Online Poker Journal

[st.cronin]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

st.cronin ($40.15)
UTG ($24.65)
MP ($18)
CO ($3.70)
Button ($7.50)
SB ($31.40)

Preflop: st.cronin is BB with K, J.
4 folds, SB raises to $0.5, st.cronin calls $0.25.

Flop: ($1.10) 4, 7, J (2 players)
SB bets $0.75, st.cronin calls $0.75.

Turn: ($2.60) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, st.cronin checks.

River: ($2.60) 9 (2 players)
SB bets $0.75, st.cronin calls $0.75.

Final Pot: $4.10

[primelord]

Originally Posted by digamma

The only thing I'd question is your bet size. You got to see the flop for free and you took a stab at it post flop. If raised or called, you were likely going to be done with the hand. However, you could have likely won the hand with a bet of 200-250. In sit & go's chips matter a whole lot more than in cash games or even multi-table tournaments. That makes getting the right bet size crucial and not putting chips at risk unnecessarily.

dig's advice here holds true even though, given the chip stacks of the people at the table, this is clearly an MTT and not a SnG. On a dry board like this a 1/2 to 2/3 pot bet will accomplish the same thing as your nearly full pot bet, with less risk to you.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

st.cronin ($40.15)
UTG ($24.65)
MP ($18)
CO ($3.70)
Button ($7.50)
SB ($31.40)

Preflop: st.cronin is BB with K, J.
4 folds, SB raises to $0.5, st.cronin calls $0.25.

Flop: ($1.10) 4, 7, J (2 players)
SB bets $0.75, st.cronin calls $0.75.

Turn: ($2.60) 8 (2 players)
SB checks, st.cronin checks.

River: ($2.60) 9 (2 players)
SB bets $0.75, st.cronin calls $0.75.

Final Pot: $4.10

This entire hand is played WAY too passively. The SB min raises you pre-flop. Unless you ahve seen him do that as his std raise then this eitehr means he has crap and is hoping just to steal your blind (most likely) or he has a monster hand and doesn't want you to fold (not nearly as likely). Either way you have position on him in a heads-up pot with a resonable hand. You need to re pop him pre here.

I am not sure why you just called the flop. That's a pretty darn good flop for your hand. There is no reason not to believe you are ahead at this point so raise it up. With the hearts and possible streaight draws out there let's not let him get to the turn too cheaply either.

Again I am not sure why you aren't betting this turn. Yes the board is scarier than it was, but there is still no reason to believe you are not ahead here. On the river with the way you played it I guess just calling is fine. You let virtually every possible draw get there cheaply by the river. You should be playing this much stronger earlier in the hand.

[st.cronin]

Bankroll: $88.88, have 245 fpp, need 500 to get the $50 bonus. I've been consistently beating the low-limit ring games, up to .10/.25 today. Tourney play has been a little more spotty, especially outside the 1.20 9 man sngs, which I find I can routinely cash in.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by primelord

dig's advice here holds true even though, given the chip stacks of the people at the table, this is clearly an MTT and not a SnG. On a dry board like this a 1/2 to 2/3 pot bet will accomplish the same thing as your nearly full pot bet, with less risk to you.

smarty pants

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by primelord

This entire hand is played WAY too passively. The SB min raises you pre-flop. Unless you ahve seen him do that as his std raise then this eitehr means he has crap and is hoping just to steal your blind (most likely) or he has a monster hand and doesn't want you to fold (not nearly as likely). Either way you have position on him in a heads-up pot with a resonable hand. You need to re pop him pre here.

I am not sure why you just called the flop. That's a pretty darn good flop for your hand. There is no reason not to believe you are ahead at this point so raise it up. With the hearts and possible streaight draws out there let's not let him get to the turn too cheaply either.

Again I am not sure why you aren't betting this turn. Yes the board is scarier than it was, but there is still no reason to believe you are not ahead here. On the river with the way you played it I guess just calling is fine. You let virtually every possible draw get there cheaply by the river. You should be playing this much stronger earlier in the hand.

I think I agree with this. A re-raise either pre or post flop would have been ideal.

[st.cronin]

Online bankroll is now over $100.

Expanding this at my girlfriend's request to include casino adventures as well.

Yesterday I won @ $475 in a 1-2 nl game at the Sandia Resort & Casino. At one point I was up quite a bit more than that, but went out on a bit of a downturn (much to her chagrin). I don't really have details on my play, except that I did win a couple midsize pots when I caught a straight on the river, and won a big pot when I threw a big bet at a flop of KQx with pocket Js. The last folder turned over K10, which made me feel like Mr. Giant Balls. The online work definitely helped out - I made some profitable plays that I picked up playing the microstakes games.

[st.cronin]

Experiencing some "variance" this morning, currently down to about 70. I don't think I'm playing well.

[st.cronin]

This has been happening all morning:

PokerStars Game #18742754489: Hold'em No Limit ($0.10/$0.25) - 2008/07/11 - 13:33:15 (ET)
Table 'Siegena V' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: BobbyCooper1 ($23.95 in chips)
Seat 2: frzbfw ($14.40 in chips)
Seat 3: st.cronin ($16.05 in chips)
Seat 4: Marinus_Gr ($59 in chips)
Seat 5: roland1952 ($25.70 in chips)
Seat 6: nazareneoh ($26.10 in chips)
Seat 7: 2.Thijs1987 ($15.10 in chips)
Seat 8: MomentumMo ($12.10 in chips)
Seat 9: Horstus ($25 in chips)
2.Thijs1987: posts small blind $0.10
MomentumMo: posts big blind $0.25
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to st.cronin [8d 8c]
Horstus: folds
BobbyCooper1: folds
frzbfw: folds
st.cronin: raises $0.60 to $0.85
Marinus_Gr: folds
roland1952: folds
nazareneoh: calls $0.85
2.Thijs1987: folds
MomentumMo: calls $0.60
*** FLOP *** [Ac 2c 7d]
MomentumMo: checks
st.cronin: bets $2
nazareneoh: calls $2
MomentumMo: calls $2
*** TURN *** [Ac 2c 7d] [Qc]
MomentumMo: checks
st.cronin: bets $7
nazareneoh: raises $7 to $14
MomentumMo: folds
st.cronin: folds
Uncalled bet ($7) returned to nazareneoh
nazareneoh collected $21.55 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $22.65 | Rake $1.10
Board [Ac 2c 7d Qc]
Seat 1: BobbyCooper1 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: frzbfw folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 3: st.cronin folded on the Turn
Seat 4: Marinus_Gr folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: roland1952 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: nazareneoh (button) collected ($21.55)
Seat 7: 2.Thijs1987 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: MomentumMo (big blind) folded on the Turn
Seat 9: Horstus folded before Flop (didn't bet)

[Cap Ologist]

Warning bells should have gone off when 2 people called your $2 bet on the flop. With an ace on the board, you have to think someone paired it. Then you're only option is going after the flush draw, so I probably would have checked and hoped for either a free card or a small bet to call. Since you were willing to bet out on the turn, you probably could have seen the river for $7 or less with the check on the turn. Just my $.02.

[Marmel]

I struggle with those middle pairs and never know if I should even play them in middle position. I suppose in what should be a loose game, it is worth playing, but then should you have raised so much?, or limped...I just am never sure. I would like to hear some opinions on that.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I struggle with those middle pairs and never know if I should even play them in middle position. I suppose in what should be a loose game, it is worth playing, but then should you have raised so much?, or limped...I just am never sure. I would like to hear some opinions on that.

Barring any weird raise-reraise situations in front of you a middle pair in middle position is a powerfull hand that you should always play.

If you flop a set your hand is usualy disguised and you can usualy win a big pot. The key is after the flop having the discipline to throw it away when overcards come out.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Barring any weird raise-reraise situations in front of you a middle pair in middle position is a powerfull hand that you should always play.

If you flop a set your hand is usualy disguised and you can usualy win a big pot. The key is after the flop having the discipline to throw it away when overcards come out.

This makes sense to me. Do you limp in with the pair or raise if there were no raises in front of you?

[JeffW]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Mostly the result, but I think I played it right, too. I guess the check on the end could be questioned.

You have the best hand around 99.99% of the time, so checking sucks.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This I agree with, and that was a bit of an odd move for me. I'll defend it by saying I like to mix my play up, to confuse anybody who might be paying attention to how I play different hands.

Your other comments are well taken.

Mixing up your play in a $1 SnG to confuse your opponents is just silly. They were confused when they sat down. Don't get fancy play syndrome and make -ev plays in the sake of throwing your opponents off. It isn't worth it at those levels.

[st.cronin]

+278 at the live game yesterday, down to aabout 35 online. I play worse online, for sure - I think its easier to make dumb decisions when you've got 15 dollars at stake as opposed to 200 dollars at stake.

Here's a hand I'd like some feedback on:

5 9 offsuit in the small blind, there were I think 5 callers, so I have 13-1 odds to see the flop. Question - in the small blind and on the button, are there ever pot odds so good that you'll see the flop no matter how bad your hand is?

Flop is Q 6 8 rainbow, I am first to act. Question: Check or bet? And if bet, how much?

I bet 10. It is folded to the button who calls. Turn is 2. Question: Check or bet?

I check, button checks, I eventually win the pot when 7 comes on the river (button had AK suited) but am not sure I played it right (I am quite sure that the player on the button played it all wrong, luckily for me).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

5 9 offsuit in the small blind, there were I think 5 callers, so I have 13-1 odds to see the flop. Question - in the small blind and on the button, are there ever pot odds so good that you'll see the flop no matter how bad your hand is?

Flop is Q 6 8 rainbow, I am first to act. Question: Check or bet? And if bet, how much?

I bet 10. It is folded to the button who calls. Turn is 2. Question: Check or bet?

I check, button checks, I eventually win the pot when 7 comes on the river (button had AK suited) but am not sure I played it right (I am quite sure that the player on the button played it all wrong, luckily for me).

Hard to say what was best given the information above. At first glance, I wouldn't even think about putting out $10 on the flop unless you had a really good idea that all the other players were passive and would fold to your agression. The chances that a Q or 8 is out there in a 5 way limped pot are decent. I just could find a lot better places to put in $10. But maybe you thought the other players were extremely passive players.

I'd agree that he played the hand very badly. I would have raised on the button without question with AK.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

+278 at the live game yesterday, down to aabout 35 online. I play worse online, for sure - I think its easier to make dumb decisions when you've got 15 dollars at stake as opposed to 200 dollars at stake.

Here's a hand I'd like some feedback on:

5 9 offsuit in the small blind, there were I think 5 callers, so I have 13-1 odds to see the flop. Question - in the small blind and on the button, are there ever pot odds so good that you'll see the flop no matter how bad your hand is?

Flop is Q 6 8 rainbow, I am first to act. Question: Check or bet? And if bet, how much?

I bet 10. It is folded to the button who calls. Turn is 2. Question: Check or bet?

I check, button checks, I eventually win the pot when 7 comes on the river (button had AK suited) but am not sure I played it right (I am quite sure that the player on the button played it all wrong, luckily for me).

We need to know what the blinds were in order to help you. You said you bet 10, but that is meaningless when we don't know how much money is in the pot in the first place. I am going to assume for the moment that it is a $1/$2 NL game. So that puts $14 in the pot pre.

To answer your first question, yes in a NL game I would probably call with pretty much any two cards from the SB getting 13-1, as long as I was fairly certain the BB would not raise. The squeeze play is all the rage these days and it is not uncommon at all for the BB to put in a big raise after all those limpers (you could have considered squeezing yourself).

What is your flop bet meant to accomplish? You aren't betting for value here since there is 0 chance you ahve the best hand. There is no reason to try and thin out the field since you want a big pot if you snag a 7. You might also get raised big and have to throw your hand away. There is really no reason to be this flop. Check and see how the action goes.

[st.cronin]

You are right primelord, it was a 1/2 game.

Down 100 today at the live game. Got all my money into a big pot with AA, opponent had 66, flopped a set. Not happy with the result, but really that's a dream scenario.

[st.cronin]

This hand was fun:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t20 (8 handed) Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

CO (t1500)
Button (t1490)
SB (t1480)
Hero (t1500)
UTG (t1500)
UTG+1 (t1500)
MP1 (t3030)
MP2 (t1500)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9, 9.
2 folds, MP1 calls t20, 3 folds, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: (t60) 7, 9, T (3 players)
SB bets t20, Hero calls t20, MP1 calls t20.

Turn: (t120) 8 (3 players)
SB bets t160, Hero calls t160, MP1 calls t160.

River: (t600) T (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t1300 (All-In), MP1 calls t1300, SB calls t1280 (All-In).

Final Pot: t4480

sb had 10x, mp1 had a straight

[flere-imsaho]

Evil.

[Marmel]

Those are the type of hands that I love so much. Similar to a hand I had last night at the casino in a sit and go. I was in the BB with 75o (no raises) and the flop came 468, turn A, river K. Had somebody betting into me all the way, finally going all in on the river with her two pair AK. I finished in 2nd place.

[st.cronin]

I am back up to @ 115 online. I've tightened up my post-flop play a lot, especially in early position.

[st.cronin]

This is what I have come up with as standard play from the blinds if I see the flop: Check, even if I have the nuts. Chances are somebody else will bet eventually, so if you have a good hand you're about as likely to get paid by checking as by not checking.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Marmel

This makes sense to me. Do you limp in with the pair or raise if there were no raises in front of you?

with no raises in front of you raise about 3X the BB

[st.cronin]

My current thinking is if you're going to play a hand you raise preflop. The exception is if there are already more than 2 limpers, then call.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

My current thinking is if you're going to play a hand you raise preflop. The exception is if there are already more than 2 limpers, then call.

that is a very broad generalization

[hoopsguy]

I find myself being first in with a limp more often than I should at low-money NL tables (6-handed). I'm trying to correct this by always coming in with a raise - no exceptions.

About once an hour I find myself breaking this rule (usually playing two tables at a time, so maybe once per 150 hands) but that is the my current thought process.

[larrymcg421]

I think it depends on the table. I play at lower limits and sometimes it's a limpfest. In these cases, I will limp with suited connectors or low pockets, because one limp will lead to lots of limps behind. This gives you good odds on your drawing hand. Of course, you can use this to be aggressive in late position. With lots of limpers, I'll sometimes move in with a medium pocket pair because I'll get good odds if someone calls for a race.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by hoopsguy

I find myself being first in with a limp more often than I should at low-money NL tables (6-handed). I'm trying to correct this by always coming in with a raise - no exceptions.

About once an hour I find myself breaking this rule (usually playing two tables at a time, so maybe once per 150 hands) but that is the my current thought process.

Actually the main reason I have employed the always raise strategy is because it seems like, in live games, limping is a bad tell that you have a marginal hand - suited connectors or a low pair, for example. By always raising people can't easily put you on those hands as opposed to something like AK.

It seems like the exception to this is if there are already a couple of limpers, then its customary to keep the chain going.

Edit: this is for cash games only, I think for tournaments limping makes a lot more sense.

[st.cronin]

+160 in a live game today. Observation: Players are more likely to pay you off for a straight as opposed to a flush. In fact, I think a straight is the easiest way to get paid in live games.

[st.cronin]

@ 98 online
+ 400 in two sessions at live games

The live games are obviously easier for me. I think this is because its easier for me to focus, whereas when I'm playing online I'm often distracted by other things, like telephone, tv, dog, etc.

There are a few players I see almost every time I go to the casino that I have some notes on:

"old joe" - Older guy, plays the role of a cranky bastard. Very hard for me to read, makes big bets and big bluffs. The one time I remember going head to head with him we both had AQ. Generally I stay out of his way because I have a hard time figuring out his hand.

"r.j" - another older guy, plays kind of like me - cautious, likes to play only when he has a strong hand. Pretty easy for me to read.

"moy" - asian lady, total goofball. Typical pre-flop raise is 10 bbs, which could indicate anything. She tends to be an atm machine for other players, although I haven't really had an opportunity to take her money.

"sunglasses" - pretty solid tight player, but hates to call big bets (big in terms of $, not pot odds). Can be pushed off a good hand.

"muscles" - loose player who gets in a lot of pots, seems to be pretty good postflop. Doesn't read me well at all, I've taken several big pots from him simply by betting with a strong hand and getting called. Probably hates me.

[st.cronin]

I had one irritating situation happen to me a couple of days ago.

In the big blind, I had KK. There were 5 or 6 limpers, including the small blind. I was trying to figure out how much to bet, and the dealer starts to deal the flop. I said "hey I didn't check!" She apologized, I bet 20, everybody folded. I wasn't sure how pissed I should be.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is what I have come up with as standard play from the blinds if I see the flop: Check, even if I have the nuts. Chances are somebody else will bet eventually, so if you have a good hand you're about as likely to get paid by checking as by not checking.

After playing with this a bit, there are obviously certain flops where this is not ideal. Also I don't think this really works in tournaments except in rare situations. However, in 1-2 live cash games, checking and reraising can be a profitable play.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

In the big blind, I had KK. There were 5 or 6 limpers, including the small blind. I was trying to figure out how much to bet, and the dealer starts to deal the flop. I said "hey I didn't check!" She apologized, I bet 20, everybody folded. I wasn't sure how pissed I should be.

Make sure you state clearly that you intend to raise. The dealer should acknowledge that and give you time to count out your bet.


For the earlier discussion on raising preflop, I don't think there is anything wrong with a hard and fast rule that if you're going to play a pot, and you are the first one in, ALWAYS raise. If you're not the first one in, then tons of other factors come into play, but first in limping I think is generally a sign of a weak player making a weak play.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Radii

For the earlier discussion on raising preflop, I don't think there is anything wrong with a hard and fast rule that if you're going to play a pot, and you are the first one in, ALWAYS raise. If you're not the first one in, then tons of other factors come into play, but first in limping I think is generally a sign of a weak player making a weak play.

It's silly to have a set rule of never open limping at a live full ring NL table. For example is you are sitting at a table that regularly has 4 or 5 people see the flop and pre-flop play is pretty passive, then it would be silly not to open limp a hand like 44 in EP.

This of course doesn't just apply to live games, but the type of table I described can be found more easily live than online. The other thing being missed here is that it often doesn't matter if some of the players at the table are reading you for a marginal hand when you limp in early. They often will go ahead and stack off to you anyway when they make their TPTK hand. They make huge mistakes post-flop despite having a decent idea of your range.

Also if you find that every time you limp in from early position with a weak hand that you are getting raised, just mix in a few limp re-raises with your big hands as well. Paying 3-5 BBs to see a flop out of position with a small pair or suited connector is often not worth it and just flat out folding all of those hands from early position is often just giving up ev.

[st.cronin]

I think the most compelling argument for always raising, and always raising the same amount, is that it reduces the number of decisions you have to make, thus reducing the number of possible ways you can make a mistake. It makes the process a single question: Do I play this hand? Instead of: Do I play this hand? Do I raise or limp? How much do I raise?

I understand the arguments for mixing in limps, but I think I'm much more comfortable making some of those decisions automatic.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think the most compelling argument for always raising, and always raising the same amount, is that it reduces the number of decisions you have to make, thus reducing the number of possible ways you can make a mistake. It makes the process a single question: Do I play this hand? Instead of: Do I play this hand? Do I raise or limp? How much do I raise?

I understand the arguments for mixing in limps, but I think I'm much more comfortable making some of those decisions automatic.

Except for the fact that there are times, especially in a NL game, where open raising and folding are both a mistake. It's pretty silly to sit down in a NL game with the idea that no matter how the table plays I am going to do X every time. I am not saying you won't end up doing X every time or that it won't have been correct to have done X every time. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be thinking before hand about the situations where it does not make sense to do that.

It's good to be thinking about playing your hands in ways that give you easy decisions and your opponents tough decisions. That is a good plan of attack. However making -ev plays just because you don't want to have to put any thought into the situation is not a good plan at all.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by primelord

It's silly to have a set rule of never open limping at a live full ring NL table. For example is you are sitting at a table that regularly has 4 or 5 people see the flop and pre-flop play is pretty passive, then it would be silly not to open limp a hand like 44 in EP.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Too much 6-max

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by primelord

Except for the fact that there are times, especially in a NL game, where open raising and folding are both a mistake. It's pretty silly to sit down in a NL game with the idea that no matter how the table plays I am going to do X every time. I am not saying you won't end up doing X every time or that it won't have been correct to have done X every time. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be thinking before hand about the situations where it does not make sense to do that.

It's good to be thinking about playing your hands in ways that give you easy decisions and your opponents tough decisions. That is a good plan of attack. However making -ev plays just because you don't want to have to put any thought into the situation is not a good plan at all.

How is always openraising -ev? I am reading Harrington's book on cash games, and he seems to argue just the opposite, that openraising is mathematically sound, but that for other reasons it may not be the best policy. (I am not sure I completely understand his argument, by the way.)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

How is always openraising -ev? I am reading Harrington's book on cash games, and he seems to argue just the opposite, that openraising is mathematically sound, but that for other reasons it may not be the best policy. (I am not sure I completely understand his argument, by the way.)

Primelord's reply to my post I tihnk is exactly right. There are loose full ring games where you can feel *very* confident that you're going 5 handed to the flop without a raise in most cases. You don't want to play 87s for a raise from early position, but you'd love to go 5 way to the flop for 1 big bet. The same goes for small pairs that in early position you would often raise or fold, but in loose games with little raising, limping is the best play. Balancing this with a rare limp-reraise is effective.

My first reply was a bit too pigeon-holed into the games that I play most, 6-max online games.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

How is always openraising -ev? I am reading Harrington's book on cash games, and he seems to argue just the opposite, that openraising is mathematically sound, but that for other reasons it may not be the best policy. (I am not sure I completely understand his argument, by the way.)

Let's be clear here. I am not suggesting that you should be open limping a lot. I merely was making the point that open raising in every situation without taking the type of table into consideration is a mistake.

I like the HOC books, but I don't think everything he talks about is completely applicable to 1/2 live NL games and .10/.25 online NL games. Quik and I had a discussion the other day about using your second hand on your watch to help randomize your play. In pure theory that is a good thing I think. However at your general 1/2 live table full of loose passive level 1 thinkers, you are just passing on ev for no reason by not raising your big hands.

The always open raising fits here as well. Harrington says that if you make certain assumptions about your table, you can mathematically prove that open raising is superior to open limping all of the time. However he doesn't go into detail about what the assumptions are that need to be made there. I contend that you have to assume that if you are going to raise 44 UTG, that you aren't going to get called by 4 people behind you. Otherwise you are paying too much money to see a flop with a marginal hand out of position.

So you could then argue that you could just fold the 44 in that spot. However if the table is passive (again a common characteristic of 1/2 live games) and you can get those same 4 people to call for just a limp, you are passing up ev if you fold.

When you raise pre-flop you can be doing so for a number of reasons. You may be raising for value, you may be raising to try and thin the field, you may be raising because your table plays very weak tight post flop and by taking the initative you can win more than your share of post unimproved by C betting the flop. At a loose passive table none of those things apply with a hand like 44 in early position. You aren't raising your 4s for value, you aren't going to be able to thin the field often and because of that rarely take down a pot unimproved on the flop betting into multiple opponents.

[hoopsguy]

Originally Posted by Radii

Yeah, you're absolutely right. Too much 6-max

Ditto.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Radii

Primelord's reply to my post I tihnk is exactly right. There are loose full ring games where you can feel *very* confident that you're going 5 handed to the flop without a raise in most cases. You don't want to play 87s for a raise from early position, but you'd love to go 5 way to the flop for 1 big bet. The same goes for small pairs that in early position you would often raise or fold, but in loose games with little raising, limping is the best play. Balancing this with a rare limp-reraise is effective.

My first reply was a bit too pigeon-holed into the games that I play most, 6-max online games.

Ok, this I understand. I have played at tables where limping was trendy, but I still would not play a hand like 87 or 44 out of position, even if it was cheap. I might limp with those hands in late position or as the SB, but that's a different decision - once the pot is opened, the way I evaluate my hand changes. I may be giving up the odd chance at a big pot, but there's just too much that can go wrong.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Ok, this I understand. I have played at tables where limping was trendy, but I still would not play a hand like 87 or 44 out of position, even if it was cheap. I might limp with those hands in late position or as the SB, but that's a different decision - once the pot is opened, the way I evaluate my hand changes. I may be giving up the odd chance at a big pot, but there's just too much that can go wrong.

The problem I encounter with this (i.e. limping with 87 or 44 out of position on a loose, limp-happy table) is that it seems most of the time I see crap on the flop (to be expected, I believe) and so I fold, leading me to increasingly feel like I'm just blinding myself away. Raising just seems to exacerbate the problem.

[st.cronin]

Well, raising at least allows the possibility of the table folding, giving you the blinds. But a hand like that I would almost never open the betting with unless I was D or SB. I would be tempted to call if there were 2 or more limpers already - in that case you at least have some position working for you, to go along with some pot odds.

[st.cronin]

+ $158 yesterday at Sandia. Those tables are such easy money.

Down to about $75 online. Shopping around for a different room (currently use pokerstars), am considering superbook, there's a nice deposit bonus for them at beatthefish.

Pokerstars is good but it seems more geared to the tournament players. I will continue to dabble in tournaments, as they are fun, but they are just not profitable for me.

[Marmel]

I hope you don't mind me piggy backing a bit in here. Barry Greenstein was slummin' it up (or perhaps rebuilding his roll ) at a $10 buy in no-limit table on Stars this weekend and I took a $0.90 pot off of him. My own Rounders moment.

I also won a $5, 45 player sit and go tournament for $84. I deposited $50 bucks a few weeks ago to play in the FOFC tournament and my account is up to $330 now. Go me. I've always been able to grind out a small win most sessions, but I am starting to take the game a little more serious lately. Hell, I even read a few books by that Slansky guy. I wish the casino was a bit closer because I really like playing live games so much better, and like you, I find it is infinitly more profitable.

[st.cronin]

I've looked at Sklansky's books, they seem to be a bit much. I've finished Harrington's vol 1 on cash games, found it very helpful and easy to understand.

[st.cronin]

I really struggle in tournaments - I just have not been able to figure out how to adjust my play as the blinds increase. I've played a number of them on pokerstars, but for whatever reason I rarely am able to get in the money. The exceptions are the 1 and 3 dollar sngs, but regarding those its hardly worth the time investment for the profit.