Trip Aces

[Bongo]

It's your avatar mate...

[MrsLime]

I think you could probably be a great help to many people on this forum including myself, yet most of your posts just seem to be trying to wind people up. Why tell me to calm down? What have I written that could possibly indicate that I am not calm?

Sorry, I was not clear in my last post -- I was asking NoFlopsHomer to calm down (lest he moderates me!). I was not asking you (byronkincaid) to calm down.

I assure you that I am not trying to wind anyone up. I love to discuss poker!

I just thought that instead of people telling you why your river bet was bad, you could arrive at the same conclusion quite swiftly yourself, with just a few minutes of thought. I personally learn better when I 'discover' things for myself, rather than being told.

Anyway -- basically, when you bet out on this river, all the hands you can beat will fold; all the hands that beat you will raise. Under what scenario is your river bet profitable?

[NoflopsHomer]

I have no powers to mod. My strengths lie in finding good sources of sherbet and old-fashioned boiled sweets (and playing Half-Life 2).

You're absolutely right about the river bet.

[byronkincaid]

Because I'm playing at a site where people often call you down with Ace high I was thinking I was making a value bet. I think I may get called with a lower flush or an overpair as well as a bare Ace. Once he raised I folded. I can see why check/calling is better for the reasons that other people have mentioned already.

What is wrong with my other bets? On the flop I'm thinking woohoo I've got the nuts, do I bet or check and try to let someone catch up a bit. I probably bet 50% of the time here. Nobody bets so i bet the turn to get some money into the pot. I'm playing on a smaller site against the same players a lot, although I hadn't played against Boom before today.

I am very interested in your opinions and I'm sure you could become a valued and respected Blonde PHAer if you weren't quite so headmistressy. I'm sure I have many fundamental flaws in my game but you telling people how crap they are is just going to cause arguements not meaningful poker discussion. There are so many arguements and disagreements on the other blonde forums these days it would be nice to have the PHA forum as a place where people just try to help each other in a friendly way.

You are certainly right in that I'm sure I don't completely understand why/when to bet. I'm here cos I'm trying to learn.

[boldie]

Then we have some insight to your thought process (or lack thereof).

Dispense with the personal comments, they're not helpful.

The second one you have to check the river.

agreed...I would check the river here.

[tantrum]

Because I'm playing at a site where people often call you down with Ace high I was thinking I was making a value bet. I think I may get called with a lower flush or an overpair as well as a bare Ace. Once he raised I folded. I can see why check/calling is better for the reasons that other people have mentioned already.

The action on throughout the hand should be player dependend IMO.  You have nuts, but if you will bet 1/2 the pot on the flop, would you be still called?

Is Mr boomblater sophisticated enough to have here FH?
What is his flat call on the turn means?

Has he made his hand?
does he think you have a flush?
He simplay might think that you don't have a flush and trying to steal the pot, or have nuts:)

How often does he come over the top to the raises?

What is he likely to limp with?

So many question not many answers.


As to betting on the river

Anyway -- basically, when you bet out on this river, all the hands you can beat will fold; all the hands that beat you will raise.

I think this is a generalisation.
The size of the bet on the river should be adjusted to the player you are playing against.  Against some I would push with nuts and they will still call, so the more I bet, the more I win,
Check call might work on others.

IMO the board is not as important as the opponent and his/hers style to make a decision what to do in this scenario.

[MrsLime]

Hmm, I don't know why I thought NoFlopsHomer was a moderator... anyway I retract what I said and I will be ruder to him next time.

[That last sentence was a JOKE.]

Anyway -- basically, when you bet out on this river, all the hands you can beat will fold; all the hands that beat you will raise.

I think this is a generalisation.

Um, yes, that is what 'basically' means.

[MrsLime]

Hmm, I wouldn't describe myself as 'headmistressy'; but I know I come across as terse and impatient (I'm like that in 'real life' too).

Anyway, in every hand of poker, the pot varies in size -- from the smallest pot (which contains just the blinds) to the largest pot (when everyone is all-in).  And of course, I'm talking about size relevant to the blinds; so you cannot say whether a $50 pot is 'large' or 'small' unless you know the blind sizes.

When you play many hands of poker in a row, and especially in big bet poker (ie No Limit and Pot Limit), each session is made up of many small pots and fewer large ones.  Of course, correct decisions must be made regardless of the size of the pot, as the winning of one large pot can easily be cancelled out by the misplaying of several smaller pots; however, since larger pots contribute more greatly to overall variance/swings, there is an obligation on the sensible player to exercise some means of pot control.  The easiest hands to play are the ones in which we hold absolutely nothing, or the ones in which we hold the nuts.  The way we play the hands in-between is much harder, and makes up the difference between having a winning session and a losing one; and the larger the pot, the greater the importance of being correct.

For example, if in every small pot you play you always have the nuts, but every large pot you play you don't really have a feel of whether or not you are winning, your overall poker experience is going to be a frustrating one, full of guesswork and large bankroll swings.

As such, I want to play a large pot when either I am confident that I am winning, or I am confident that I can move (bluff) the opponent off his hand.  The less sure I am, then the smaller I want the pot to be.  I think that in your example, inflating the pot on a double-paired board is a bad idea; as you have discovered, it leads to very tricky decisions.

If you are playing against nutters who call you down with Ace-high, there are so many better scenarios to value bet than the example you have given.  I agree that a player holding, say, two black JJ may love the all-spade flop of 485, and think he is certainly winning against, say, A8o.  But having the attribute of being a nutter doesn't make you any luckier or less lucky than anyone else, and especially since the flop was checked, it is very hard to accurately predict if the opponent holds a Five.

The check on the flop is ok, I would do the same as you suggest and sometimes bet and sometimes check, depending mainly on how aggresively the game has been playing so far.  I am not advocating 'nut peddling' and I don't think the opponent has flopped a set, but in this example I would err on the side of caution and check-call the turn and river.  I think by betting out here you have more to lose than you have to gain.

[tantrum]

MrsLime if your explanation above was posted in the first time round this thread could have been very positive indeed.

Hmm, I wouldn't describe myself as 'headmistressy'; but I know I come across as terse and impatient (I'm like that in 'real life' too).

this is not a valid excuse for some of your remarks.  Perhaps changing your behaviour a bit and toning down your language would enable others to benefit from your otherwise useful comments.  Sometimes one should be responsible for their actions and take into consideration,  how others might feel when posting their hands histories on this forum and instead of constructive criticism, receive belittling comments.  Treat others with respect and they will respect you. 

[byronkincaid]

Thanks MrsLime. tantrum lets not  eh

[MrsLime]

MrsLime if your explanation above was posted in the first time round this thread could have been very positive indeed.

Hmm, I wouldn't describe myself as 'headmistressy'; but I know I come across as terse and impatient (I'm like that in 'real life' too).

this is not a valid excuse for some of your remarks.  Perhaps changing your behaviour a bit and toning down your language would enable others to benefit from your otherwise useful comments.  Sometimes one should be responsible for their actions and take into consideration,  how others might feel when posting their hands histories on this forum and instead of constructive criticism, receive belittling comments.  Treat others with respect and they will respect you. 

Jesus Christ.

[tantrum]

Jesus Christ.

Yes Darling?