A limit hand
Jan. 2nd, 2006 05:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksBLUFFThis made a comment on an earlier post that he thought 15-30 was more suited to my style of game, because you got fewer calling stations who would inevitably suck out on you. In other words, you got less pot equity and more fold equity.
As I said in that post, my major problem with 15-30 is not the quality of my opponents. I will happily go bulldozing away in an aggression battle, no matter what the limit. My problem is that I am uncomfortable with the real money represented by the stakes. This leads to the fatal flaw of protecting wins and chasing losses. It's vital that you do not fall into this trap when you move up in levels.
Another factor is that BLUFF tends not to play at the same time as I do. I have recently signed back into Party, having negotiated an under-the-counter rakeback (note link above if you are interested in opening up one of these yourself!) but, because the new account stops me using my old Neteller account, I have had to deposit my own money via Visa. And, since it is a "new" account, the deposit was limited to $500. I thus have to suffer the humiliation of playing $2-$4 until I can build up a reasonable stack.
Anyway, even at $2-$4, in certain types of game, the more aggressive style of play can reap regular dividends. It's the following kind of hand where the money is made, not the Ace-x suited that hits a flush on the turn.
$2/$4 Texas Hold'em
Seat 2 (Birks) is the button
Seat 1: samlclemens ( $233 )
Seat 2: Birks ( $138 )
Seat 3: rollemhigh1 ( $132 )
Seat 4: GaryPaulD ( $177 )
Seat 5: TEPop ( $77.58 )
Seat 6: joeyjett ( $33 )
Seat 7: LoveRedApple ( $69 )
Seat 8: chengjimmy ( $200.75 )
Seat 9: sidcrosby ( $106 )
Seat 10: shiggy9 ( $105.50 )
rollemhigh1 posts small blind [$1].
GaryPaulD posts big blind [$2].
Dealt to Birks [ 8h Th ]
joeyjett (UTG+1) calls [$2].
Birks raises [$4].
rollemhigh1 (SB) calls [$3].
GaryPaulD(BB) folds.
joeyjett calls [$2].
The raise of one limper (and, although this is not the case here, the raise of two limpers) gives more verisimilitude to your hand than a raise without any previous callers. At $2-$4, the players see it as less likely to be a semi-steal of the blinds.
Flop Jh, 8s, Jd
I quite like this flop. Unless one of my two opponents has a Jack or something like A8 suited, I'm likely to be in front. I've just run a Monte Carlo on it against likely calling hands and my pot equity comes out at 46.5%
rollemhigh1 checks.
joeyjett checks.
Birks bets [$2].
rollemhigh1 calls [$2].
joeyjett calls [$2].
Turn 7h
Should I be worried? Well, if the Jack is out there, I'm going to get check-raised on the turn. But this is no reason to slow down. My pot equity (with the flush draw) is now over 50%. It's this kind of situation where I differ seriously from the conventional wisdom, that suggests checking "half and half" hands on the turn, saving your bets for very strong hands and outright bluffs that you can fold to a check-raise without hesitation.
rollemhigh1 checks.
joeyjett checks.
Birks bets [$4].
rollemhigh1 folds.
joeyjett folds.
Birks wins $23.
End of story. I would guess that they both took a card off on the flop with either two overcards, or an overcard and a gutshot, or a small pair. In all these cases I am right to bet the turn, even though I am forced to call a check raise.
As I said in that post, my major problem with 15-30 is not the quality of my opponents. I will happily go bulldozing away in an aggression battle, no matter what the limit. My problem is that I am uncomfortable with the real money represented by the stakes. This leads to the fatal flaw of protecting wins and chasing losses. It's vital that you do not fall into this trap when you move up in levels.
Another factor is that BLUFF tends not to play at the same time as I do. I have recently signed back into Party, having negotiated an under-the-counter rakeback (note link above if you are interested in opening up one of these yourself!) but, because the new account stops me using my old Neteller account, I have had to deposit my own money via Visa. And, since it is a "new" account, the deposit was limited to $500. I thus have to suffer the humiliation of playing $2-$4 until I can build up a reasonable stack.
Anyway, even at $2-$4, in certain types of game, the more aggressive style of play can reap regular dividends. It's the following kind of hand where the money is made, not the Ace-x suited that hits a flush on the turn.
$2/$4 Texas Hold'em
Seat 2 (Birks) is the button
Seat 1: samlclemens ( $233 )
Seat 2: Birks ( $138 )
Seat 3: rollemhigh1 ( $132 )
Seat 4: GaryPaulD ( $177 )
Seat 5: TEPop ( $77.58 )
Seat 6: joeyjett ( $33 )
Seat 7: LoveRedApple ( $69 )
Seat 8: chengjimmy ( $200.75 )
Seat 9: sidcrosby ( $106 )
Seat 10: shiggy9 ( $105.50 )
rollemhigh1 posts small blind [$1].
GaryPaulD posts big blind [$2].
Dealt to Birks [ 8h Th ]
joeyjett (UTG+1) calls [$2].
Birks raises [$4].
rollemhigh1 (SB) calls [$3].
GaryPaulD(BB) folds.
joeyjett calls [$2].
The raise of one limper (and, although this is not the case here, the raise of two limpers) gives more verisimilitude to your hand than a raise without any previous callers. At $2-$4, the players see it as less likely to be a semi-steal of the blinds.
Flop Jh, 8s, Jd
I quite like this flop. Unless one of my two opponents has a Jack or something like A8 suited, I'm likely to be in front. I've just run a Monte Carlo on it against likely calling hands and my pot equity comes out at 46.5%
rollemhigh1 checks.
joeyjett checks.
Birks bets [$2].
rollemhigh1 calls [$2].
joeyjett calls [$2].
Turn 7h
Should I be worried? Well, if the Jack is out there, I'm going to get check-raised on the turn. But this is no reason to slow down. My pot equity (with the flush draw) is now over 50%. It's this kind of situation where I differ seriously from the conventional wisdom, that suggests checking "half and half" hands on the turn, saving your bets for very strong hands and outright bluffs that you can fold to a check-raise without hesitation.
rollemhigh1 checks.
joeyjett checks.
Birks bets [$4].
rollemhigh1 folds.
joeyjett folds.
Birks wins $23.
End of story. I would guess that they both took a card off on the flop with either two overcards, or an overcard and a gutshot, or a small pair. In all these cases I am right to bet the turn, even though I am forced to call a check raise.
15-30
Date: 2006-01-02 10:20 pm (UTC)What I meant was not the point made by some weak-tight players who bemoan playing with fish because they suckout, but basically that you seem to play 15-30 well, but might not be playing lower limits as well by failing to adjust properly to looser playing conditions. In the past when I played limit and was playing either at a lower limit or even 15-30 or above but on a loose table, then one of the adjustments I made was not raising on the flop as much in multiway pots even with vulnerable hands, so as not to build the pot to the point that any draw would not be making a mistake to see the river card. Another adjustment was that often on the river where there was a bet and a call, I would base my decision to call on whether I would call one player given the pot size, where in a tighter game I would not overcall without an even better hand. This is because some aggressive player who missed a draw would bet and then be called by bottom pair. However if I had a monster I never slowplayed it but just pounded it to the river. The prime bread and butter hand in limit HE is TPTK. But in looser especially loose passive games, that will not hold up nearly as often, so not investing as many bets, even when risking free cards, is often the better course of action, so that you can see the river cheaper yourself while not getting checkraised on the turn when some idiot straight draw or ugly 2 pair hit another player.
The point you make about bankroll considerations and your comfort level is a valid one. But one of Ray Zee's best bankroll playing advice pointers that I saw on 2+2 in the past is to play bigger when you are winning and drop down when you aren't. So in your case, I would focus primarily on 15-30, though avoiding variance inducing LAG tables, and continue to do so unless suffering a downswing of a certain size.
Regarding adjustments at lower stakes, one of the few 2+2 books I don't have since I don't play limit any longer, is Ed Miller's Small Stakes Holdem (small=upto 20-40/40-80 even). It is highly applauded by 2+2 posters. Perhaps you already have it though. My point again though, is that you can't play your normal 15-30 game at 3-6 and expect to have as good results in bb/hour.
BluffTHIS!
Re: 15-30
Date: 2006-01-03 12:39 am (UTC)Happy new year. I don't like the play of the hand preflop, although Ive never played those stakes. It seems to fall between two posts of an isolation play and the HEFAP play of raising with SCS/baby pairs. I no like.
I would be careful about the rakeback thingie too...unless you give people a seperate code you wont be able to give rake back anyway, and if Party find out they will go beserk.
cheers
dd
Re: 15-30
Date: 2006-01-03 06:13 am (UTC)This kind of raise is obviously not an everyday occurrence. It requires that you have a certain image with the other players (i.e., not laggy, but not "unlucky"), with a table of passive players who are prepared to lay a hand down if they miss, and two players in the blinds who are not automatic defenders.
I put this kind of hand in as a substitute for the limp with Ax suited, which I found to be long-term unprofitable.
It also came about from studying the stats of winning players at this level. So, it seems to work, if used judiciously, even though it doesn't fit into any textbook scenario that I know of.
PJ
Re: 15-30
Date: 2006-01-03 06:10 am (UTC)The multiway call on the river has caught me out in the past at both high and low levels. It's hardest with, say, four players in, and the river goes Bet, call, and you are next to act, with another player still "live" behind you.
These days I tend to grit my teeth and call if I would have called the initial bettor heads-up.
Regarding Ed Miller; yes I have his book. I met him in Vegas (he was just strolling round the Bellagio and I introduced myself and he was a very nice guy.
As I wrote, I intend to get up to 15-30 as soon as the Party bankroll is approaching decency.
That said, I was watching the Pokerstard games for a while last night. The 5-10 games were very unattractive, but the 15-30 looked promising. I'm a bit light in PS for 15-30 (only about 2K in there) but if nothing else shows any promise, I might bite the bullet.
PJ
Re: 15-30
Date: 2006-01-03 01:30 pm (UTC)However, unlike you I don't like that flop at all, although I would bet it once certainly. The fact that you pick up a bunch of extra outs means you can follow through and have enough to call a check raise if it comes. What is your play if a total brick hits the turn? Or a scare card like an ace? Do you stand the check-raise then?
At $15/$30 I would be looking to check raise you on the turn with A LOT of hands and find out what you make of it. Enough opponents crumple on the spot to make this worthwhile, those that are capable of outmanoevering that are duly noted for the future.
Re: 15-30
Date: 2006-01-03 05:05 pm (UTC)If I hit a total brick on turn (by which I assume you mean total dross) I bet out, since I could well still be in front.
An Ace is more problematic and it is opponent dependent. The Ace on the turn is a big problem, I admit. I probably bet and fold to a c-r. But please note that a lot of 2-4 players bet the turn if they hit a hand that might get outdrawn. So, if an Ace comes on the turn and one of them bets, I probably give up and fold.
I wasn't that sure about whether I was right to like the flop, but Pokercalc seems to back up my instincts here.
PJ
Re: 15-30
Date: 2006-01-03 06:50 pm (UTC)Anyway, I think the subliminal problem I had with it all is that although pokerclac says you are +EV, I still think you are in a poker situation where you lay yourself wide open to being outplayed, and therefore never actually realising any of that theoretical profit.
In general, I would much prefer to be up against that hand in a half-decent game than to have to play with that hand.....