PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2nl Zoom 6-Max - Playing A-high for Value Out of Position

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2nl Zoom 6-Max - Playing A-high for Value Out of Position

    Hi everybody! I got this little hand that kind of reminded me of one of xflixx' hands of the day (NL5 6-max Zoom #05). It kind of reminded me of Felix' hand in the sense that on the turn, I felt like my A high Q kicker was probably the best hand after the button made that tiny raise (I thought maybe the button would have raised larger to protect trip 3's, and if they had had an 8 or some sort of decent pocket pair they would have bet on the flop, and if they didn't semi-bluff with a 2 on the flop they weren't likely to do it on the turn after the board paired and it brought additional flush draw? Like it seemed like they raised because they felt the turn improved their hand, and so I thought maybe the little raise represented the diamond flush draw? But maybe that's assuming too much?). But it was different in that there were 4 of us in the hand, and I was out of position. And so, basically, I didn't really know how to play this hand and thought maybe it might be interesting to post it to maybe get some other ideas? Especially on: - Playing out of position (as the pre-flop raiser) - C-betting (with 3 people in the pot) - Thin Value (was the check-call a leak? would a raise (or check-reraise) have been too much of a spew? would a fold have been too nitty?) I guess it's just a little hand, and maybe sometimes there's no right or wrong. But since most hands seem to be little ones like this one, I thought maybe others might find it interesting to hear others' thoughts? Thanks in advance for the ideas! Sam
    Last edited by TrustySam; Mon Aug 27, 2012, 05:40 AM.

  • #2
    Hi Sam. Don't take this as gospel, but I'll give you my thoughts on your hand. Pre standard raise, no problem there.

    On the flop - you have 4 opponents, but 2 of them have already checked. In this situation, I would C-bet, about half the pot. There is only 1 opponent to act behind, and it is very unlikely they hit this board. C-betting keeps your initiative, and also makes your opponents wonder if you're on a big pair.

    On the turn - if you get called on the flop bet, I would bet again on the turn, for the same reasons and for about 3/4 pot. The second 3 is basically a brick, but there are now 2 possible flush draws that I want to price out. I think that you would have won the pot by this point, although a call is always possible. As played, I would have raised your opponent, again for 3/4 pot.

    On the river - if your opponent was still in it, I would have fired the third barrel. Yes, in this case you might have been called and lost, but in a lot of cases that third barrel convinces them you're on pocket rockets (or at least a big pair), and they fold.

    Keep in mind that although I have played some Zoom (mostly 6-max) I'm far from expert at these games. It's a good hand for discussion, the hands that we don't hit are always harder to play.

    Bracelet Winner


    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Sam,

      you're right, it is actually a nice spot to try and go for some thin value from draws or weaker Ace highs.

      The flop is a texture that I would even consider cbetting for the same reasons against 3 opponents since it is likely that you have the best hand right now and that you can bet as a semibluff with two overcards and a backdoor heart draw. I would expect you to take it down here a fair amount of the time.

      After the flop gets checked through I think it is safe to now bet for the same reasons as stated above. Chances with the board pairing are now even better that your hand is best and you can still bet for thin value/as a semibluff.
      Live Trainer



      Comment


      • #4
        Hey Joy, Felix!! Thx so much for the replies - some interesting ideas!! umbup: I'm looking for more spots to cbet, especially out of position because: - My WWSF stat is less than 50% and Felix said in your video that that usually means we're not cbetting enough? (from the 6max vs full-ring video) - My Leak Buster program says I'm not cbetting enough ... I think my stat's around 50%, although I've been able to get it up around or so 65% lately. Still maybe a little too low perhaps? - I'm struggling to turn a profit from utg where I tend to cbet even less than usual because I'm out of position So it's interesting to see that both of you would have taken the 'bet-bet-...' line, which is one I never considered taking (like I was contemplating more of a 'check-check-bet' line for after the button raised on the turn and I came to feel like they were on a draw?)? I guess because the 'conventional' wisdom seems to be that: - the more people that are in the hand, the better the hand you need to have to cbet if at all - the more people that are in the hand, the dryer the board you need to have to cbet if at all - the more people, the later in position you should ideally be to cbet - small hand small pot (big hand big pot) (is the theory based on the fact that if people connect with the flop only 1/3 the time and there's 4 people in the pot, then the chances are that somebody actually connected?) So what about cbet sizing? Here's what I was able to come up with when it comes to sizing: 1. Cbet of about half a pot a) Better hands that might fold – none b) Worse hands that might call - A4, A5,KQ, KJ, JT, A9, etc c) Hands with equal equity that'll likely call - 45,flush draws (including flush draws with overs, flush draw and pairAs3s, flush draw and open-ended straight draw 4s5s) d) Worse hands that might fold - all those non-spade Arags like the Ad6d, 67 non-spade 2. Cbet pot-sized a) Better hands that might fold - A2, A3,34s, 44-77 b) Worse hands that might call – none c) Hands with equal equity - might get a fold out of 45 (non-spade), and some flush draws that don't have anything else going for them? d) Worse hands that might fold - same Either way a) Better hands that will call - 22, 33,88-TT, 23, A8, 78, 89 (8J+ etc) Especially since it's a dry board with so many more people to act, and there was a pre-flop raiser - like don't you find that most loose-passives playing oop tend to count on that to extract value? So I guess with a raise between half a pot and a pot, we might expect some worse hands to call and some better to fold. With all good better if there are good better to call, and most worse to fold? What would you guys do on the river if the person still hasn't folded like in the hand of the day - keep betting? or check and fold to a river raise? I haven't seen a lot of people at 2nl playing for stacks with A high, although I have seen people triple-barrel bluff at 5nl, and I've definitely seen people cbet like this in tournaments with smaller stacks relative to the bb. Like where there's more fold equity? But what about the fact that ... I guess you're trying to represent a big pocket pair like AA - so what about the possibility that somebody made a set (that would have become a boat by the turn). Are you ruling 88 out of their range? Or are you representing the 88 and hoping nobody has 88? or 22 or 23 who won't fold because they think I might be on a busted draw, or because they're only looking at their own hand?
        Last edited by TrustySam; Tue Aug 28, 2012, 05:57 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Just a note about my analysis up above ^^^ ... I learned that method from watching Felix do it in one of his videos: Session 12: Member Review for Dr.Kauffer 2NL cash game 6 max I had to make a flowchart of the thought process though to make sure I got all of it, and the flow of it and stuff. But I guess this is basically what those advanced players are sort of doing when they 'plan a hand'? Like they're thinking ahead and anticipating all the possible outcomes of the different paths they could take with the hand, complete with best and worst case scenarios, so that they can decide which one might be the best course of action? And then they've already got a contingency plan in place in case things go bad? I didn't include any of that in my o/p because that's not actually what goes through my head during a hand But after seeing Felix think through these angles in his video, and like reading some of Gareths' hand analysis and stuff ... when you see some of the additional factors that they consider, sometimes I start seeing little bits of this stuff starting to creep into my game at times, eh? Like once we're aware that there's other things to consider, then maybe we'll hopefully be more conscious of those angles when we face similar situations at the table ourselves? Anyways, so back to the AQ hand ... a 4th thing that my Leak Buster program says I need to work on is raising for value on the river, or something like that - like it's not enough? So I guess there's really 2 different concepts that this AQ hand touches on: 1. Semi-bluffing with cbets in position based on the statistical fact that head-to-head, an opponent will miss the flop 2/3 of the time, and so it's profitable to make small cbets even when they only succeed in getting the other person to fold like 2/3 the time. 2. Going for thin value when, after ranging an opponent, we feel like we may very well have the best hand, even though it's a pretty crappy hand. 1. This hand is different from the theoretical ideal though in that there were two more people so statistically-speaking we can't assume that all 3 people will have missed the flop more often than not. Like it's much more higher risk of not getting the result we're hoping for - 3 folds? And then, you know what ... something I have to worry about is that bluffing I think requires that '3rd level thinking' of like 'what does that person think I have' which I don't have. Mostly I'm just looking at my cards, or staring into space, etc ... LOL! Like check out this hand where the shoe was on the other foot against a gold-star, and they seemed to be thinking that with the board being dry they could double-barrel cbet and get a fold: (link in case the hand isn't showing: http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/rep...ash=A656FBB73C First off, mostly I'm just looking at my cards, so I'm not even thinking that much about what the bb was probably hoping I was thinking about (lol!). Second, I'm a fish and a station - with a set on that board, I'm never letting that go (LOL!). Third - the bluff wasn't believable - what hand specifically were those raises supposed to be representing? Anyways, back to the AQ hand - because I'm such a station, there's also that reverse implied odds concern too - what somebody in the blinds had 8Q and the Q hit on the turn? I've been trying to up my cbetting % to like around 70% ... but maybe this move is more in the like 85% range or so, you think? Like advanced? 2. And then with the thin value thing ... I'll have to keep looking through the video library to see if I can find a hand that's out of position that's more similar to this AQ one against the A6s. Will post if I find something! Sam PS A special link for anybody who actually read all of that ^^^ and made it down to the end here lol ... enjoy! : Poker Videos
          Last edited by TrustySam; Wed Aug 29, 2012, 06:48 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I've heard so many advanced players mention the fact that they they make a conscious effort to try and learn all the different playing styles. So that their game'll be more varied. And so they can recognize those other styles in their opponents and understand their thinking and stuff? And so like Felix' and Joy's approach to the hand was like the complete opposite way that I approached the hand. So I wanted to try and find a time when I did something that was similar to what they were suggesting. So here's a hand from a tournament where I double-barrel bluffed with complete air into three people: In case the hand didn't post: http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/rep...ash=AA574C5800 I felt like such an idiot after this hand was over, because nothing went the way I was hoping it would go (that everybody would fold and I'd pick up the blinds and antes uncontested, or that if somebody called the flop would have a K, etc) and so I wound up flying completely by the seat of my pants, fueled solely by desperation It reminded me so much of my first year of play where everything was so fresh and exciting that all I wanted to do was play a lot of hands and gamble. And I was a big-time losing player. So I'm not eager to go back to that. Like on the one hand I want to make sure I'm open to trying all the sorts of different moves that people are suggesting. But on the other hand, maybe it is important to make sure one has the skill set to pull the moves off with some degree of success in the long-run? Something to perhaps work up to in the future I guess? I seem to have lots on my plate already, like learning how to fold though, so I guess first things first Sam PS That hand was from an $11 tourney so people seemed like they cared more than they do at 2nl where everybody can come and go at will and where we can all rebuy. And the stacks were like 1/10th the size they are at cash games, so I think there was a lot more fold equity than at the cash tables.

            Comment

            Working...
            X

            X Cookies Information

            We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.