top two in the sb

[maldini32]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

celtic, did he actually show you bottom 2? with your own eyes. If so sick laydown, but terrible show imo.

The way this hand has played out on the flop the check raise meant exactly that (2 pr+). I would prefer the overshove instead of the check raise fwiw cos the overshove is a lot weaker imo and more likely to get called.

PS loyd post more

[celtic]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

celtic, did he actually show you bottom 2? with your own eyes. If so sick laydown, but terrible show imo.

Yeah he showed it Alex. I told him good fold and that one day he may have a future in poker

[celtic]

ok, i have had mixed views on this thread and elsewhere on the flop play, so, here is what happened next.

i check, as does the BB, the utg limper bets 2k (lol) cut off makes it 10k.. I ?

Raise and commit yourself here

there is circa 22k in the pot, so i would rasie to 30-35k and make it clear that you are going nowhere.

If they flat (which is terribad) - i open shove any turn card (with 4 outs FTW kinda worse case). Hopefully they donk reshove with AA/KK/AQ and you fade the outs.

Why would you want to do that? Think about that statement really hard, you'll benefit if you do.

Celtic, your raise size was too big. Making it 24k is better, that few K can sometimes make people believe that you can / might fold if they ship. It's a classy fold from villain, but you need to think about your overall game if he is able to fold here. Like, if situations were reversed, would you fold his hand to him? I think not.

fwiw, I like leading / 3 betting / getting it in much better than playing for a checkraise. If I was in your spot I'd be looking to get as much money in on the flop as possible.

because with 160k stack he can call 24k (ie 14 more) with very good implied odds to hit his draw (he is calling 14 into 46k) - thats why. The size of the villains stack is important to.

I dont want him to just call. Ok you could argue that he is only going to see 1 card. However, if the scare card comes (which wasnt his) and you check, he gets the free shot at the river.

I am very happy to get it all in here. Calling the 35k would be a mathematical error - calling the 24k - not so much!

I have told you my pref is to take down the 22k in the pot and add 1/3 to my stack!

Stop worrying about things like protection and avoiding outdraws and concentrate more on getting value from weaker holdings. Yeah sometimes, we'll get counterfeited / binked off on the turn. So what? Other times we'll get KQ / QJ / bottom two / the straight draw to give us value over another street.

If I had a hand where i thought i could extract max value then i would. If I held Q7 and the board came Q72 - i would happliy play like you suggest. This particular board smashes his range so hard that you simply dont know where you are if any A K J 9 8 7. That for all intents and purposes is half the deck. So, half the deck against the odds of 3:1 and the implied odds of the rest of your stack just isnt worth it in this scenario (against good or bad players).

Because we're all pretty card smart...when a flop comes down we automatically know where the danger lies. However if you account for every eventuality you will be over-egging the cake imo. If we go to the turn giving our oppo half the deck we will be putting ourelves at a serious disadvantage. Your oppo only has 2 cards so wont/can't need every card you've tagged as dangerous here. That's if he's drawing at all. It's obv raising the flop will be more attractive to you if you fear all those cards. But IF a 6 comes he MUST hold 8-9...IF a 9 comes he MUST have K-J. This all becomes more specific than half the deck makes you a loser.

The fold is decent. But it looks better than it is because Celtic has to make that move with 1 pair or less for villain to be wrong. Does Celtic make that move with such holdings? We can all aspire to do that..and sometimes we may...but when you're actually sitting there it's a tougher ask than saying you would on the forum. So by playing the hand this way you give villain every excuse to fold. However, if you weak lead the turn...but make your body language strong...and pad the smallish bet with low denom chips you give quality villain some stuff to break down...small bet trying to look strong etc...and you give him much more of an excuse to think he's ahead than raising the re-raise on the flop. Agree with Tighty thou, great hand to discuss.

I never make that move with less than two pair Mantis

James has never played against me before this comp so doesn't really know how i play or what i'm capable or not capable of.

[LuckyLloyd]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

[George2Loose]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

Nope but you put it so well

Post more

FWIW I thnk celtic was just unlucky that Akenhead is sick good to lay this down. Most people we're stacking here.

[celtic]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

Nope but you put it so well

Post more

FWIW I thnk celtic was just unlucky that Akenhead is sick good to lay this down. Most people we're stacking here.

i was sick when he folded 10 7 face up. Anyone else on the table or even left in the comp and i was up to 170k ffs.

[Boba Fett]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

celtic, did he actually show you bottom 2? with your own eyes. If so sick laydown, but terrible show imo.

I find more often than not a c/r outta the blinds is the standard play for 2 pair+  With no history with OP Id put him on 2 pair or better here and would think bottom 2 is in bad shape.  If you're capable of taking this line as a bluff and Akenhead knows this then its not a bad line to take here but if I say you want to take the line that leaves your opponent guessing how strong you are then Im not telling you anything you dont already know.

[celtic]

Just to step in to akenhead's shoes for a minute...

Would he consider that i may have 78, J9 or JK here?

[Boba Fett]

Just to step in to akenhead's shoes for a minute...

Would he consider that i may have 78, J9 or JK here?

If you had those hands would you raise it to the amount you did? 

I think if you overshoved it puts those hands into your range more easily

[outragous76]

ok, i have had mixed views on this thread and elsewhere on the flop play, so, here is what happened next.

i check, as does the BB, the utg limper bets 2k (lol) cut off makes it 10k.. I ?

Raise and commit yourself here

there is circa 22k in the pot, so i would rasie to 30-35k and make it clear that you are going nowhere.

If they flat (which is terribad) - i open shove any turn card (with 4 outs FTW kinda worse case). Hopefully they donk reshove with AA/KK/AQ and you fade the outs.

Why would you want to do that? Think about that statement really hard, you'll benefit if you do.

Celtic, your raise size was too big. Making it 24k is better, that few K can sometimes make people believe that you can / might fold if they ship. It's a classy fold from villain, but you need to think about your overall game if he is able to fold here. Like, if situations were reversed, would you fold his hand to him? I think not.

fwiw, I like leading / 3 betting / getting it in much better than playing for a checkraise. If I was in your spot I'd be looking to get as much money in on the flop as possible.

because with 160k stack he can call 24k (ie 14 more) with very good implied odds to hit his draw (he is calling 14 into 46k) - thats why. The size of the villains stack is important to.

I dont want him to just call. Ok you could argue that he is only going to see 1 card. However, if the scare card comes (which wasnt his) and you check, he gets the free shot at the river.

I am very happy to get it all in here. Calling the 35k would be a mathematical error - calling the 24k - not so much!

I have told you my pref is to take down the 22k in the pot and add 1/3 to my stack!

Stop worrying about things like protection and avoiding outdraws and concentrate more on getting value from weaker holdings. Yeah sometimes, we'll get counterfeited / binked off on the turn. So what? Other times we'll get KQ / QJ / bottom two / the straight draw to give us value over another street.

If I had a hand where i thought i could extract max value then i would. If I held Q7 and the board came Q72 - i would happliy play like you suggest. This particular board smashes his range so hard that you simply dont know where you are if any A K J 9 8 7. That for all intents and purposes is half the deck. So, half the deck against the odds of 3:1 and the implied odds of the rest of your stack just isnt worth it in this scenario (against good or bad players).

Because we're all pretty card smart...when a flop comes down we automatically know where the danger lies. However if you account for every eventuality you will be over-egging the cake imo. If we go to the turn giving our oppo half the deck we will be putting ourelves at a serious disadvantage. Your oppo only has 2 cards so wont/can't need every card you've tagged as dangerous here. That's if he's drawing at all. It's obv raising the flop will be more attractive to you if you fear all those cards. But IF a 6 comes he MUST hold 8-9...IF a 9 comes he MUST have K-J. This all becomes more specific than half the deck makes you a loser.

i hope that you arent calling me a loser - but my 'cards'

the point I am making is that his limp raange includes all the following hands

AQ
AJ
KJ
QJ
89
109
TJ
ATs
A7s

it is impossible to narrow that range down if he has been limping alot and by flat calling his 10k bet

I am not saying i fear every card - i am just saying there is no way to narrow that range

[daviebhoy]

I agree that flat calling the bet on the flop makes it more likely we can get more money in on the next two streets.

Where I disagree is that I don't want to be playing a pot for my entire stack, OOP, against a very good player, not knowing where I am when the turn card comes. I just think flatting here is suicidal unless we decide to stack off here to every turn/river with the aim of getting our chips in.

[MANTIS01]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

The 2nd day has just started in a £350 comp. Nobody at the table is under any real pressure to make moves. UTG is a complete unknown. You don't know what his flop bet means, it could be anything. The big stack who's got double your chips raises unknown UTG. He is a good player. You read him as strong. He has shown strong hands. You don't think he's bluffing. There are 2 players to act behind you. With this evidence before you who would really raise 32k out of 85k with 1 pair or a draw? In theory & from the keyboard you can do this easily. But actually sitting at the table that's gonna be a big big risky & perhaps reckless move...and the majority of people just wont be doing that. If we agree with that assumption...and it's very difficult not to imo...the fact that villain has never played hero before leads villain to conclude hero is one of the many who just wont make that move with such hands. So if you agree with Lloyd here about balancing, which I do, it means in this specific scenario the c-raise has even less credibility.

[celtic]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

The 2nd day has just started in a £350 comp. Nobody at the table is under any real pressure to make moves. UTG is a complete unknown. You don't know what his flop bet means, it could be anything. The big stack who's got double your chips raises unknown UTG. He is a good player. You read him as strong. He has shown strong hands. You don't think he's bluffing. There are 2 players to act behind you. With this evidence before you who would really raise 32k out of 85k with 1 pair or a draw? In theory & from the keyboard you can do this easily. But actually sitting at the table that's gonna be a big big risky & perhaps reckless move...and the majority of people just wont be doing that. If we agree with that assumption...and it's very difficult not to imo...the fact that villain has never played hero before leads villain to conclude hero is one of the many who just wont make that move with such hands. So if you agree with Lloyd here about balancing, which I do, it means in this specific scenario the c-raise has even less credibility.

Well summarised imo. Hope my next hand i post is as popular.

[George2Loose]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

The 2nd day has just started in a £350 comp. Nobody at the table is under any real pressure to make moves. UTG is a complete unknown. You don't know what his flop bet means, it could be anything. The big stack who's got double your chips raises unknown UTG. He is a good player. You read him as strong. He has shown strong hands. You don't think he's bluffing. There are 2 players to act behind you. With this evidence before you who would really raise 32k out of 85k with 1 pair or a draw? In theory & from the keyboard you can do this easily. But actually sitting at the table that's gonna be a big big risky & perhaps reckless move...and the majority of people just wont be doing that. If we agree with that assumption...and it's very difficult not to imo...the fact that villain has never played hero before leads villain to conclude hero is one of the many who just wont make that move with such hands. So if you agree with Lloyd here about balancing, which I do, it means in this specific scenario the c-raise has even less credibility.

Mantis did u not say you could make this move with air? If we do this with air, do we not do it with the made hand?

I still think re raising is the correct course of action but would make it smaller to induce

[MANTIS01]

since when has a checkraise meant 2 pair+? seriously we should be bluffing here a chunk of the time and playing a lot of draws like this too.

I'd further that a bit. I think the important thing is to make sure that checkraising and leading don't correspond to different hand strengths. You can't be checkraising two pair + and bet, 3 betting draws; or bet 3 betting 2 pair + and checkraising draws. A check raise is good here if you do show up with draws / top pair (or more importantly are thought capable of showing up with such hands). But if you would normally lead such holdings, then you need to be leading this flop.

There's nothing groundbreaking in me repeating that idea though of course.

The 2nd day has just started in a £350 comp. Nobody at the table is under any real pressure to make moves. UTG is a complete unknown. You don't know what his flop bet means, it could be anything. The big stack who's got double your chips raises unknown UTG. He is a good player. You read him as strong. He has shown strong hands. You don't think he's bluffing. There are 2 players to act behind you. With this evidence before you who would really raise 32k out of 85k with 1 pair or a draw? In theory & from the keyboard you can do this easily. But actually sitting at the table that's gonna be a big big risky & perhaps reckless move...and the majority of people just wont be doing that. If we agree with that assumption...and it's very difficult not to imo...the fact that villain has never played hero before leads villain to conclude hero is one of the many who just wont make that move with such hands. So if you agree with Lloyd here about balancing, which I do, it means in this specific scenario the c-raise has even less credibility.

Mantis did u not say you could make this move with air? If we do this with air, do we not do it with the made hand?

I still think re raising is the correct course of action but would make it smaller to induce

Nah dude, I never said that. I said this....

George, I would only raise to take the pot down on the flop...cos I reckon raising should take the pot down.

While I was one of the guys who said I reckon raising the flop takes it down....what I reckon sitting here is very different to what we do in reality. And as such I have proved my own point...I think. I'm never making that move with air really....and that's why I'm not c-raising with 2 pair.