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

[Kevin J]

[ 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.

[flawless_victory]

[ 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)?

[Kevin J]

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.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ 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!

[siegfriedandroy]

[ 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)

[siegfriedandroy]

[ 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?

[Paluka]

[ 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.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ 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?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ 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?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ 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.