Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

So there I was minding my own business in the BB when DS open limped from the sb and I checked with 9d,5d.

Flop comes AJ7 with one of my suit. DS checks, and I take a stab. He calls.

Turn is a 5. check-check.

River is a 9 and he checks. Ha! I'm thinking I just sucked out on the "Great One". I bet, he calls, and I lose to A7!?!?

Now when I say I question his play, I mean I question it to understand it....

I don't get the open limp, as I'm going to defend pretty liberally here. But I suppose it has merit, since I'm more likely to raise myself, and/or misjudge the strength of his hand.

I like (and understand), the flop check.

I also get the turn check. Not sure about the subsequent call though. He knows nothing of my play and can't know I'm not the type to call a check/raise with almost any pair or draw here.

I also don't get the river check/call. I suppose he'd hate to get 3-bet and to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd have him off. But I think he's leaving some money on the table against most players here. Then again, as strange as his play appears, he just may have made the maximum from me. Comments?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

If anything, you pwned him. If he r the riv, then he pwned you.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

DS open limped


Flop comes AJ7 with one of my suit. DS checks, and I take a stab. He calls.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, was DS in the sb?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

Would you pay off a river c/r here? I probably would from most, but I don't think I would from him. And it's not just because it's DS... But because he was obviously slumming it, and seemed pretty disinterested in the game. I didn't think he'd have put that kind of effort into bluff/check/raising or even just check/raising with a worse hand than bottom two here in such a small pot.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

Sorry, yes of course. I hope I still have time to go back and edit that if it wasn't clear.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the open limp, as I'm going to defend pretty liberally here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ding!

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

talk about an emperor caught clothesless thread, wow!

DS's river play on this hand is unjustifiably bad.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I actually like David's preflop limp. That limp fits my game better than an openraise. But openraising would be the correct play for other players because that fits better with their overall game.

I like his flop chcek.

I don't mind his turn checkcall (as you clearly could still have air)

I probably bet the river if I were him or checkraise.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

It looks like DS should stick to writing books. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I don't mind the open limp, as many opponents will be sure the sb doesn't have an ace when they don't raise here pre-flop. But then I'd like to take advantage of that on subsequent streets.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]


DS's river play on this hand is unjustifiably bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

Can't understand his river play, unless he misread his hand. Inexcusable otherwise.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I like everything except the river, there must be some logical reason behind his actions. Perhaps there is something to the story that the OP is leaving out unintentionally that helped David make his decision?

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
But because he was obviously slumming it, and seemed pretty disinterested in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is confusing. I don't believe $200/$400 is "slumming it" for him (or most people). Are you sure you're not talking about 2/4?

Garland

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

the only thing that i can kind of get behind is the preflop call, in that he has disguised his hand. so, when he flops an ace against an aggressive player, he should be able to pound you because you "know" he can't have an ace because of his preflop complete. the other streets are just gross, especially the river.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But because he was obviously slumming it, and seemed pretty disinterested in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is confusing. I don't believe $200/$400 is "slumming it" for him (or most people). Are you sure you're not talking about 2/4?

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, when you roll like this:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...Skalansky3.jpg

anything under 1k/2k is slumming

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I've goofed around with open-limping with medium aces in the SB before. Not enough to say that I like it, but I don't hate it either.

I think that, if you are going to open-limp, then betting out on the flop is probably the right play, mainly in the hopes of inducing a bluff raise. On this board, a check-call looks pretty suspicious, and I think will only induce an extra bet out of the opponent on the turn in situations where the opponent is strong enough to have called down / played back anyway.

I don't understand the river play, either. Perhaps he could argue that your range consists only of hands that aren't good enough to call a check-raise, or luckbox hands like T8 that made a straight. But, that wouldn't be a very good argument. Did a flush draw come through on the board or anything?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

If DS check-raise, you will call or re-raise with better hands than his hand and fold worse hands than his hands. The only exception is hands like yours (but how can anyone put you on that?)

The only other thing that I can think of is that maybe he was reading sprts section, like horse racing.

In sklansky\'s defence
 

Not three words I'd expect to utter.

When I looked at his river play I thought it was awful, I still don't like it, but it aint as bad as I thought. It prlly depends upon how straight forward the game is.

He'd likely expect you to raise p/f with an Ace, and bet 2nd or 3rd on the flop. Now you bet the turn. What can you have?
Could it be air; 4-6; 6-8; x-5? Which of these hands stand a a check raise on the river? 9-5 or 6-8 - an inevitable 3 bet.

If his image is such that these are the only hands he will get called by then he is likely right. I'm not sure these 'expectations' on your play add up sufficiently to only make a call, but I don't relate to it, especially on-line: I'd not expect to have an image that elicits such a narrow call range.


edit: also the semi-semi-bluff of 10-8 which ad furher weight to his position.
chaos

Re: In sklansky\'s defence
 

and maybe J-7 gets played this way too

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

Looks like DS has been reading Tommy posts.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

You got unlucky in an insignificant hand. If you had been playing with someone other than Sklansky heads up, would this hand have seemed so important to you?

Let me take a guess that DS is checking the river to induce a bluff, since he assumes you probably dont have much. Since you bet the flop, checked the turn, and bet the river DS put you on a hand that either "improved on the river" or a bluff trying to pick up the pot. Since the river card could make a better two pair and two straights, he opted not to raise. If you have a bluff you obviously wont call, and if you are lucky enough to have one of the other hands, you almost definately reraise. The odds of a raise being called isnt high enough to taking a chance of being reraised when a reraise will almost always be a better hand.

Thats my feeling about it... Yeah I know I'm a moron and have no clue...whatever.

-J

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

"Since the river card could make a better two pair"

Seems to me there's no way David can put him on a better two pair.

Actually, it's hard to put poster on any hand here. But I would think by checking again, David might think poster would take a shot here with a lot of hands and that poster would know that David would know this, and thus be apt to call a check-raise from David with a bunch of hands other than air.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

With that thinking wouldn't it then be a good time to c/r and fold to a 3bet? some worse hands call and some better call but if he 3bets DS he can fold safely for that extra bet.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I think the limp preflop and the flop check are fine. Many people make this preflop play, I don't understand why you guys are surprised by this at all. The lack of a river checkraise is baffling, however.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

It makes a lot more sense if he didn't notice he had 2p.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I think the open limp is fine. If u are defending liberally how are u reacting postflop. If u are defending liberally, and making life tough post then I can see limping. If u are defending liberally and folding a lot on the flop then he should raise.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that, if you are going to open-limp, then betting out on the flop is probably the right play, mainly in the hopes of inducing a bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

it seems to me his opponent would have to bluff raise about half as often as he bluff bets for this to be true. very rare i would think, since most opponents bluff bet virtually every time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the river play, either. Perhaps he could argue that your range consists only of hands that aren't good enough to call a check-raise, or luckbox hands like T8 that made a straight. But, that wouldn't be a very good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

why not, this could easily be the case. if we assume for instance that he bets most of his pairs on the turn. or that he will fold weak 2 pair to the raise.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

well, one thing i haven't seen mentioned is the following:

how do you think kevin and others will react to david when he does show even mild aggression in similar spots (that tend to occur quite often)

imo they'll either give too much action (thinking "well he doesn't bet w/ the goods so he probably doesn't have 'em here") or too little action (thinking "jeez, if he doesn't even play 2pr strong he must have a monster now")

these are hyperboles but basically it can be possible that the bets he makes up in determining which opponents are thinking which way against him likely far outweight the one or two bet cost of playing this hand as slow as he did.

Barron

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

I think your analysis is pretty good and that was basically my take on it. I seriously doubt however, this is the way a typical 2+2er plays A7 here, hence the post.

Btw- I do not think the hand is important at all. I just thought is was very similar to hands that Mason has posted in the past. That is, a seemingly oddly played hand that turns out to be best.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But because he was obviously slumming it, and seemed pretty disinterested in the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is confusing. I don't believe $200/$400 is "slumming it" for him (or most people). Are you sure you're not talking about 2/4?

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

"Slumming it" was a poor choice of terms, but it sure looked to me like that he was pretty disinterested in the game. He spent more time checking out the racing form and walking into the sports book than playing in the game. When he left, he didn't even play up to his blind. Hey, I'm not knocking it. He can certainly do what he wants. I just thought it might be relevant.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
When he left, he didn't even play up to his blind.

[/ QUOTE ]nice! now i wanna see a straddle...

BTW/ nice post kevin. one thing no1 has pointed out in this thread that ill say is sklanksy is kinda old school nd im guessin he doesnt expect u would VB a bare 9 here and he def doesnt think u will call a CR w/ that... he prob thinks u have a bluff, a str8, or mb 9s up? i agree he should of CRed but did u ever mention whether u would of paid off here (just out of curiosity)?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

Yeah, I did already mention that it was very likely I would've folded to a river c/r from him, yet almost certainly pay off a typical player and/or 2+2er, which is what I found ironic. Sklansky IS 2+2, right? Or at least a big part of it. How odd that almost no one here even thinks to play it like he did. Some say he played it downright bad, but I won't say that. It was different than the way most players today would play it for sure, which is why I thought it was interesting. At the very least, it made me think.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
So there I was minding my own business in the BB when DS open limped from the sb and I checked with 9d,5d.

Flop comes AJ7 with one of my suit. DS checks, and I take a stab. He calls.

Turn is a 5. check-check.

River is a 9 and he checks. Ha! I'm thinking I just sucked out on the "Great One". I bet, he calls, and I lose to A7!?!?

Now when I say I question his play, I mean I question it to understand it....

I don't get the open limp, as I'm going to defend pretty liberally here. But I suppose it has merit, since I'm more likely to raise myself, and/or misjudge the strength of his hand.

I like (and understand), the flop check.

I also get the turn check. Not sure about the subsequent call though. He knows nothing of my play and can't know I'm not the type to call a check/raise with almost any pair or draw here.

I also don't get the river check/call. I suppose he'd hate to get 3-bet and to be honest, I'm not even sure I'd have him off. But I think he's leaving some money on the table against most players here. Then again, as strange as his play appears, he just may have made the maximum from me. Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i am immediately curious about this hand as well. the whole thing seems (ironically) antithetical to the standard, aggressive and fast style generally advocated on Sklansky's site!

i can honestly say i've probably never played a hand just this way in my life, and perhaps this is why i suck! definitely there are times to play passively, but i have no idea why this was one of those times. i am curious to read this thread- perhaps sklansky will grace us w/ his presence here and fill in the blanks!

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
well, one thing i haven't seen mentioned is the following:

how do you think kevin and others will react to david when he does show even mild aggression in similar spots (that tend to occur quite often)

imo they'll either give too much action (thinking "well he doesn't bet w/ the goods so he probably doesn't have 'em here") or too little action (thinking "jeez, if he doesn't even play 2pr strong he must have a monster now")

these are hyperboles but basically it can be possible that the bets he makes up in determining which opponents are thinking which way against him likely far outweight the one or two bet cost of playing this hand as slow as he did.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont see how you could possibly say w/ any degree of certainty that DS will somehow gain bets that 'far outweigh' those he may have lost here. i guess he indeed may simply be trying to mix up his play and make himself tough to read in similar future situations. your hypothesis seems very vague, nebulous, and speculative though, and there doesnt seem to be any way to really know for sure that you will somehow make up these lost bets b/c you checked three times w/ 2pair and never raised. maybe you are correct, but i dont think the benefits of playing 2pair like this 'far outweigh' bets he lost. perhaps he had a completely different rationale here (i.e. he saw OP as superaggro)

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the limp preflop and the flop check are fine. Many people make this preflop play, I don't understand why you guys are surprised by this at all. The lack of a river checkraise is baffling, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do many people make this preflop open limp? what is the reasoning?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the limp preflop and the flop check are fine. Many people make this preflop play, I don't understand why you guys are surprised by this at all. The lack of a river checkraise is baffling, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do many people make this preflop open limp? what is the reasoning?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Ax isn't exactly a dominating hand out of position. and because most high limit players never fold the big blind in this spot anyway the deception gained is worth more than a preflop raise is. Also, doing this allows you to limp with some suited connector type stuff preflop too because your opponent can't autoraise you after you limp in once he knows you are limping with aces in your hand sometimes too. Another reason an open limp is reasonable is because the "limp and autobet the flop" steal is often just as effective as the raise preflop steal.

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps he could argue that your range consists only of hands that aren't good enough to call a check-raise, or luckbox hands like T8 that made a straight. But, that wouldn't be a very good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

how could he possibly narrow OP's range in a blind battle to this extent? perhaps sklansky is psychic?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that, if you are going to open-limp, then betting out on the flop is probably the right play, mainly in the hopes of inducing a bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]




it seems to me his opponent would have to bluff raise about half as often as he bluff bets for this to be true. very rare i would think, since most opponents bluff bet virtually every time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the river play, either. Perhaps he could argue that your range consists only of hands that aren't good enough to call a check-raise, or luckbox hands like T8 that made a straight. But, that wouldn't be a very good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

why not, this could easily be the case. if we assume for instance that he bets most of his pairs on the turn. or that he will fold weak 2 pair to the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]


do many players fold a weak 2 pair in hands like this in blind situations?

Re: Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When he left, he didn't even play up to his blind.

[/ QUOTE ]nice! now i wanna see a straddle...


[/ QUOTE ]

i would like to see DS do a live straddle on a mechanical bull.