A limit hand

[peterbirks]

See if you can work out before the end why I am a bit mad with myself about this hand:

POKERSTARS HOLD'EM LIMIT ($5/$10)

Seat 1: G35HOLDEM ($170 in chips)
Seat 2: Pocketnuts2 ($71 in chips)
Seat 3: octane1 ($85 in chips)
Seat 4: bodeanst ($153 in chips)
Seat 5: W.W.W ($217 in chips)
Seat 6: nyne_fingers ($516 in chips)
Seat 7: myteduck ($293 in chips)
Seat 8: rufryder18 ($160 in chips)
Seat 9: RalphWiggum1 ($139 in chips)
Seat 10: Birks ($443 in chips)

Pocketnuts2: posts small blind $2
octane1: posts big blind $5

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Birks [3d 3h]
All folded to Me (in Cut-off)

Birks: raises $5 to $10
G35HOLDEM (Button): calls $10
Pocketnuts2: folds
octane1 (Big Blind): calls $5

So far, so uncontentious. $32 in pot.

*** FLOP *** [Qc 3c 2s]

octane1: checks
Birks: bets $5
G35HOLDEM: raises $5 to $10
octane1: calls $10
Birks: raises $5 to $15
G35HOLDEM: calls $5
octane1: calls $5

$77 in pot.

There’s little argument for slow-playing here. The old saying that “you are never as far ahead as you think” comes into play with this kind of hand. Big blind might have 5-4, or two clubs. Button could have AQ, 22, or AK of clubs, or any big pair that he might spike on turn or river. I personally favour AQs as the button's holding, with the big blind on some kind of draw.

*** TURN *** [Qc 3c 2s] [Qs]

octane1: checks
Birks: bets $10
G35HOLDEM: raises $10 to $20
octane1: calls $20
Birks: raises $10 to $30
G35HOLDEM: raises $10 to $40
Betting is capped
octane1: folds
Birks: calls $10

The only hand I can envisage my opponent having is Ace-Queen, although one can’t rule out 22 or QQ.

*** RIVER *** [Qc 3c 2s Qs] [Jh]

Birks: checks
G35HOLDEM: bets $10
Birks: calls $10

*** SHOW DOWN ***

G35HOLDEM: shows [Qh Ah] (three of a kind, Queens)
Birks: shows [3d 3h] (a full house, Threes full of Queens)
Birks collected $194 from pot

Bloody wimp, Birks! Seeing demons here. How can he possibly have QJ? I should check-raise the river here and damn the consequences. I threw away at least one big bet and possibly two, despite reading the hand spot on.

I'm running well on Pokerstars, which is good, because I can't pick a winner on Empire. Indeed, my losing sessions there have depleted my bankroll on Empire to such a degree that I am now reduced to playing two tables of $2-$4. Fortuinately it takes less than half a good run at $5-$10 to compensate for a bad time at $2-$4!.

Meanwhile on Ultimate the old multi-tabling at $1-$2 (kill games if I can find them) remains by far the most efficient way of working off the bonus. You can knock out up to $8 an hour if you can get three lively $1-$2 tables going. Add the expected earn rate for $6 and the concomitant expected $14 earn per hour compares reasonably with a couple of tables of $5-$10, given my past track record.

Ultimate are offering another 25% bonus up to $200 at the moment, and this is really an easy $100 or so a month for not doing very much.

Comments

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

Enjoy one of mine yesterday. It's nice to see players even at the highest levels shoving for $2000 with 8% equity.

http://www.pokerhand.org/index.php?page=view&hand=198148

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Ho-Ho:

Clearly Posner fell in love with his "blocking" deuce, and Zimsaw (whose play seems to me to have more justification) did the same for his "blocking" seven.

I recall that most of my big losing hands in Omaha have tended to be when I have had a non-nut set and one of the higher card on the board. There's no rule, even in hold'em, that says that your opponent can't possibly have the last two sevens in the deck. It's obviously a rule worth remembering.

Posner seems to have had some kind of brain haemmorrage — that's the kind of play I would expect in a weak $50 buy-in game.

I'm not sure that even the Party bonuses are now genuine bonuses. As you say, the Ultimate "bonus" is a glorified rakeback. The Paradise bonus is around about 100% rakeback, perhaps slightly higher. But these bonuses are rarer than hen's teeth these days.

Looks like Stars have moved over to a new system as well -- double FPPs and a new VIP system. Apparently your "starting" VIP status depends on the number of raked hands played over the next week, so I am trying to "get some in".

PJ

Stars VIP

[(Anonymous)]

"Apparently your "starting" VIP status depends on the number of raked hands played over the next week, so I am trying to "get some in"."

Where do you get this info from?

Also, I thought the double fpp's were just a one week special.

Titmus

Re: Stars VIP

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

From Felicia Lee Dyer's blog, Alan. Could be utter tosh, of course.

PJ

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

On the point of deposit bonuses, most of these work out to be the equivalent of 70% rakeback deals, which is clearly a very good thing. To my knowledge only Pokerstars and Party Poker offer a deposit bonus that if done correctly offers an actual bonus, that is you get more back than you pay in rake.

??

[(Anonymous)]

pete
i think you have mis-read who had what.
also i don't understand the blocker analysis.
rgds
j davey

Re: ??

[(Anonymous)]

um, i guess i understand what you're saying re the blockers, but i suppose i'd ve thought having the 2 was just a minor (but yes good) factor. the possibility that the other two players would have had a few of the board cards would perhaps ve been a greater factor.

ah the middle trips with 1 of the higher cards. i remember jimmy sotomayo doing me in this situation once at the vic when he played it slowly and i decided to take off at river. hmmm.

jd

Re: ??

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi James

Posner's AA with the nut flush draw is hideous against that kind of betting. I prefer the middle set with the other seven as a "blocker", not least because, the way the hands are distributed, you lose less money and there is, at least, some justification for thinking that you might be in good shape against (say) a straight wrap and the hand Posner holds. But, what do I know about PLO?

PJ

Re: ??

[(Anonymous)]

Would Ribbo have posted this if the river blanked. I think not. Posner has made a fine but loose play. In fact no one has played the hand badly at all...its just a typical cold decking situation that PLO brings up so often. Posner is slightly +EV as the hands lie, and this is really one of the worst set ups for him. Lastly there are meta game considerations. A lot of the good players in the 2k game will be happy to take closer EV decisions just to get a bigger stack to play with. I'm sure when Ribbo logged back in 10 minutes later he may have seen Posner trying to build up a bigger stack again.

gl

dd

Re: ??

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Well, of course Ribbo wouldn't have posted it if it had gone belly-up. I'm the only one who wallows in such self-destruction publicly. :-)

Re: ??

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

Pete saw perfectly. One guy shoved all his money in with nothing but a flush draw, this is not enough to warrant $2000 on the flop. Another guy flopped second set and had the blocker for top set. I too understand why he shoved, since the two other players in the hand could have nut flush draw and straight wrap. Top set was less likely with him holding one of the sevens, but even so, shoving middle set shows a complete lack of respect at the highest level , which will bankrupt you.

Re: ??

[(Anonymous)]

i think i prefer the AAQ2, esp as when it comes to me i've got two opponents' money in there to give value, and the likelihood they were blocking each others' houses. i wouldn't have thought it very likely 1 of em had got so busy with non-nut flush draw (except if holding something else), so bit less likely they were blocking my flush draw. wrap less likely than normal due to pre-flop raise. and the 7 blocker isnt much of a guarantee as pjb said.

maybe titmus has a view. then again, he once got busy in the vic one mid-week afternoon, with middle trips when i check raised on flop with top trips. but then, i had spent years before that cultivating a loose image, so i couldn't have blamed him.

jd

Your Hand

[(Anonymous)]

Hi Peter,

I know this post has turned into an O8 discussion, but I have a question for you regarding your hand. What percentage of the time in the situation described, i.e. folded to you in middle position, would you fold 33 or call rather than raising?

BluffTHIS!

Re: Your Hand

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

A good question, and not one that I am sure that I am prepared to answer! I don't think that I would ever limp, unless it was low-limit and I had four very loose-passive players on my right, all of whom call for two bets as easily as for one bet. If this was the case, the raised 33 could be up against two or three opponents pre-flop, with you stuck somewhere in the middle. Ghastly. Far better to limp and to get five or six opponents, which gives you pot equity to compensate for the non-existent fold equity.

I might fold this hand in a hyper-aggressive game, or if I had a very laggy image (say, because I had put in some dubious raises in the previous hour in a similar situation). Part of the strength of your raise is your fold equity against hands in the range 44 to 88 that might be sitting behind you. If this kind of hand is likely to three-bet you, then your 33 is a folding rather than a raising hand.

I suspect that the frequency of three-bets at 15-30 and above might also slow me down with hands like this, perhaps to something like a 50% fold, 50% raise ratio.

PJ

Correction

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I mean, I wouldn't limp unless I had four loose-passive players on my left, not right.

Re: Your Hand

[(Anonymous)]

Peter,

Keeping in mind that I don't play limit anymore, I agree that usually you should fold 33 rather than call when you are not getting multiway passive action. But the point of my question is that when I played limit, I never liked the baby pairs and routinely folded them in any position unless in late position in an unraised pot with multiway odds on my money or in the big blind facing a raise which I would call and then flop a set or fold.

Part of the reason is as you mentioned from 15-30 up a middle position open raiser is simply going to be 3 bet by a lot of hands that would be folding to a tight early position raiser. And even in a tight game I would only be willing to raise with 33 to steal the blinds in the CO or button. I would submit to you that if you adopted the policy I had with baby pairs, that you can't really be giving up much if any EV, and that playing like that will reduce your variance. However, in a tight game in order to balance your play and get action on your good hands that you raise with, then perhaps raising rather than folding such hands would be OK but not much more than 25% of the time. As Mike Caro says, they remember.

BluffTHIS!