KxKc hand looks a pretty trivial bet fold on the river, but I think I'd lean towards c/c as played (Ivan summed it up nicely)
The flopped straight hand, it looks very strong to check raise the turn into 2 people. They can comfortably fold so much of their range. I'd be more inclined to c/r the flop, or just donk out. Quite like the latter; multiple villains in the hand so we're likely to get action in at least one spot, plenty of hands that will call a bet but might not bet themselves. You also give overpairs a headache when they call the flop and you keep barrelling on turn and river.
The hand vs Neil, as others said folding looks the norm at first, think you have to bet all turns if you c/r the flop, gotta keep that story flowing.
Hi Graham, Just came across this thread today. Many, many thanks for taking the time to post this. I'm sure there are a great many like me who may not be able to add much but are going to read this with interest. Thanks also to those contributing. Too often on TV we see exciting hands but it is the routine hands that are so important and for you to take the time to post all your hands from the tournament will be really enlightening. Looking forward to the rest of this thread. Donald
Good post Benc. I wasn't going to comment on this hand, but it's like I've got an obsession and can't stop! Anyway pre, flop and turn are all fine ofc. I am mostly betting flop but x/c is fine too and is something I would do some of the time. However, I'm not sure that leading the river is my preffered play. When you lead out, your hand looks exactly like what it is - either nut or 2nd nut flush (probably expects you to have AKc or AQc) a fair amount. Do you have any bluffs that play this way as I can't really imagine too many? So if villain is good, do you think he will pay you off with 7x (of which as you pointed out very few are non-FH anyway!) or a low flush (Tc or lower? - he might also fold his J high flush) Which means, we're only really getting value all the time from a Q high flush - and that's a hand that will likely bet for value itself after you check. He might also go for thin value with a J high flush if he thinks you are going to lead K/Q high flushes here. So vs his value hands that we beat, we likely get almost the same value from betting as checking. But by checking we also: - Allow him to bluff - Save ourselves money/a decision if villain decides to go for a raise after we lead. If we think our opponent is such that he will almost never be bluffing river or capable of thin value-betting a J and is v likely to call quite a few worse hands then I think we can make an exploitative lead on the river. You never gave us any reads for this hand, so maybe that was what you thought at the time in which case I do like your river bet. Theory/range wise against a good opponent is where I would not like it. As played, it's an ugh spot that I'm probably not capable of folding except when I'm playing my A game! Too much good odds/sigh call. But I agree with what's been said about his range here. Posted by F_Ivanovic
Hi Ivan, I didn't really get back to you on this post, sorry about that.
Yeh, it's a tricky one this, hence, lots of players with differing opinions. However, you certainly make a good case for check/calling the river here.
The more I think about it, I tend to agree with you. Although, as you mentioned, it's clearly opponent specific.
Unfortuantely my memory is not good enough, and my notes not specific enough to provide more detail on his style. So, with the information, I have provided, you make a good case, and I am slightly swayed to check/calling the river now.
This type of hand is tricky mind, and will ellicit opposing views from good players, but, looking at it against a "Standard" player, for me, in hindsight, check/calling was probably the play, for the reasons that you very clearly explained.
I think at the time, I thought, that I could get stubborn calls from trip 7's, although, that was clearly floored thinking, as most 7x hands made a house as discussed. This to me seems to be the key aspect that tips the balance to a check/call.
There will, however, be plenty of people who may still feel that this would be potentially missing value. But I'm now with you on this one.
Been away so just catching up. KxKc hand looks a pretty trivial bet fold on the river, but I think I'd lean towards c/c as played (Ivan summed it up nicely) The flopped straight hand, it looks very strong to check raise the turn into 2 people. They can comfortably fold so much of their range. I'd be more inclined to c/r the flop, or just donk out. Quite like the latter; multiple villains in the hand so we're likely to get action in at least one spot, plenty of hands that will call a bet but might not bet themselves. You also give overpairs a headache when they call the flop and you keep barrelling on turn and river. The hand vs Neil, as others said folding looks the norm at first, think you have to bet all turns if you c/r the flop, gotta keep that story flowing. Posted by hhyftrftdr
Thanks for the feedback hhyftrftdr. I think the Check/Call in the KK hand on the river is now probably my prefered play. (I just replied to Ivan's post). I do still feel check/call flop and the check/raising river, in the flopped straight hand, to be the preferable course of action, with the check/call building the pot first, before we come in for a check/raise. I can understand why people may donk lead here, however, I thought, being first to act, will four behind, that I would see how "interested" people were in the pot, before making my play.
I sometimes check the flop in these situations, to under rep my hand, but with the Ten and a flush draw for company, I decided on a standard lead. The turn, again, seems a standard lead.
The river seemed a good card, I sometimes check/call in these spots, if I think my opponent may have missed a draw (also pot control against a slow played set/house) However, I thought he could well have a worse Ace, or call with a stubborn ten, as we were in the blinds. So I again went for another value bet.
One point I do remember about this hand, was that his calls, each time, were instant almost. (He found the decisions easy)
Which suggested to me, a likelihood that he had a worse Ace, and that he had set his stall out early to call 3 streets. Also if he did have a flopped set, I would possibly expect some form of time-taking for deception.
He didn't show his hand, but I suspect it was, a worse Ace.
Standard stuff? Anyone play this differently? Thoughts welcome.
Hi, no worries - as I said, I enjoy posting replies for myself just to think about how I'd play the hand and it's a bonus if someone finds them useful A lot of my replies are focusing on the theoretical side and balance, but often in live play exploitative play is going to be best since most players we come up against we might only ever meet once. Even online balance can be over-rated and I'm guilty of putting too much emphasis of it when it's not needed - indeed on several occasions recently I've checked strong hands on the river for balance purposes only for villain to either check back or fold to my x/r (despite my line not looking plausible for value)
With your latest hand, it looks like your live tell about villain's hand strength is fairly significant and whilst it's a spot usually I might slow down on 1 street to let my opponent bluff at it, it would be a bad thing to let villain off lightly with a worse Ax. I wish there was more to comment on this hand but it seems pretty standard.
B vs b I like your standard C bet here. Its a wet enough board to get value from any pair and you want to charge gutshots and FD's. safe runout means you can comfotably bet 3 streets. The only thing I may have done differently is check river to induce. Alot of draws missed and the "insta -call" can sometimes mean they're on a draw. Reads dependant ofc. Nh.
B vs b I like your standard C bet here. Its a wet enough board to get value from any pair and you want to charge gutshots and FD's. safe runout means you can comfotably bet 3 streets. The only thing I may have done differently is check river to induce. Alot of draws missed and the "insta -call" can sometimes mean they're on a draw. Reads dependant ofc. Nh. Posted by devil_tear
Hi Tim, thx for the feedback. I agree, "insta-calls" can sometimes mean a draw, however, for some reason, I just felt it was a made hand.
Sometimes with draws there is a little hesitation, while they work out, "if they have the odds to call".
I do agree that, insta-calling could be a draw with some opponents, however I did feel it was a worse ace.
Of course, I had the advantage of "being there", so did have the "extra" subliminal information I referred to earlier in this thread.
Hi, no worries - as I said, I enjoy posting replies for myself just to think about how I'd play the hand and it's a bonus if someone finds them useful A lot of my replies are focusing on the theoretical side and balance, but often in live play exploitative play is going to be best since most players we come up against we might only ever meet once. Even online balance can be over-rated and I'm guilty of putting too much emphasis of it when it's not needed - indeed on several occasions recently I've checked strong hands on the river for balance purposes only for villain to either check back or fold to my x/r (despite my line not looking plausible for value) With your latest hand, it looks like your live tell about villain's hand strength is fairly significant and whilst it's a spot usually I might slow down on 1 street to let my opponent bluff at it, it would be a bad thing to let villain off lightly with a worse Ax. I wish there was more to comment on this hand but it seems pretty standard. Posted by F_Ivanovic
Hi Ivan.
Yes, with me revealing nearly ALL the hands I played, there will, of course, be some fairly standard ones.
However, I do want to cover the "whole journey", rather than just pick out the interesting ones.
Also, even in the "straight forward" ones there are still dilemmas, like whether to check river for deception/pot control.
Some people may ALWAYS just bet three streets as standard in this spot. (On auto-pilot.) So it may be useful to them, to at least consider other alternatives, even if they still go for the three standard leads in the end.
I open raise to 900 from the HJ, Button calls, blinds fold.
Flop: Ad8s7d
I bet 1.2K(into Pot of 2.8k) , Button calls
Turn: Ks
I bet 3.5K(into Pot of 5.2k) , Button folds.
My thought processes:
Fairly standard open and flop bet. The turn bet was slightly bigger than normal, due to the double flush draw and straight draw. I think this is fairly standard play. Pretty boring hand, sorry.
Standard stuff? Anyone play this differently? Thoughts welcome.
Cheers,
G
P.S. To make things easier, I have added the pot size in brackets on the flop and turn bets, I'll do this as standard from now on.
UKPC2016 EIGHTH HAND: ================== Blinds 200/400 Antie 50 Chip Count: 98K Starting Hand: AhTh I open raise to 900 from the HJ, Button calls, blinds fold. Flop: Ad8s7d I bet 1.2K, Button calls Turn: Ks I bet 3.5K, Button folds. My thought processes: Fairly standard open and flop bet. The turn bet was slightly bigger than normal, due to the double flush draw and straight draw. I think this is fairly standard play. Pretty boring hand, sorry. Standard stuff? Anyone play this differently? Thoughts welcome. Cheers, G Posted by StayOrGo
Hand 8 I'm probably betting bigger OTF too - board is already drawy, and connects with some of BTN's flatting range. Think I'd make it about 60% pot. Checking is a valid option too but I'd prefer some reads before checking. Turn looks standard to me and I like the sizing.
Hand 9 your sizing is too small pre-flop IMO especially against a player like Neil who will be quite happy to flat the 3b fairly wide IP - I think we should make it somewhere between 2.8 and 3.4k with our entire range.
Interesting thoughts on sizing by Ivan and Jordz for the 9th hand. Thanks for the feedback.
Before I address this, I would like you both (And anyone else that wants to) to prioritise what you think your preferred outcome would be (pre flop) after making the 3bet with KK.
I have just selected 4 options to choose from:
If you could label them 1 to 4 (1 being your most preferred outcome, 4 being your least preferred). Once we have determined/discussed this, then we can go back to the question of sizing.
The reason for this, is that if we have differing preferred outcomes, then that may affect our sizing choice. The four selections below are in random order. I will detail my preferred outcome sequence (and why) after you have responded.
I dont think any of them outcomes are bad in that spot, but obviously without knowing the chip stacks of the 2 other players you cant really answer that question.
But i shall answer generally.
Getting 4 bet would normally be best in that spot,
I dont think any of them outcomes are bad in that spot, but obviously without knowing the chip stacks of the 2 other players you cant really answer that question. But i shall answer generally. Getting 4 bet would normally be best in that spot, getting called by 1 player both players folding both players calling Posted by jordz16
Cheers Jordz, everyone was still very deep > 150BB's each.
Interesting how different people view things, my order is:
1st: Neil 4 betting
2nd: Both players calling
3rd: One player calling
4th: Both players folding.
With both players calling being my 2nd best outcome and both folding being the least favourable imo, this could explain why I chose to 3bet less than you suggesteed.
I'll leave this open for Ivan and others to comment, before discussing further.
Like with every spot in poker, we want to focus on our range and not our actual hand (unless we are doing something for exploitative reasons - which against a player of Neil's calibre is not something I'd want to do) - sure, with KK, we are quite happy if both players call us. (I'm not sure if it's that much better than just getting 1 call tho due to implied odds 3rd player is getting with certain hands) But if we have a hand like AKo, JJ or even a bluff (depending what the bluff is) then having both players call is not always going to be as ideal - and just having the 1 caller will suit us better.
I think given how deep we are too we can make it bigger and still get the desired outcome often enough to make it the better play.
Comments
Just came across this thread today. Many, many thanks for taking the time to post this. I'm sure there are a great many like me who may not be able to add much but are going to read this with interest. Thanks also to those contributing. Too often on TV we see exciting hands but it is the routine hands that are so important and for you to take the time to post all your hands from the tournament will be really enlightening. Looking forward to the rest of this thread.
Donald
With your latest hand, it looks like your live tell about villain's hand strength is fairly significant and whilst it's a spot usually I might slow down on 1 street to let my opponent bluff at it, it would be a bad thing to let villain off lightly with a worse Ax. I wish there was more to comment on this hand but it seems pretty standard.
Hand 9 your sizing is too small pre-flop IMO especially against a player like Neil who will be quite happy to flat the 3b fairly wide IP - I think we should make it somewhere between 2.8 and 3.4k with our entire range.