limit holdem

[NinaWilliams]

Main villain is 47/8/0.5, pretty loose passive. Thoughts on all streets?

Absolute Poker
Limit Omaha Ring game
Limit: $2/$4
9 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is UTG+1 with A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
UTG folds, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises</font>, 2 folds, MP3 calls, 2 folds, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (8SB, 4 players)
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="#cc0000">Hero bets</font>, MP3 folds, SB calls, BB folds.

Turn: 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (5BB, 2 players)
SB checks, <font color="#cc0000">Hero bets</font>, SB calls.

River: J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (7BB, 2 players)
SB checks, <font color="#cc0000">Hero bets</font>,

[Olrik]

i want to play limit holdem with 4 cards too!!

on a more serious note: why do you raise preflop? dont you want to invite as many players as possible in the pot?

about the river. i guess the idea is to make a thin value bet and fold to a raise?

[Rush17]

Depending on the dynamics of the table, I may have opted to limp with this hand from your spot, but I'm sure at a full table and at those limits, that you can anticipate a lot of multiway pots whether the pot is raised before the flop or not.

On the flop, with only 1 player behind you, I think I would bet your hand here, too, even though it's not a real good fit for you. And, because your game sounded like a passive one, at least you don't have to worry about getting checkraised nearly as much if the game had aggression tendencies to it.

The turn and river are must bets, too. Against an opponent who is loose/passive are the ones that I'll value bet to death, because that means that he'll pay off lightly and on those rare occasions that he does checkraise, it will no doubt be with a better hand, which will then make my next decision an easy one, as well.

[Buzz]

Hi Nina - You have a nice starting hand but miss the flop and attempt a steal.

Fine.

But then SB calls.

Hard to say what SB might have. Could be a heart draw. Could be a set or two pairs. Could be a straight draw. Could be none of those. Hard to say.

Then the turn is a seven, which could actually be good for you - and you semi-bluff. <font color="green">(Thanks for the correction Rob.)</font>

Fine.

And SB calls again. Now it looks a lot like a draw. Perhaps hearts. Perhaps a straight draw. Hard to imagine SB playing this passively with any set or top two pairs. Could be something else altogether.

Then the river is a jack, giving you two pairs, queens over jacks with an ace kicker. And Villain checks again.

Now you have to decide if Villain would call your bet with anything worse than queens over jacks with an ace kicker.

If Villain was playing two pairs, queens over fours, all along, he might. Or if he's an idiot calling station, he might. And in those two cases you'd collect an extra big bet. but if he was playing an overpair, aces or kings, all along, he'll call and you'll lose an extra big bet. Or if he made trip jacks or a full house on the river, he'll either call or check-raise. Or if you usually bet the river and then fold to a raise, you'll probably get check-raised here by anybody worth his/her salt.

I think I'd probably check the river but I don't fault your betting it.

Buzz

[donger]

Looks good to me. This seems like a pretty routine vbet if the opponent isn't tricky.

Preflop: a limp might be better.

[GaZaZaZa]

I agree with Buzz, i see no fault in betting the flop and the turn, infact i do it 99% of the time with your hands. However i dont think you get called often enough by an average to decent player, and factoring in that a tricky player would occasionally go for the check raise bluff when the board blanks out like this, to which you SHOULD ALMOST alwyas fold, for that value bet on the river to be profitable. I think if u had kings though it would be worth a stab. That being said, this situation is so player dependent, and if the opponent is a lose passive calling station, then i can see why you would bet there, i still prefer the check behind with your hand.

[RobNottsUk]

[ QUOTE ]
Now you have to decide if Villain would call your bet with anything worse than queens over jacks with an ace kicker.


[/ QUOTE ]
Or to be totally pedantic, whether that opponent would fold a better or equal hand to yours, for example K´s up or Q´s up Ace kicker. And when they call, what proportion of worse hands do they have.

As the players loose-passive and called in a raised pot, their check &amp; calls don´t mean very much, and that kind of player frequently likes to check/raise IMO if they´ve made a big hand, and is most unlikely to fold an overpair, or Q´s up.

So actually I think the river bet is flat wrong.

Furthermore semi-bluffing the turn after c-betting the flop, seems bit dubious (unless it´s a fold to 2nd shot type) as frequently they won´t bet their made hands. As 4 saw the flop, your opponent is likely to have tptk beat, and plans to check/raise a big hand on turn or river, letting the aggressive PFR do the betting (picking up more calls) for them. Even if the opponent is ´only´ drawing they are likely to have a huge number of outs (so missing a bet would be less serious). Too frequently you´ll be fixing their poor play by betting behind them, as they expect PFR´s to bluff, and have no understanding nor concern of concepts like "protecting your hand".

Whilst relentless value betting is right against such opponents, you actually should expect to have the better hand when called, not just be playing predictably and betting out of habit. Taking free cards is important to.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now you have to decide if Villain would call your bet with anything worse than queens over jacks with an ace kicker.


[/ QUOTE ]
Or to be totally pedantic, whether that opponent would fold a better or equal hand to yours, for example K´s up or Q´s up Ace kicker. And when they call, what proportion of worse hands do they have.

As the players loose-passive and called in a raised pot, their check &amp; calls don´t mean very much, and that kind of player frequently likes to check/raise IMO if they´ve made a big hand, and is most unlikely to fold an overpair, or Q´s up.

So actually I think the river bet is flat wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about call with a worse one? Like any worse Queen, Seven, Four, pocket pair, mistaken "low" or any other piece of crap that these fishy players will show down assuming you were just trying to bluff with a busted low draw? To say that a river bet is flat wrong is, well, flat wrong.

Re: the turn bet being dubious..
I think there's loads of value in the turn bet HU. The guy plays close to half his hands and rarely ever bets and raises.. he could have anything and probably has a worse low draw with a worse pair or no pair or possibly a flush draw.

A little more on betting the river:
This type of player doesn't bluff very often and only bets very good hands last to act at the river. He's probably not trying to CR this river, since most people assume that others think and play like they do. These types of players rarely bluff, so it's an easy fold if he does surprise us and CR.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Or to be totally pedantic, whether that opponent would fold a better or equal hand to yours, for example K´s up or Q´s up Ace kicker. And when they call, what proportion of worse hands do they have.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Rob - That wasn't my thinking.

I truly think Heroine has the winning hand here. But there is a possibility I am mistaken.

Against a good player, I don't think Heroine averages as much by collecting a bet when I'm right as she averages losing when I'm wrong.

However, against a poor player, Heroine collects a bet more often. And in that case she may average more by collecting than she averages losing when I’m wrong.

That's the gist of it.

I think Villain has some kind of draw or some combination of draws. After the flop, a flush draw and/or a straight draw and/or a back-door low draw come to mind. Then after the turn, a flush draw and/or a straight draw and/or a low draw come to mind.

All of these draws miss on the river. So I'm guessing Villain will probably check/fold to a bet.

But Villain could also have an over-pair to go with the draw(s) after the flop, or even two pairs, but probably not queens and jacks.

Obviously Villain doesn't have to have any such holding at all. Poker is a game of deception.

But not given the information to the contrary, I put Villain on a draw and if so, Villain missed.

Thus the question, "Does Villain pay off more than Heroine gets burned by betting?"

I wasn't seriously thinking Villain would fold a better hand to a bet. However, now that you bring it up, it is a possibility (although seemingly remote here). Heroine does give an opponent more of a chance to make a foolish mistake if she bets rather than checks. That does seem one of the valid reasons to bet the river.

For me there is a consideration that sort of opposes that valid reason to bet: I'm almost never going to bet and then fold when check-raised. Accordingly, unless I don't mind getting check-raised, I try to avoid situations where that might happen.

But both of those considerations seem relatively minor factors to me.

Buzz

[donger]

Hey, I have a guess as to who you are. Does your AP screenname rhyme?