2 big multiway razz hands

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Seemed like the pots got big in both hands because there was jamming in early streets in the unsuccessful attempt to get it HU.

I thought I might be criticized for open limping in hand 1, but my style is to open limp a lot in early position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you already know what i was going to comment on. Your putting in too much action early on in hand #1. Also you should have open-raised... everyone open limps, you should be the guy who open-raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reraise was definately correct. I assumed the 9 has two bike cards in the hole and thought my limp was weaker than it was. I also assumed the 9 would not call 2 bets. If he did, it was advantageous to me. All the reraising may reduce the skill involved in the rest of the hand, but I can't see other drawbacks.

As for the limping, that is my style. I often like to limp when there are a lot of low cards to act, so I can determine the action. I sometimes limp with marginal hands I usually call a complete with or with hands that can take no action, but are only delayed ante steals. I also limp somtimes with good hands. I think this makes my play harder to read.

I often would open raise this hand in this situation. I also sometimes open raise pure junk hands with low xards to act as a pure steal.

I think it is best to have a number of pitches and throw them in various situations, rather than throwing all fast balls.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you already know what i was going to comment on. Your putting in too much action early on in hand #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd.

Pot manipulation arguments are always a bit suspect, but even the strongest proponent of pot manipulation would not favor flat calling and letting the 9 up (!) in for the minimum price with his huge dog of a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think your good for the game. Betgo put in one too many raises, you don't really think the final raise will get the dead money to fold do you, and he is a medium favorite at best. By pumping the pot your only making it correct for your opponents to play optimally on the later streets. 347 is a meh hand at best, even vs (84)6 your only a small favorite and the tide can turn in one or two streets where you will regret the 3rd street action forever. And if Betgo open raised in these games you would never be stuck putting in so much action on the back end (I admit there is some value to open liming at times, but this is not the time and he seems to do it too often). The discussion about pot size manipulation can be found in SOP if anyone wants to read it, 3rd street chapter.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you already know what i was going to comment on. Your putting in too much action early on in hand #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd.

Pot manipulation arguments are always a bit suspect, but even the strongest proponent of pot manipulation would not favor flat calling and letting the 9 up (!) in for the minimum price with his huge dog of a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think your good for the game. Betgo put in one too many raises, you don't really think the final raise will get the dead money to fold do you, and he is a medium favorite at best. By pumping the pot your only making it correct for your opponents to play optimally on the later streets. 347 is a meh hand at best, even vs (84)6 your only a small favorite and the tide can turn in one or two streets where you will regret the 3rd street action forever. And if Betgo open raised in these games you would never be stuck putting in so much action on the back end (I admit there is some value to open liming at times, but this is not the time and he seems to do it too often). The discussion about pot size manipulation can be found in SOP if anyone wants to read it, 3rd street chapter.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't figure I had a significant advantage over the 6. I wanted to knock out the 9. I limped, the 9 raised, the 6 reraised, and I 3-bet. I assumed the 9 was something like (A2)9 and therefore dangerous, and would not call 2 additional bets (really 3 as the 6 was sure to cap).

I explained that I limp to give myself greater flexibility and to disguise my hands. People will often assume I have a 2-card starting hand and give me all sorts of action drawing dead. I also will sometimes limpreraise big hands. A lot of times I wind up heads up with the bringin and can steal the pot on 4th street with a marginal hand. I get good results with early position limps.

Also, in this case the 9 is obviously a fish, but you got all sorts of action from a junk hand with the limp that you would probably not have gotten with an open raise. I don't see that it is a bad result to get that much dead money in an essentially 2-way pot. I know you lose flexibility on later streets, but sometimes it is good to jam.

I think what Sklansky had in mind was a situation where someone raises in early position at a bunch of low cards. You have to put him on atleast a smooth 7. Now you have 234 or something. It is probably better to flat call to disguise your hand and not pot commit everyone.

Now say there has been a limp, a raise and a cold caller. Say the limper shows a 7, the raiser a 6, and the caller a 2. Say you have three bike cards and your cards are live. Then you need to reraise to knock out weaker hands or make them pay to draw. Reraising in this situation also gives you a great opportunity to win a huge pot.

I really think you are following Sklansky as Gospel and misinterpreting him. I don't think he says to avoid limping or reraising. He just gives situations where limping is bad and situations where reraising is bad.

[blumpkin]

The river calls make me cringe a little bit.

In hand 1, although the 9 is clearly a bad player, when players have poor doors they usually have the nuts in the hole. Most of the time he will have a 96 here going into the river, and he can always improve. Not only that, the other player has called in front of you, meaning he likely made his 8 (even though I guess he could be cry-calling a T here; unlikely, but the pot is huge). Because the pot is enormous, though, I don't mind the call that much.

In hand 2, even though the pot is also quite big, I just can't see calling here. Because of the 5th street action, you know Seat 8 has a draw to an 8 there. On 6th, unless he has the case A in the hole, he made the 8. Even still, the guy behind you very well could have you beat, and if Seat 8 somehow did have the case A, he could still improve. I lay this one down.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you already know what i was going to comment on. Your putting in too much action early on in hand #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd.

Pot manipulation arguments are always a bit suspect, but even the strongest proponent of pot manipulation would not favor flat calling and letting the 9 up (!) in for the minimum price with his huge dog of a hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really think your good for the game. Betgo put in one too many raises, you don't really think the final raise will get the dead money to fold do you, and he is a medium favorite at best. By pumping the pot your only making it correct for your opponents to play optimally on the later streets. 347 is a meh hand at best, even vs (84)6 your only a small favorite and the tide can turn in one or two streets where you will regret the 3rd street action forever. And if Betgo open raised in these games you would never be stuck putting in so much action on the back end (I admit there is some value to open liming at times, but this is not the time and he seems to do it too often). The discussion about pot size manipulation can be found in SOP if anyone wants to read it, 3rd street chapter.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is so much hand-waving nonsense here. Should I even bother?

Going back at least to the publication of HFAP weak players have misused the concept of pot-manipulation to justify passive play.

If you really think your EV is higher by keeping the pot to ~7.5 rather ~13.5 bets on 3rd when you hold a smooth 7 against a 9 up (!!) and a guy whose range may be as weak as any 9 or better (and is certainly not stronger than any 8 or better)... you are probably too much in love with your own confused interpretation of Sklansky to listen to an actual argument from logic.

Let me put it this way, I'll lay 2:1 on any reasonable $ amount that your Divine Authority (Sklansky) will agree with me that flat-calling here is a misapplication of the concept of pot manipulation and that jamming is clearly correct.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
The river calls make me cringe a little bit.

In hand 1, although the 9 is clearly a bad player, when players have poor doors they usually have the nuts in the hole. Most of the time he will have a 96 here going into the river, and he can always improve. Not only that, the other player has called in front of you, meaning he likely made his 8 (even though I guess he could be cry-calling a T here; unlikely, but the pot is huge). Because the pot is enormous, though, I don't mind the call that much.

In hand 2, even though the pot is also quite big, I just can't see calling here. Because of the 5th street action, you know Seat 8 has a draw to an 8 there. On 6th, unless he has the case A in the hole, he made the 8. Even still, the guy behind you very well could have you beat, and if Seat 8 somehow did have the case A, he could still improve. I lay this one down.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wasn't happy about either river call. Obviously, I am not ahead often, but with the pots that big I only need to be ahead a small percentage of the time.

[halhal]

[ QUOTE ]
There is so much hand-waving nonsense here. Should I even bother?

Going back at least to the publication of HFAP weak players have misused the concept of pot-manipulation to justify passive play.

If you really think your EV is higher by keeping the pot to ~7.5 rather ~13.5 bets on 3rd when you hold a smooth 7 against a 9 up (!!) and a guy whose range may be as weak as any 9 or better (and is certainly not stronger than any 8 or better)... you are probably too much in love with your own confused interpretation of Sklansky to listen to an actual argument from logic.

Let me put it this way, I'll lay 2:1 on any reasonable $ amount that your Divine Authority (Sklansky) will agree with me that flat-calling here is a misapplication of the concept of pot manipulation and that jamming is clearly correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got agree with you here. When you KNOW you have the best hand you gotta jam. You are also giving yourself the rights odds to call if you draw bad and your opponent draws good on 4th.(which if you have a great hand anyway, could be a call on 4th even if it was only raised once on 3rd - say your opponent now shows 89)

It is those times when you don't know what you are up against, or where your starters are probably close to each other where neither is a big favorite pre-flop, that you might just call and then fold on 4th if you draw bad and your opponent draws good.

Otherwise, reraise when you KNOW you have the best hand and what will happen? If you both draw bad or draw good, you're still ahead with more money in the pot. If you draw good and he draws bad, you're even more ahead with more money in the pot or the possibility of slow-playing and trying to get bigger bets on later streets. So about 25% of the time you will draw bad and he will draw good and you'll be behind or close to even if he started with a 9. You don't want to give your opponent the chance to FOLD correctly if there was no reraise on 3rd, that 75% or more of the time you are ahead.

Also, in a multi-way pot, if you had four players seeing 4th for one bet each, the low board bets, and two of them fold, you might consider calling if you catch bad, because of the dead money in the pot: i.e. the pot is the same size as if there was a re-raise on 3rd and you were heads up.

[Jim T]

Put it into Twodimes, and hero has .437 pot equity on 3rd. Even if the idiot with the 9 had A2 in the hole, hero still would have had equity of .416.

This is why I really don't understand any critiques on hero's raise. It looks like a really good time to get as much money in as possible to me. You would expect to get it heads up vs the 6 with the 9 up's dead money as a bonus the vast majority of the time - and since the 9 made another big mistake by calling the double bet, you don't exactly mind him coming along either.

If 9 folded (and assuming other low just called), you'd have about 4.3 SB equity for the 3 you'd have invested. As played, you have almost 6 SB equity for the 4 invested.

Sure, hero caught the worst of the 3 4th street cards and was forced to call 4 bets as a dog, but he STILL has almost .300 equity plus may have position the rest of the hand.

On 5th he had to be about ready to throw a party, especially with the uber-fish betting into him. Unfortunately he blanked on 6th and 7th. That doesn't mean that his play was bad.

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
On 5th he had to be about ready to throw a party, especially with the uber-fish betting into him. Unfortunately he blanked on 6th and 7th. That doesn't mean that his play was bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said

[HOWMANY]

[ QUOTE ]
The river calls make me cringe a little bit.


[/ QUOTE ]

But the pot is sooooooooooooooooooo big in both of them.