet out $50.
He called and flipped KTo. |
He check/called on the flop with that? Ew, that's awful.
I like your line of thinking here though, and I think $50 is an excellent value bet.
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:36 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | He check/called on the flop with that? Ew, that's awful. |
I think that's a fine play.
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:35 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
| suitedaces84 wrote: | | xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | He check/called on the flop with that? Ew, that's awful. |
I think that's a fine play. |
If he'd paired the King instead of the 10, I would probably agree, but I would much prefer to protect a weak top-pair like tens.
Posted Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:45 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | suitedaces84 wrote: | | xDiamond_CutteRx wrote: | | He check/called on the flop with that? Ew, that's awful. |
I think that's a fine play. |
If he'd paired the King instead of the 10, I would probably agree, but I would much prefer to protect a weak top-pair like tens. |
By "protecting" them you set yourself up to win a small pot or lose a big one. You usually end up filtering out all the hands that you have beat and end paying off all the hands that beat you.
It's about pot control more than anything else. On the flop you get to decide the stakes for the remainder of the hand. If you want the stakes to be low you can make them low by keeping the pot small. If you want the stakes to be high you can make them high by making the pot big. If you have a marginal TPGK type hand you're going to want to make the stakes low. If you have a OESD, FD, pair + draw type hand you're going to want to make the stakes high. It's best to give up a small amount of equity so you may play for the desired amount on later streets, as the bets on the later streets will be much bigger than the bets on earlier streets. If you make a habit of playing big pots with marginal hands OOP you're going to lose.
Posted Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:33 pm GMT by tame_deuces
This is opponent dependant though. If opp is aggro you got a ton of cards that will make you damn confused as to where you stand on turn, whereas a medium pair might be a monster hand versus his range on the flop.
Posted Sat Apr 29, 2006 10:19 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| tame_deuces wrote: | | This is opponent dependant though. If opp is aggro you got a ton of cards that will make you damn confused as to where you stand on turn, whereas a medium pair might be a monster hand versus his range on the flop. |
That's true, but one pair won't be a monster vs. the range he calls a c/r with even if he is very aggro. If the stacks were shorter I'd play more aggressively.
|
|
