?

Log in

No account? Create an account

prev | next

hand analysis number two.

so here's a different hand that i played at the casino tonight that helped me turn my $350 loss due to being on the bottom side of set over set twice in one session into a $50ish profit. Again, i'm looking for some help to determine if i played the hand correctly.

Under the gun with a stack of about $450, i see 8d9d. i open for $15 (it's a 1/2 table) because suited diamond connectors are my randomizer (as in, preflop i play diamond connectors down to 4d3d in the same way i would play big pairs). I get three callers, one guy to my right, two to my left. The flop comes 9s10s2d. First to act checks. i catch the person to my left start to check out of turn. thus i put him on a draw and want him out of the pot and hopefully everyone else too, so i put out a continuation bet of $40. Out of turn checker thinks for a while, then puts out what feels like a reluctant call. But then, to my surprise, the remaining two players also call.

Turn comes Ah. First to act checks. I think for a while. If i had been able to isolate with my c-bet, i would have bet out again. But even with the weak call to my left, i don't feel comfortable with my position now with four people still in the pot, two of which just sat down so i don't really know how they play. I weigh my folding equity and decide that *someone* has a made hand (especially with the ace out) and i won't be able to get them to give up, so i eventually decide to concede and check, vaugely representing a big pair that feels uncomfortable that i just got outdrawn by someone playing an ace. If someone bets, and especially if there's a call, i can fold with the impression that i'm making a tough laydown with KK or QQ.

to my surprise, the other two players check.

River card comes 2h. First person checks. Again i think for a little while, as my evaluation of people's hands has shifted yet again. i find it extremely unlikely that anyone flopped 2 pair with the 2, so the 2 on the end effectively does nothing to improve anyone else's hand; if they were sitting on a set and trying to trap me, they had the nuts anyway since there's no possible straight or flush. If they were on a draw, they still missed. If someone had an ace, it makes no sense that they wouldn't take the initiative to bet that ace on the turn. Any other possible made hands fall into the category of uncomfortable; maybe someone has a 10 with a weak kicker or pocket 8s or even pocket jacks, and the turn ace made them too scared to commit more money into the pot.

So i decide right then that I need to take advantage of their lack of initiative, re-represent the strength that i had preflop and flop. Clearly they can't put me on AK or AQ because otherwise i would have bet the turn not checked it, but if they think that i'm trapping with a much stronger hand such as 99 or AA, then maybe they think that i checked the turn to induce a bet so i could check-raise.

By the same token, while i want to try to take down the pot, neither do i want to bluff all of my chips in case i'm running into a monster; i want to be able to back out if someone reraises me and now i'm pot-committed with merely 9s and 2s with an A kicker. So i bet $150, leaving $250ish behind. Two of the stacks have about that much or a little more, so they'd be committing all in. The third stack has me covered.

Everyone folded. One person who was out of the pot was convinced i had either AA or 99 and was trying to trap on the turn. Another who has played with me several times wasn't sure what to put me on after i checked the turn, but felt like i either had AA, KK, or QQ.

So. how did i do with that hand?

tag cloud:

Comments

(Anonymous)
Feb. 9th, 2010 05:04 am (UTC)
You still played it very wrong, although in precisely the opposite way.

You still shouldn't use a randomizer. By the way, I think you should play 98s at 1/2, you should just limp with it.

You should check on all three streets. It's possible you can extract more value by betting something like 1/3 of the pot on each street, but I would check all three.

You don't play less than TPGK at 1/2.
lifeofmendel
Feb. 9th, 2010 05:09 am (UTC)
if it wasn't my randomizer i would probably have folded it only because i was utg. limping is another option, but i was really just trying to make a move.

the 1/2 game where i play isn't *completely* a bunch of morons; there were regulars there who i knew played generally passive tight and also have an impression about my play that i'm generally a tight preflopper, particularly if i raise. i was trying to make a move and take advantage of what i felt was decent folding equity.

but again, i know i still have some strides to make with my game. appreciate the input. :)
(Anonymous)
Feb. 9th, 2010 04:25 pm (UTC)
You don't "make moves" at 1/2 live. You don't even really make moves at 2/5.

If the table you are playing at is good enough to effectively be a 5/10 table in skill, then you still shouldn't make moves: you should leave.

What level do you play at online?

And seriously, don't use randomizers. That's just totally ridiculous. I know one grinder at 10/20 in Commerce who uses a randomizer and even at that level everyone thinks it's silly.

At 1/2 I wouldn't fold 98s from UTG, I'd usually limp with it.
(Anonymous)
Feb. 9th, 2010 04:27 pm (UTC)
One more point. Never bluff below 5/10 live.

If you are betting to try and get your opponents to fold, you're doing it wrong.
lifeofmendel
Feb. 9th, 2010 05:48 pm (UTC)
see, i used ot play this way, pf raising only premium hands, never trying to bluff. i'm not a bluffer by habit, i only do stuff to this degree like maybe once out of 1000 hands, but i did start expanding the range of my pf raising hands and almost always c-betting the flop because half of the players on 1/2 are so passive tight and the regulars know my image enough that i feel like not monopolizing on their "i'll only play the nuts" or their "he's playing aggressive, i'm scared, i should fold."

this is very different than the way i play online (although i haven't played online in several months) because i put more value on what you're saying at the stakes i play online, which is either .25/.50 or .50/1 because of the bankroll i put into the site. i agree that beyond a c-bet on a missed AK flop to try to represent, there's no point in trying to bluff at that level at all because it's much more passive loose rather than the passive tight situation i come across more live.
lifeofmendel
Feb. 9th, 2010 05:51 pm (UTC)
and i'll also say that it depends on the table. i'll definitely tighten up my play if there's a lot of loose passive or loose aggressive players on the table.

*laugh* i'm afraid to get in a discussion with you about PLO. :)
(Anonymous)
Feb. 9th, 2010 10:33 pm (UTC)
Are you a +EV player at 50NL or 100NL online?
lifeofmendel
Feb. 11th, 2010 04:29 pm (UTC)
at the .50/1, yes. at the 1/2 or 2/4 i can't be unless i short buy based on the $$ i have in that account.

profile



welcome to the lifeofmendel

you can also find me here:

meSubscribe to me on YouTube

calendar

March 2017
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031