Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:49 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
It folds round to me in LP, I raise it up 4x bb with A  Q the sb calls and the flop hits me as hard as it possibly could.
He checks, I check.
He checks turn and I decide if check again and he bets the river then I'm not going to get to much more anyway. I figure the best course of action here is to put out what looks like a feeler bet and try and induce a reraise.
I've been quite aggressive and there have been a couple hands I've shown where I've raised in position with less than great hands, but, no good, she folds. 
http://www.pokerhand.org/?581757
Thoughts?
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 Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:00 am GMT by crack
My thoughts are that its such a rare occurence I wouldn't worry about how you play it, it doesn't really matter.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:32 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
Haha ok, Will let's say it's same situation with flopped quads or full house or nut flush. Do you check again or is it going to be more profitable to give them some rope?
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm GMT by tame_deuces
A cont. bet probably makes your hand looks much weaker than a check ever would, esp if you have been very aggressive so far.
Don't suddenly slowplay big hands when you have been aggressive so far, what's the point in that? When you're very aggressive you create the illusion that you rarely have a properly strong hand, just so that when you do have one you can pound money into the pot and nobody has an inkling of your hand strength.
Apart from that, as crack says....it doesn't really matter how we play quads, SFs etc.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:23 pm GMT by supafrey
anyone that doesn't have a solid game plan on how to pop up their monster flops (quads, fh, nut flush) is really missing out on alot of money. I pretty much completely disagree with crack/tame and I even have like... 3-4 "moves" that I have prepared that work for my image.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:40 pm GMT by tame_deuces
Ok, just to state the obvious: When I write 'It doesn't really matter how we play SFs and quads', then I am not saying: 'It doesn't really matter how we play when we flop the nuts or near nuts'
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:43 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| wEbMaStEr wrote: | | Haha ok, Will let's say it's same situation with flopped quads or full house or nut flush. Do you check again or is it going to be more profitable to give them some rope? |
Texture texture texture.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:44 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
Ok, I disagree about not mattering how we play these kinds of hands. If we're talking about unbeatable or near unbeatable hands that come along rarely, then we need to know how to deal with them on the rare occassion they do come up.
I kind of agree with you that a continuation bet on the flop may well have been the best option here, a bet of $2 there may well have looked fishy, like her thinking "no way did he flop a flush, and if he did why bet it?"
On the other hand, waiting till the harmless looking turn may well have smelled of a big hand, at the very least a high pair waiting to make sure she didn't have the flush before betting. Thus scaring her off a smaller pair.
Then again she maybe just called in with nothing much at all to see if she could hit and missed completely.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:56 pm GMT by tame_deuces
If we folded each time we flopped quads or a straight flush, it probably would hardly be noticable a long-time winrate at all, that's the only point I've been trying to make.
If we're suddenly altering the scenario to 'each time we flop something really really strong', then ofcourse this will alter the winrate, the majority of my poker winnings come from hitting strong flops.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:40 pm GMT by supafrey
| tame_deuces wrote: | If we folded each time we flopped quads or a straight flush, it probably would hardly be noticable a long-time winrate at all, that's the only point I've been trying to make.
|
I strongly disagree.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:23 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| supa wrote: | | I strongly disagree. |
The "I know more than you without telling you why" responses are useless. If you don't want to give away any of your strategies, understandable, but I don't see why you'd bother posting in these threads at all.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:41 pm GMT by gumbie
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | supa wrote: | | I strongly disagree. |
The "I know more than you without telling you why" responses are useless. If you don't want to give away any of your strategies, understandable, but I don't see why you'd bother posting in these threads at all. |
Sklansky says somewhere in one of his books that a 1BB/100 winner at draw lowball would be a losing player if he was never dealt a pat 5 or something similar. So I suspect never flopping quads would have quite an impact particularly if your winrate is small.
As for the hand on topic I agree with tame that checking a monster when u usually cont bet is a mistake. PPl that do this when they flop top set have saved me tons of money. Not that it would have made a difference here.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:50 pm GMT by Sean_in_NJ
| gumbie wrote: | | Sklansky says somewhere in one of his books that a 1BB/100 winner at draw lowball would be a losing player if he was never dealt a pat 5 or something similar. So I suspect never flopping quads would have quite an impact particularly if your winrate is small. |
Makes sense, of course. Hand quality is somewhat inversely proportional to player skill when it comes to maintaining a certain winrate. So, if you have a marginally skilled player relative to his/her opponents, then they'll need better hands to maintain a level of profitability that a better player could do with less.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:58 pm GMT by khaosanroad
flopped Quads I will almost always slow play. Someone will hopefully hit a flush or House or Strait and pay you off. They are too deceptive not to slow play.
Flopped nut flush I will most likely bet. They gotta pay to hit that House.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:19 pm GMT by supafrey
Sean:
1. You're right. This is an area of poker where I actually do refuse to share any information - it's far too valuable a skill for players to be able to extract money when the board texture makes having any 2nd best hands worth calling very difficult. I also know that my advice could be used against me.
2. I don't see why I'd have any onus to provide more than a 2 word answer in this case, anyways. Tame's statement was basically "I don't think it would show up that much in the winrate because it doesn't really happen that much and getting money is hard". I personally know that that statement is false. Considering there's really little evidence provided for the initial supposition, there's hardly any legs standing that I could even chop down. It's a false, generalized assumption. Me saying that it's wrong atleast PERHAPS (although few listen to me, anyways, as it's easier to listen to the mass amount of horrible advice in some of these threads than listening to one or two outweighed dissenting voices with like - actual credibility) gives the average newb headsup that the issue is more complicated than presented.
But i can't help because of, like, #1.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:47 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| supa wrote: | | Tame's statement was basically "I don't think it would show up that much in the winrate because it doesn't really happen that much and getting money is hard". |
I didn't say anything about 'getting money being hard' whatsoever. I certainly don't find playing the nuts very difficult, it removes some stuff from the equation and now all you have to do is figuring out how to get money into the pot.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:23 pm GMT by Jauron
It becomes too villain dependant, I don't think you can just lay it out. If you can put them on a range of hands, it can help greatly with how to extract money. Sometimes it is by letting them catch up or even pretending to protect your hand. Sometimes it playing weak against an aggressive player who you know is probable to make a play. Sometimes it being nearly insanely aggressive, other times they hold so little it almost doesn't matter what you do. If you've been in a few hands with them sometimes it becomes easier as you mimic other hands with expected results.
To sum it up, if you've only got one way to play a monster you'd better not have one more than once per session against anyone who pays attention...
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:24 pm GMT by Jauron
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | supa wrote: | | I strongly disagree. |
The "I know more than you without telling you why" responses are useless. If you don't want to give away any of your strategies, understandable, but I don't see why you'd bother posting in these threads at all. |
Someone needed to say it...
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:03 pm GMT by ORGrinder
| Sean_in_NJ wrote: | | Makes sense, of course. Hand quality is somewhat inversely proportional to player skill when it comes to maintaining a certain winrate. So, if you have a marginally skilled player relative to his/her opponents, then they'll need better hands to maintain a level of profitability that a better player could do with less. |
i don't want to hijack here so i'll try to keep this as brief as possible... but interestingly i saw some guy at a final wpt table who was doing tremendously well with one move... all-in. can't remember the guys name, but he was a carpet salesman or something. from what i saw it seemed clear that he got lucky in a sat, won the seat, and wasn't even close to the skill level of the pros playing. after some discussion with a friend of mine who's a much better player i discovered that somewhere (i think it was harrington) suggested that if you suck and find yourself with crazy-good players you're not going to stand a chance of outplaying them, so if you have a good hand, be crazy aggressive with it all the time no matter what and hope you get lucky. since you're no match skill wise for the others, you're odds aren't going to change that much anyway as you're always going to be counting on the cards.
not sure i described that right... but at any rate, you comment reminded me of this rather interesting strategy. for what it's worth, this guy in question was frustrating the hell out of me cuz he was tearing up some of my favorite pros with the all-in-if-i-bet strategy. hehehe.
Posted Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:33 pm GMT by groton
Slanksy(made a strat from his or a freinds dought to play in the WSOP years ago that basicly was all in on AA,KK,QQ and fold everything else)
Then Just last year Blair Rodman and Lee Nelson Expanded on it in there book Kill Phill.
iv yet to realy try it out that much but it realy takes the fun out of the game
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:10 am GMT by crack
Basically, if he doesn't have a flush he is very unlikely to play, and seeing as the top 5 flush cards are somewhat taken, it's hard to extract money out of this hand, regardless of supa's mysterious two word replies and keeping his cards close to his chest (HAHAHAHAHAHA - poker joke).
Flopped Royals and Quads are very rare and I think instead of worrying about how to play them IF they do occur, you should concentrate on hands such as flopped sets and flopped flushes/nut flushes, the more common hands.
What I do know is it's very player dependant, so it would be handy to have some sort of a read. It's nice to end the post with some huge common sense, but nevermind.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:19 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Knowing how to play the ultra strong hands is important, but there is a big difference between floping something like quad deuces or an 8-high straight flush vs. quad Aces (when you have AA... flopping AAA with one A is different) or a Royal. The difference is, in the former examples, it's much easier for an opponent to make a second best that he will pay you with, whereas in the latter examples, you have essentially crippled the deck, and your opponent probably will not give much action unless he has an extremely strong hand himself. Therefore, with the latter class of hands, I prefer to just bet out a little and hope he has a hand to call or a propensity to bluff (the secret is, I bet on alot of scary flops, sohopefully my opponent thinks I have nothing). Most times, you'll get no action, but you probably weren't going to get it anyway.
In this particular situation, unless the guy has a broadway draw or trips, you will get no action,and any diamond will probably prevent him from betting anything unless he caught something like a full house on 4th or 5th. You might check once, but with the strength of hand he needs to call, I would prefer to set the bet amount and hope for the best.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:44 am GMT by groton
yah as for Hand
id bet out also most likely.
Iv bet out in the past and it payed off in both Limit and no Limit since most people check there monsters from EP
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:11 am GMT by supafrey
ORG:
That was Slansky.
WPT's shit-esque horrible blind speeds also make that kind of strat, like, a thousand times better, too.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:33 pm GMT by groton
not in the Tour he is talking about that was a Amuture who used The Kill Phill Strat.
it was from the Seaon that Aired in 05
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:12 pm GMT by supafrey
i was just confirming that slansky was the one who popularized the strategy.
|
|
