2/4 - I see monsters
 

2/4 B&M, 10 players, loose & passive

Villain doesn't bluff, is typical passive player but isn't afraid to put lottsa bets in when he thinks he's ahead.

Preflop (10 players): Hero is UTG with K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Hero raises, UTG+1 coldcalls, Villain coldcalls, Button coldcalls, BB calls

Flop (5 players, 10 SB): K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
check to Hero who bets, fold, Villain 2bets, folded to Hero who 3bets, Villain 4bets, Hero puts money in the pot to 5bet but is then told by dealer that 4bet cap applies since round didn't begin heads-up

Turn (2 players, 9 BB): 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Hero bets, Villain calls

River (2 players, 11 BB): 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Hero bets, Villain raises, Hero wimps out and calls.

I failed poker 101 here. My thinking at the time is with aggressive flop play this villain had a set of 9's or a set of 8's, therefore it was 50/50 his quads came in and thus no point in 3betting/calling. Point out the error in my thought process.

GcluelessnoobwhoisashamedtomakemistakeslikethisG

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

Er, is there a serious question here GG?

You have the nut FH. The only hand that beats you is 99. I'm raising until the cows come home. He has 98 or K9 like, all the time.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

Well, every once in a long while the villain will have quads here, on the flop he probably has two pair or maybe AK suited in spades. Would he raise preflop with AK?

On the river, it looks me that he flopped two pair (k9 or 98) or a set (99 or 88) and has now filled up. You are ahead of all of those except 99. He probably has you on AK. You are winning this pot 90% of the time. I would go at least 2 or 3 more bets.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

He could have 89 for a flopped two pair if in his pre flop coldcall range. He also closed the action on the flop, not disuaded by your 3-beat dispite the pfr in a ten handed game, you may be good-I think you did the right thing just call and see.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

Good God, man. You don't need any input to know what you did.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

Ya, you guys nailed it, I only posted this for the benefit of other noobs. My horrendous mistake was overlooking that Villain could easily play K9 or 98 the same way on the flop, therefore it wasn't 50/50 on the river that he had quads.

Against typical live 2/4 player, how many bets would you usually do? Does anyone 5bet this cuz now I'm thinking that might be entering spewy territory?

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

gg,

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that [ QUOTE ]
this villain had a set of 9's or a set of 8's

[/ QUOTE ] is true.

In such a case, [ QUOTE ]
therefore it was 50/50 his quads came in

[/ QUOTE ] is not true.

If we put him on a set of 9s or a set of 8s on the flop, we are essentially putting him on six hands, not two:

9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

When the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] shows up on the river, suddenly one-third of this range is no longer possible. If we stick to the hand range you assigned him on the flop, he can now only have:

9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Thus, by the river, it is three times as likely that he has eights full than quad nines.

There are other considerations, of course. He could have a bigger range on the flop. Or he could be so passive that he would put you on KK when you went to five-bet the flop and only raise the river here with quads. But your contention that he is equally likely to have 99 or 88 independent of his action on the river is incorrect.

-McGee

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

Wow, thanks McGee - I didn't even notice that error.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Or he could be so passive that he would put you on KK when you went to five-bet the flop and only raise the river here with quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

mcgee,

if an old passive nit 5 bets me on this flop after raising UTG, i put him on KK 99%. not say i would fold a set of nines or eights, but i wouldnt be any more bets in UI.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]

if an old passive nit 5 bets me on this flop after raising UTG, i put him on KK 99%. not say i would fold a set of nines or eights, but i wouldnt be any more bets in UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're still 3betting my hand, right?

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or he could be so passive that he would put you on KK when you went to five-bet the flop and only raise the river here with quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

mcgee,

if an old passive nit 5 bets me on this flop after raising UTG, i put him on KK 99%. not say i would fold a set of nines or eights, but i wouldnt be any more bets in UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't know why I included "so" in there. It's not all that passive to call down at that point -- five bets is a lot, even against a wild chip-spewer like gobbledygeek [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

-McGee

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

if an old passive nit 5 bets me on this flop after raising UTG, i put him on KK 99%. not say i would fold a set of nines or eights, but i wouldnt be any more bets in UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're still 3betting my hand, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, your opponent isnt me.

he probably is thinking, "hey, i have a boat now!" without considering what you might be holding. its the same type of thing when you see a player raise A3 on the river after hitting trip aces vs a tight PFR who's bet all 3 streets.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

I think it is unlikely villain has 88 - it looks like the 9 helped his hand. He very well could have K9 or 89 though, and I think after just one river raise from him, either of those are more likely than 99. If he is usually passive and 4 bets the river though, I would just call.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

FWIW, the way the opponent played this hand if he holds anything other than 99 is rather illogical. If he has a big hand (a hand that makes a boat on the river) and is worried about being beat once gobbledygeek leads the turn, the 9 on the river doesn't change enough for him to raise.

-McGee

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the way the opponent played this hand if he holds anything other than 99 is rather illogical. If he has a big hand (a hand that makes a boat on the river) and is worried about being beat once gobbledygeek leads the turn, the 9 on the river doesn't change enough for him to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But I still have to 3bet this every time, right?

GshoppingforskirtsG

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

FWIW I played a pretty similar hand to this yesterday on Full Tilt - exceptions: it was capped pre flop three ways and the board paired with 4s so I was pretty much able to rule out quads. I would have puked. The turn got capped and I led the river into calls. Final hands - me KK, villan 1 AA, villan 2 AKs - and 21 BB for me.

Sorry, back to your hand - must three bet but five betting is up for debate/probably not a great idea.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ya, you guys nailed it, I only posted this for the benefit of other noobs. My horrendous mistake was overlooking that Villain could easily play K9 or 98 the same way on the flop, therefore it wasn't 50/50 on the river that he had quads.

Against typical live 2/4 player, how many bets would you usually do? Does anyone 5bet this cuz now I'm thinking that might be entering spewy territory?

[/ QUOTE ]

I just call a four bet. I'd have to have a read that he was a special kind of retarded to fivetown.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]

I failed poker 101 here. My thinking at the time is with aggressive flop play this villain had a set of 9's or a set of 8's, therefore it was 50/50 his quads came in and thus no point in 3betting/calling. Point out the error in my thought process.


[/ QUOTE ]

The error in your thought process is assuming those are the ONLY two hands he could hold. There are definitely other hands that many players would play like this on the flop. You gotta stick in one more raise; if he 4 bets you, then I just call.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, the way the opponent played this hand if he holds anything other than 99 is rather illogical. If he has a big hand (a hand that makes a boat on the river) and is worried about being beat once gobbledygeek leads the turn, the 9 on the river doesn't change enough for him to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But I still have to 3bet this every time, right?

GshoppingforskirtsG

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure there will be calls for me to turn in my Carpal \'Tunnel status for saying this, but if I'm ever not three-betting the nut full house on the river, this is the spot. The board is such that he can pretty much only have a full house here, and if he has a hand that the 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] helped, his prior action suggests that he was afraid of three kings on the flop, a hand he's still losing to on the river -- unless he has quads.

That said, it's live 2/4, where players who bet or raise based only on the strength of their hands are somewhat common (these players exist, in smaller numbers, at higher limits, too) -- "A full house is worth eight bucks!" He could also be "slowplaying" his 88 or two pair (unlikely given all the action on the flop, but possible) or waiting to make sure the third spade didn't come or a straight wasn't possible before he put in heavy action on the big streets.

-McGee

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
You gotta stick in one more raise; if he 4 bets you, then I just call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

Getting coolered by four of a kind sucks, but i thought 3-betting here at a minimum is pretty much robotic. This is live 2/4, remember. I had a hand recently at live 3/6 where I had AA, villain had raised UTG pf, then called my 3-bet. I hit an A on the turn, then the board paired 4's on the river. I bet and 3-bet automatically, then called down his 4-bet. I still felt like a wimp even after he showed me 44, and wondered if I had raised enough.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]

I just call a four bet. I'd have to have a read that he was a special kind of retarded to fivetown.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be amazing....

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

I look at this way. If you think he has less than 50%
chance to have you beat, then you should bet, because
your bet is EV+.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
it was 50/50 his quads came in and thus no point in 3betting/calling. Point out the error in my thought process.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's 3:1 against that his quads came in. Basic combination counting.

good luck.
eric

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

The weather is turning and it's getting cooler, so I'd suggest a nice wool blend:

http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...cker/dg2a1.jpg

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

The skirt is nice but it's the pumps that sell it.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

He didn't raise the turn.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

First of all your playing with scared money. It's just Limit so you can't get broke on one hand, but you can lose value if you don't get all the money you can out of your winning hands. If it was no- limit one mistake can break you but it's limit so you need to get as much money as you can out of this hand. If he shows you the nuts (99) well, it was a tough beat and you lost some extra bets which is unpreventable given the strenght of your hand. But if you play it hard the odds are that your going to get max value. And if he did have 3 nines already i doubt he would have just called the turn and not raised, as you said he puts in a lot of bets when he believes he's ahead. And by you just calling on the end with Kings full, you show that you're capable of being run over because of how passive you played a really strong hand.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

A lot of the analysis of this hand is bothering me.

As long as our opponent isn't doing something weird with, like, a pair of aces, there isn't a single hand we beat that he should be raising this river with given his previous action. We're basically counting on him to raise the river on the strength of his hand alone -- not it's strength relative to our range. (something that he has not done previously in this hand. His flat call of our turn bet means he's afraid of what we have.) In other words, if we want to three-bet, assuming he's not getting way out of line, we're counting on his entire thought process on the river being "Wow! A full house! Wait til the guys hear about this! I RAISE!"

Many of your analyses can be boiled down to something similar. "Not only do I have a full house, I have the f*cking nut full house!" is what you're saying. "Nothing wrong with losing a lot of money with a hand this strong!"

It's fine if you want to three-bet. But you have to do it for the right reasons -- i.e., you think this guy is clueless enough to play a hand this way. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of you are just repeating some rule that you're a p*ssy for not raising with the nut boat.

Look, there are a ton of situations where you'll want to put in three bets, and five or seven, for that matter, with the nut full house when the only hand that beats you has quads. Even with this specific board, when there are no straight or flushes possible, three-betting here is almost always going to be right.

But this guy has already slowed way down on this hand. He didn't cap middle pair on the flop. He capped two pair or a set, and when we led into him, he got worried that he was behind. He's not putting us on K8 when he raises the river.

Yeah, quads are a rare hand. But I think he has quads here a more often than he has a boat.

Regardless, my point is this: If our river threebet is +EV, it's because our opponent has fallen into the trap of falling in love with the strength of his hand. Don't fall into that trap yourself.

-McGee

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

FWIW, I actually made two mistakes in this hand. One is forgetting that he coulda played hands other than 99 and 88 this way on the flop. Two is underestimating the retardedness of this particular opponent. He did in fact have 98 and slowed down on the turn due to being scared of my set of Kings, but then fell in love with his full house (yah, a FULL HOUSE!) on the river. Against a less retarded opponent I think a river raise is more scary.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

as expected. I think this hand is an excellent reminder to not project rational play onto our opponents. I think some of us have a tendency to do this (me included for sure). I agree with McGee that if there were ever a time to slow down this is it. Quads makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean we should play the hand this way. Obviously, against our typical low limit opponents we come out way, way ahead when we threebet/call this spot.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
My horrendous mistake was overlooking that Villain could easily play K9 or 98 the same way on the flop, therefore it wasn't 50/50 on the river that he had quads.

Against typical live 2/4 player, how many bets would you usually do? Does anyone 5bet this cuz now I'm thinking that might be entering spewy territory?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, it's NOT 50/50 that he just made quads. Even if you assume he had 99 or 88 on the flop, then the river 98 just tilted the scales in favor of 88 (assuming he'd play both hands the same way.) On the river, there are 3 ways he could have 88, and only 1 way he could have 99, so it's basically 75/25 that he has 88, not 50/50.

On the river, I'm going at least 5 bets, possibly calling his 6th. Depends on what I can figure out he thinks I have. Can he put me on AA? How about AK? How about 88 or 99? How about K9? The smaller the range you think he thinks you have, then more quickly you can slow down. But just calling 1 raise? Never that quick.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
As long as our opponent isn't doing something weird with, like, a pair of aces, there isn't a single hand we beat that he should be raising this river with given his previous action.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you are completely discounting the possibility that he's doing something "tricky", or "fun". Or, as Mike Caro has pointed out, there is a certain amount of randomness to ALL players, and ALL players occasionally do something more or less on a whim.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

OK I just looked at the answer. I'm no longer sure I'd go 5 bets though, but I'd definitely 3-bet, no doubt. At this point I'd be torn between thinking the only logical hand that's really consistent with his entire play is 99, and on the other hand realizing that players don't always play consistently. 3-bet or 5-bet, I don't know.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as our opponent isn't doing something weird with, like, a pair of aces, there isn't a single hand we beat that he should be raising this river with given his previous action.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you are completely discounting the possibility that he's doing something "tricky", or "fun". Or, as Mike Caro has pointed out, there is a certain amount of randomness to ALL players, and ALL players occasionally do something more or less on a whim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't "completely discount" anything. The very passage you quote shows me mentioning the possibility that he's doing something on a whim. That's the opposite of discounting.

-McGee

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as our opponent isn't doing something weird with, like, a pair of aces, there isn't a single hand we beat that he should be raising this river with given his previous action.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you are completely discounting the possibility that he's doing something "tricky", or "fun". Or, as Mike Caro has pointed out, there is a certain amount of randomness to ALL players, and ALL players occasionally do something more or less on a whim.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't "completely discount" anything. The very passage you quote shows me mentioning the possibility that he's doing something on a whim. That's the opposite of discounting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're completely discounting any hand other than aces.

Now, if you're going to claim that you didn't mean that because you said "like", then your statement is completely pointless. It boils down to "there isn't a single hand we beat, except for all the ones we beat." I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't say something so inane.

Re: 2/4 - I see monsters
 

[ QUOTE ]


Regardless, my point is this: If our river threebet is +EV, it's because our opponent has fallen into the trap of falling in love with the strength of his hand. Don't fall into that trap yourself.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]

I really loved this quote. TY SIR! I can see I will be thoroughly educated by this forum. I am a NLHE player attempting to learn Limit. I noticed there is a lot of fellow Minnesotans that post here. Good STUFF.