Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

[ QUOTE ]
you've been playing professionally for 3 years at 2/5NL, and you're posting in a forum asking strangers with (as far as you know) zero credentials for advice on how to play top pair.


Your probably right. I should not be coming here for advice. But I like to see how other people see it. Being pro and not trying improve is the worst thing you can do. You should always be trying to improve and evaluate your play and not get a big head like "Oh here come Jon to take all our money" and get a big head. I'm very critical of every play not only I lose, but even when I win a hand I ask myself "did I play this for maximum value or could I have gotten more money?" At any rate my last sessions were winning sessions, $350 & $600 respectively so I'm finally out of my slump. Thanks for the thoughts guys.

something isnt right there.

[/ QUOTE ] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

move all in on the flop, top pair weak kicker is a very strong hand and should be protected.

Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note- 3 years of pro poker and 3 losing sessions in a row is the worst downswing you've had?? I'd say you should just keep doing whatever you're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to say the same thing.

This situation is c/f for me almost 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]


You guys don't actually believe OP when he says his longest losing session is 3 do you?

Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

[ QUOTE ]
Worse advice I have ever heard. He must be running real good if he makes 50K per year playing 2/5 nl poker. Tell me, when do you ever want a worse hand than yours to fold. He is correct about one thing, against two players your hand is less likely to win than against one of them, however the pots you do win be be much larger. This actually has a name,it is called "schooling" but is normally reserved for many more oponnents in the hand against you than just two.

This is only a variation of: do you want anyone to fold to your preflop raise when you have pocket aces?



Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimbo, OP said 5 callers to the flop bet. This is a school. The previous post was just expanding the OP example to be inclusive of even fewer players.

Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

[ QUOTE ]
......I get 5 limpers and I'm in the small blind with 89S so of course I elect to play. Flop comes out 934 with to diamonds. There was $25 in the pot and with two draws and 5 people I elected to punish the chasing calling stations and bet the pot $25. Of course everyone calls. The turn is a off 5, I bet again and everyone calls. The river is another off 5 and I check...........

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking that you forgot to think about why you entered the pot to begin with. You had a plan maybe? I'm thinking it was not to play a big pot with a top pair of 9's against a large field of players. You played it to hit 2 pair or better or a straight that was hidden so you could let mister maniac bluff off his chips to you then stick him in the side with a big raise on the end. You had likely been sitting there a long time trying to do that. The hand did not work out that way from the very beginning yet you persisted with it.

I think most of the time you need to keep in mind why you entered the pot to begin with. Obviously adjustments are required from time to time however I think players adjust and keep on with a hand like this way too often.

Dave

Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had a friend who makes around $50,000 a year playing $2-$5 ... he is a pro and makes far more money than anyone at the casino.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Steve Wynn 2-5 no limit..."
"Steve Wynn 2-5 no limit?"
"Last call. Steve Wynn 2-5 no limit?"
"Bobby Baldwin 2-5 no limit?"

Re: Poker Pro: Almost always slow play top pair????
 

[ QUOTE ]

...and then you are out of position for the entire hand, and if you bet you are likely to bloat the pot with very, very marginal holding.


[/ QUOTE ]