Caesars Palace 2-5: $2,000 Pot, Turn and River Check-raises

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just interested in winning.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, ok, try asking some of the huge winners in hsnl whether raising is an important part of their game. you're insane if you think this tight-passive strategy you're employing will win you the most money.

[Reef]

you misplayed this hand so badly it's not even funny. I call river.

[mikech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's about 20X easier to read hands when you take the betting lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In fact, I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

This is really a seperate discussion. But, I don't agree with the idea of betting to "define your hand". I don't want to define my hand. That lets my opponents know what I've got. I want my opponents hands defined and mine to remain unclear to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
raising only defines your hand because YOU SO RARELY RAISE. if you sometimes raise with tptk, sometimes with a draw, sometimes with a set, sometimes with air, then how does raising "define your hand"? you are fundamentally misguided in your thinking here.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty,

With all due respect, you should really study some basic NL theory. There's a lot of nice posts in SSNL for limit aplayers transitioning to NL.

A lot of people are arguing about whether the river fold is correct or not. Who cares, it's probably marginal no matter which way you favor. The point is, you should never have had to make that decision, if you had played the hand more optimally.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you considered that it may be different in NL? (For that matter, have you considered that perhaps the knowledgable posters who are thrashing your line may be right?) Yes, your hand was very disguised, yes, it looked like a weak hand, and look, he blew you right off of it. You wouldn't have lost a 400bb pot if you had defined your hand.

I don't think you EVER bet to "define your hand" in NL. But if you want "your opponents hands defined", you really need to bet. It almost worked out in this situation (I guess a case can be made for river fold being correct as played), but playing so passively probably won't get you too far.

I hope my tone isn't condescending, I apologize if it is. I do think your tone is too condescending though, stop defending your play like it is gospel, because most of the people who actually play this game think it sucks. Given that, you have to realize that there is a non-trivial probability that you have a lot to learn at NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Rocaix]

[ QUOTE ]


I disagree. In fact, I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

This is really a seperate discussion. But, I don't agree with the idea of betting to "define your hand". I don't want to define my hand. That lets my opponents know what I've got. I want my opponents hands defined and mine to remain unclear to them.

[/ QUOTE ]


If raising PF and making a continuation bet means you've defined your hand, it actually means you've been playing like a uber calling station.

One of the basic tenets in Theory of Poker was that the player who takes the betting lead will usually have a wider range than someone who's doing the calling. If the reverse is true, then consider the fact that your being too passive in general.

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

This is really a seperate discussion. But, I don't agree with the idea of betting to "define your hand". I don't want to define my hand. That lets my opponents know what I've got. I want my opponents hands defined and mine to remain unclear to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dynasty, the problem with your style is that you essentially have to be able to show down every time you want to win a pot. Do you see how difficult it will be to be a consistent winner if you are relying only on showdowns?

[Daliman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've often found it easier to read opponents when I allow them to take the lead. More importantly, it becomes very difficult to read my hand in these situations.

This is really a seperate discussion. But, I don't agree with the idea of betting to "define your hand". I don't want to define my hand. That lets my opponents know what I've got. I want my opponents hands defined and mine to remain unclear to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dynasty, the problem with your style is that you essentially have to be able to show down every time you want to win a pot. Do you see how difficult it will be to be a consistent winner if you are relying only on showdowns?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. Almost all winning NL players make their $$$ by taking down pots, not showing down winners, which is completely different from ring limit in mos tcases.

[soah]

In games with lots of very loose/predictible players that strategy is not too bad. I am certain you can beat live low stakes full ring games without ever raising preflop. It may not be optimal, but it can't be too far off. Trying to bulldoze your way through hands with missed overcards against people that chase any piece of the board can get pretty expensive... these are the types that will still pay you off just as much in limped pots when you do flop the best hand so there is no great importance to building up pots preflop with small edges and gaining useless initiative.

[Thremp]

DS would be proud of you being this big of a nit.

[yvesaint]

the fact is, you got into this situation of folding the best hand BECAUSE you played it so passively. you should have been raising the flop, turn, and river, regardless of whether the LAG was "shuffling" his chips or whatever. the old lady CALLS DOWN even when she has a marginal hand!! so why wouldnt you raise?