You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Advise please
rawhand
Member Posts: 437
Time and time again this happen to me not always this early on. Please can you advise what are the tell tail signs oppo has hit a set because i put him on AQ.
Should i have check raised flop? Was i being to aggressive? Should i have folded to shove on river?
How would you have played this Hand? Please advise
Thanks
Should i have check raised flop? Was i being to aggressive? Should i have folded to shove on river?
How would you have played this Hand? Please advise
Thanks
| GOLDACES | Small blind | 10.00 | 10.00 | 2130.00 | |
| gallster | Big blind | 20.00 | 30.00 | 1980.00 | |
| Your hole cards |
| ||||
| mrchips27 | Fold | ||||
| capmic | Call | 20.00 | 50.00 | 1850.00 | |
| rawhand | Raise | 80.00 | 130.00 | 1920.00 | |
| ajwolves14 | Fold | ||||
| GOLDACES | Call | 70.00 | 200.00 | 2060.00 | |
| gallster | Fold | ||||
| capmic | Call | 60.00 | 260.00 | 1790.00 | |
| Flop | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
| GOLDACES | Check | ||||
| capmic | Check | ||||
| rawhand | Bet | 130.00 | 390.00 | 1790.00 | |
| GOLDACES | Call | 130.00 | 520.00 | 1930.00 | |
| capmic | Call | 130.00 | 650.00 | 1660.00 | |
| Turn | |||||
| |||||
| GOLDACES | Check | ||||
| capmic | Check | ||||
| rawhand | Bet | 325.00 | 975.00 | 1465.00 | |
| GOLDACES | Call | 325.00 | 1300.00 | 1605.00 | |
| capmic | Fold | ||||
| River | |||||
| |||||
| GOLDACES | Check | ||||
| rawhand | Bet | 650.00 | 1950.00 | 815.00 | |
| GOLDACES | All-in | 1605.00 | 3555.00 | 0.00 | |
| rawhand | All-in | 815.00 | 4370.00 | 0.00 | |
| GOLDACES | Unmatched bet | 140.00 | 4230.00 | 140.00 | |
| GOLDACES | Show |
| |||
| rawhand | Show |
| |||
| GOLDACES | Win | Three 9s | 4230.00 | 4370.00 | |
Comments
Bet more on the turn, shove river.
As played when you bet the river he is unlikely to raise with worse. Folding feels sick when we have put that much of our stack in the middle but I guess you could find a fold simply because we can come back with this stack this early in the tournament.
Again, more on the turn, and this will put you in a situation where you can shove the river.
Unlucky to walk into a set but there are no 'tell tale signs' that someone has a set, or at least none that fit all, some people always slowplay sets and just check/call, some people bet out with them, some people check/raise and some people do a mixture of all 3 in different situations. And as they say, sets are the hardest thing to spot... everyone can see if a straight is possible or a flush is possible or a FH is possible (paired board) etc, but a set is always possible and you'll only know from how well you know your opponent/how he bets.
As it's played, he's never raising the river with a 1pr hand that you're beating.
Sets are obv the silent killer of NLHE. As far as hang goes its pretty myeh. I do open flop bigger, just for value.
Turn is a definitive blank. Dont love getting MW action on flop, but 4 is a must barrell card.
River is myeh, being a T we could argue for checking back river as lots of 2prs n str8's show up.
But forgetting the bet sizing etc, OP vs set on dryish board />100bb deep, think theres more of an issue if your NOT going broke. But thats just me.
You are unlikely to get 100bbs of value from worse one pair hands very often. Therefore you are not losing value by checking back flop. Checking back flop does the following.
1 Pot control
2 Prevents you getting check raised on flop and being in a pretty awkward situation.
3 Induces bluffs.
4 Enables you to still get value later, as their are no flush draws on the flop to get value from.
I think a pot controlling strategy in the early stages of a tournament is very effective, check calling with marginal out of position and checking behind flops in position.
Firstly people will stack off light (especially in the early stages of a sky mtt), there's no reason why the OP can't expect to get 3 streets of value from a queen.
You say he should be checking the flop for pot control, why would he want to control the pot size with KK on that flop? I'd be pretty happy to get stacks in on that flop tbh, but, even if you aren't, why would checking back be a better plan than bet/folding? Even if you aren't happy calling off your stack to a raise, there's loads of one pair hands that many people will play passively on that board, that you can get value from.
You also say that it induces bluffs. It's a multiway pot, I don't think you're really going to be inducing many stone cold bluffs here. Any bet that comes on the turn probably has a hand that they would have called the flop with, so by checking you're just losing the possiblility of getting an extra street of value.
tl;dr version: pot control with 2nd pair, not with KK on Qxx
Flopped sets is the hardest thing in NLHE to sniff out. Sometimes you will be worried about them how a hand is playing but unless you know a player inside out you can't just assume set when you're faced with resistance. It's so tough. In this hand the villain has shown supreme balls to slowplay until the river, checking the set on the end when you will be checking behind a lot as well. I think most people go broke here, and probably should.
As played it's a puke river moment. I think you have to fold to the raise but in play I'll hit the call button most of the time. However if you're sizing was better then this doesn't even come up. I'm betting a little more on all streets post flop.
Re: Checking the flop.
This, IMO, is shockingly bad here without unbelievably special conditions from villains. The only street I consider checking is the river but even that is losing value in the long term and pretty bad, it would be very villain dependant if I did check behind on the end.
Well, not much wrong in my opinion but do consider that its very early and you need to consider your opponents actions or lack of throughout.
You want a caller and get one. Flop not too scary at all and rainbow and may have hit caller. CTN bet is essential and i feel 3/4 pot bet will induce raise/ai from set holder and let you know that you're behind. This gives you the chance to get away. After all, its early!!!
Turn, i'd check because i'd have a sinking feeling in my stomach by now and be less keen that he had TPGK(TPTK he'd have reraised pre probably) and we were ahead. He may be scared himself and just check or he may tell you with his bet size allowing you to get away with 1465 chips and stay in T with an adequate stack.
Remember that saying about 'falling in love with ACES'. Well it holds true with KINGS eh, Rawhand?
River and what are you beating? He can't even be chasing a flush so check/fold as you aren't able to bluff at all with the river card.
Hope this helps...its only an opinion though and people will disagree with parts no doubt but that's what makes poker an intriguing game...trying to get into the head of your opponent.
Check back the river, tbh KK is only beating AK AQ here and they are prob folding to your river bet (depending on how good this player is) so I would check back river. He is also check calling every street on quite a dry board which is showing huge strength, I think he would raise turn for value with AQ so you can prob take this out of his range.
By checking back you can still get 50bbs of value, which is normally approximately 3 streets of value in poker. What you do achieve is prevent yourself being raised on the flop and losing your tournament life. Or being in a horrible position on the river.
I prefer to check behind mate, rather then bet folding, because i want to see showdown with my strong hand, but i don;t want to commit my entire stack.If I am losing value from weaker hands, I see this as a trade off for giving myself a far better chance of keeping my tournament life. A few hundred chips of value lost, will be worth 1 bb before long. I am a big supporter of getting max value for your hands and it is very important, but in tournaments I believe max value can be compromised on some occasions with tournament life preservation, I stress on some occasions. But as I said earlier we can still get the equivalent of a normal 3 streets of value by checking behind.
Someone on this thread described checking back the flop as "shockingly bad". I think I have explained why this is not an accurate description..Language like this is unnecessary, inappropriate, and insulting. For me this shows a lack of class and can be indicative of a big ego. I hope this persons mind has been opened a little, and they have been enlightened, by a different line of thinking to their own.It's much more difficult to learn with a closed mind then an open one.
You expressed your points well, and in a pretty polite manner, with the exception being, your description of the play of checking back flop as "so bad" Which is nice to see on poker forums. We don't always agree, but a nice, polite, civilised, respectful debate, without a lot of ego is nice.
'This, IMO, is shockingly bad here without unbelievably special conditions from villains.'
I can't believe I'm being accused of having an ego, being insulting or having a closed mind frankly but hey ho, you're entitled to your opinion. If you look at the full line I think it's valid, and I have read your entire post. Yes there is pot control arguments but I feel the default line needs to be to bet rather than to check for full value. I feel we need more reasons to not bet than to bet on that board with Kings. You're killing so much value and you're unbalancing your range to the point of making C-Bets ridiculously polarised.
If you were to own up to your true sentiment straight away and apologies I would have a lot more respect for you.
As I said it is a trade off between maybe losing some value and reducing the number of times you are out of the tournament early You will probably get called on the end by weaker hands, but also a lot of better hands, so betting on the end is not exactly free value..And also as i said any value lost will worth very little as the blinds go up.
In terms of "cbets being ridiculously polarised" you mabye slightly unbalancing your cbeting range but your checking behind range will be strengthened and therefore people seeing that hand will be less inclined to put you under big pressure when you check behind, if your checking back range isn't capped at medium strength queens. Therefore your checking back range becomes capped at a higher hand value and therefore more difficult to exploit.
As the tournament progresses you will be able to check back more flops with good credibility therefore get to showdown more easily when you wish, people won't be taking shots at pots as often, when you check behind, thus giving you free cards, and enabling you to delay cbet bluffs on dry boards with huge credibility.Thus enabling you to balance your cbeting range on dry boards more as the tournament goes on. By being able to check back air with great credibility this means you can take some bluffing hands out of your cbeting range on dry boards and delay c bet these. Thus leading to a greater balance between bluffs and value bets on these boards, and thus being less exploitable to flop check raises and out of position floats on these kinds of boards.
On the hand yes you will have a much stronger range when you check back and be less exploitable, that I agree with. But we have to check back pretty much everything always to carry this out. This isn't completely without merit, I seem to remember Dwan and Blom doing this with great effect pre Blackout. There is a clear downside though. Firstly the free card we always give away. We have to be careful to play smallball for the entire hand on any decent scare card on the turn. Secondly we are going to lose a lot of value unless we balance this by firing at a lot of pots after checking back air, therefore we need to be against opponents who won't automatically see this as taking a stab. It's pretty high thinking poker through the later streets and I think only people pretty comfortable and competent of doing this should try it. You need to be disciplined to not play big pot poker with your strong but non nut hands and you must be prepared to fire turns and rivers. You also need to be a darn good reader of boards and not always get spooked if you get C/R or raised on the turn.
It might be personal taste but I much prefer to get value at an easier stage and keep it a little more simple as a default rule. I think there is plenty of value to be had on the flop and that the simple route will still work more.
Ok, so I take back the 'shockingly' part of the statement, but I still don't like using this route as a default. There is a merit to that route but I don't think myself it's the most efficient way to gather chips.
Believe me I am not a oversensitive. I don't think you would be very happy if you were on the forum trying to help a player, and I called your suggestion "shockingly bad". I wouldn't do it, hence my annoyance.. My ego isn't hurt because thank god I m not insecure about my knowledge, and standard of thinking about the game. But imagine I was a person with low and fragile confidence. Therefore the principal of the matter, motivated my reaction.
What i meant by " your true sentiment" was you tried to cover up the true intent of what were saying by highlighting the caveat on the end, which wasn't relevant to this thread, given the reasoning I have outlined.
I appreciate the apology for using the word "shockingly" as that is all I would expect an apology for.. It shows good humanity, and humility. It was a proper apology an not the old I am sorry for any offence you my feel. Meaning its subjective to you and you maybe overeating. Some people on this forum would find it hard to admit they were in the wrong morally, or wrong in their opinion on something. Show the fact that you have shown the character to apologise speaks volumes and I appreciate that.
To add to Tommy's argument I would simply say that I would want to get money in when I'm ahead and on this flop I think I'm ahead most of the time. The JT may call a bet here that it won't call on the turn with only one card to come and I would want to protect my hand against the gut-shot draws on this flop. Since it's 3-handed I wouldn't want to let a free card hit one of those or some funky two-pair. This is especially problematic as, since I've under-repped my hand so much on the flop with the check, I'll frequently be forced to call two streets of value against these hands. By checking back the flop, I think we actually lose control of the pot.
I don't mind a pot control line on later streets if the board comes a bit nasty but I don't think the flop is the time for that when I can get value from top-pair or perhaps second pair as well as some draws. I think if I check back the flop it has to be because I'm afraid that I might have already gone behind and this board doesn't make me believe that. I want to get money in while I'm ahead and here I ought to be ahead.
Of course, all that is in a vacuum and I might check back heads-up against specific opponents if I think they'll fire at what they perceive to be weakness. I wouldn't be doing this 3-handed very often, though, as I feel it's too important to protect my hand.
Also, the suggestion that checking back our strong hands is going to give our checks a strong rep is, I think, flawed. This is mainly because in a tournament A) We won't be sharing the table for long with players who've seen us do this, and
If we're hoping to create a strong image of our check-back range, I think it's only going to be possible against players we're playing alot. This is probably useful for regulars at the cash tables but in tournaments we're just not going to encounter the same players frequently enough and even if we do, we have to hope that they've been paying alot of attention to what we've been doing.
I'd be interested to hear if you think this argument is justified, or if I've missed your point.
If a mathematician can prove to me that a few hundred chips of lost value on average, is worse then going out of the tournament a decent percentage of the time, then I will stand correctly. Most people seem to be saying don't check back the flop(not as politely as this of course) So obviously their is a lot of merit in betting the flop. Which I am not denying. Maybe I value my tournament life too much I don't know for sure, maybe I should value it as much as I do.
In terms of the checking behind the flop for your overall range debate. You make valid points about why this won't reap huge dividends in a tournament. The reason I discussed this, was TommyD said I would be polarising my range by checking behind kk. So therefore I explained the benefits for my overall game.
Ok you may not be at the table with these players for long. However always having a reasonably balanced range between strong, medium, and weak hands in all scenarios and on all streets is key in poker. The more you think about the game the easier this becomes to acheive, and it is not as complicated and difficult as it may appear. This will mean players will find it very difficult to exploit areas in your game where your range is skewed too heavily towards bluffs or value bets. You can take this whole theme of balance too far, and become paranoid about being unbalanced. If a player isn't responding to you range of hands being unbalanced then, then you can get away with being unbalanced eg you cbet air allot and they fold allot and dont fight back enough through floats or raises. Therefore making your cbet profitable even though you are hugely unbalanced.
This is why I recommend not playing a lot of tables and having detailed information on your opponents. To get a read on their ranges, and betting patterns, and to exploit imbalance in their games. Also you can see how they are reacting to your bets, and therefore identify how balanced you need to be against them. And also identify the most optimal way to play different hand strengths against them eg will they always bet air on turn if you check behind flop, will the always bet missed draws on the end, is their betting through the streets skewed towards bluffs or value bets.
shove river
ul
don't see what the fuss is all about, think oppo plays it well
as for checking flop, yes it's very viable to check flop and extract two streets of value on turn and river on dry flops, but we don't have to check back as the flop is not wet so we will face more polarised c/r on flop - plus we are o so balanced by betting flop
I think we bet flops more than we check flop as big hands don't come a long very often in MTT's
don't think we get long term benefits in mtt's by checking big hands on flop, yes our checking range is stronger but only verus oppo's that have a higher level of thinking
but the counter argument is when facing worse it's good but when checking back flop verus better we still find ourselves in difficult turn/river spots when raised
an intresting debate but it's very situational and you really have to bear in mind the level of oppo's your playing against, I mean are they really paying attention to what hands we check flop with especially when you get moved to another table )
Would think checking flop works so much better in cash