Saturday, January 23, 2010
I can see you...
Blog post is up about tells and assessing your opponents! http://www.rivalmydesign.com/poker/
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
FYI
http://www.wsop.com/tourney/tourneydetails.asp?groupID=737
http://www.wsop.com/tourney/tourneydetails.asp?groupID=746
Maybe our league play will be a buy in to one of these events?
If not I sure am going to start planning to make a couple tourneys and hopefully bring home a ring and some nice cash!
I feel my tournament play is the best its been in a long time.
http://www.wsop.com/tourney/tourneydetails.asp?groupID=746
Maybe our league play will be a buy in to one of these events?
If not I sure am going to start planning to make a couple tourneys and hopefully bring home a ring and some nice cash!
I feel my tournament play is the best its been in a long time.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Checking it Down - Or Not
Thank you TotalGarbage for sharing your feedback with me and everyone else. I also heard responses in person from several players who had strong feelings about isolation of an all-in player vs. checking it down.
As TG pointed out, these situations are subject to all the little nuances. Therefore, I will describe with a little more detail how the hands from the previous post played out, plus a bonus hand, and let you all decide for yourselves what you might have done.
Example 1: Blinds 800/1600, 2 of 3 tables remaining. In middle position, I raised all-in for my last 12,000 chips - just over half the average stack. The player at the cutoff reraised all-in for 27,000. The small blind called all-in for less than my stack. I was thrilled when I saw that my pocket jacks were against pocket tens and pocket nines. I won the hand and proceeded to fold my way to the final table.
If I were in the cutoff, I might have played my 10s the same way against a short stack. I wouldn't want calls from suited face cards or weak aces that are hoping to catch, especially if there are alot of chips to back them up.
Example 2: Blinds 2,000/4,000, 8 players left. A player pushed all-in for 6,000. There were three callers including me. I had limped in from the cutoff with Ac 7h. Perhaps a marginal call, but I thought there was a good chance it would be checked down.
The flop was 2, 7, 7 rainbow. It was checked to me and I checked the dry side pot with my trip 7s. But, the third live player (on the button) didn't get the memo and made a min-bet. The first player folded and I smooth-called.
The turn was a Q. I checked and the button min-bet again. I eyed her up and down. Pocket 2s and Q7 were not out of the question, so I min reraised to see where I stood. She called.
The river was a brick so I checked and she checked behind. She showed her Q2 suited and I scooped the pot with my trip 7s.
I disagree with her play here because a pair is just a pair and with a pair showing, two pair is just a pair! With a player all-in and no side pot, I wouldn't have taken a stab at the pot with weak holdings.
Example 3 (bonus hand): Blinds 6,000/12,000, 7 players left. I was all-in for 4,000 in the small blind with Q6 offsuit. There was one caller and the big blind checked.
The flop was 3, 6, 7 and following a check, the BB bet all-in to a 16,000 chip side pot. The other player folded, and my 6s were behind to the BB's 10, 7 off. When another 7 landed on the river, I was eliminated in 7th place.
This play I like. With top pair and a side pot, pushing the other live player out of the hand makes sense. Even if the BB lost against the all-in, he would have more than when he started the hand.
Please post your comments.
As TG pointed out, these situations are subject to all the little nuances. Therefore, I will describe with a little more detail how the hands from the previous post played out, plus a bonus hand, and let you all decide for yourselves what you might have done.
Example 1: Blinds 800/1600, 2 of 3 tables remaining. In middle position, I raised all-in for my last 12,000 chips - just over half the average stack. The player at the cutoff reraised all-in for 27,000. The small blind called all-in for less than my stack. I was thrilled when I saw that my pocket jacks were against pocket tens and pocket nines. I won the hand and proceeded to fold my way to the final table.
If I were in the cutoff, I might have played my 10s the same way against a short stack. I wouldn't want calls from suited face cards or weak aces that are hoping to catch, especially if there are alot of chips to back them up.
Example 2: Blinds 2,000/4,000, 8 players left. A player pushed all-in for 6,000. There were three callers including me. I had limped in from the cutoff with Ac 7h. Perhaps a marginal call, but I thought there was a good chance it would be checked down.
The flop was 2, 7, 7 rainbow. It was checked to me and I checked the dry side pot with my trip 7s. But, the third live player (on the button) didn't get the memo and made a min-bet. The first player folded and I smooth-called.
The turn was a Q. I checked and the button min-bet again. I eyed her up and down. Pocket 2s and Q7 were not out of the question, so I min reraised to see where I stood. She called.
The river was a brick so I checked and she checked behind. She showed her Q2 suited and I scooped the pot with my trip 7s.
I disagree with her play here because a pair is just a pair and with a pair showing, two pair is just a pair! With a player all-in and no side pot, I wouldn't have taken a stab at the pot with weak holdings.
Example 3 (bonus hand): Blinds 6,000/12,000, 7 players left. I was all-in for 4,000 in the small blind with Q6 offsuit. There was one caller and the big blind checked.
The flop was 3, 6, 7 and following a check, the BB bet all-in to a 16,000 chip side pot. The other player folded, and my 6s were behind to the BB's 10, 7 off. When another 7 landed on the river, I was eliminated in 7th place.
This play I like. With top pair and a side pot, pushing the other live player out of the hand makes sense. Even if the BB lost against the all-in, he would have more than when he started the hand.
Please post your comments.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Checking it Down
Example 1: Blinds 800/1600, 2 of 3 tables remaining. In middle position, I raised all-in for my last 12,000 chips - just over half the average stack. The player at the cutoff reraised all-in for 27,000.
With two full tables left, raising to isolate makes sense. At this point in the tournament, a player needs to focus on accumulating and preserving chips. By reraising an all-in you are likely going to scare off all but premium hands. He clearly wanted to isolate and take his chances against only one player.
Example 2: Blinds 2,000/4,000, 8 players left. A player pushed all-in for 6,000. There were three callers including me.
Post-flop, it was checked to me and I checked the dry side pot. But, the third live player didn't get the memo and made a bet. There were grumbles from irritated players who chided the bettor. (Note: in most tournaments, encouraging other players to check-down against an all-in while cards are live is complicity and considered a form of cheating).
Why would other players care? Aren't we still trying to accumulate and preserve chips? Wouldn't anyone want to increase their odds at the pot and play heads-up against the all-in?
This is really a question about expected value in relation to the stage of the tournament.
In the first example, the reraiser has to eliminate 8-10 other players before he can win anything. Therefore, the expected value from the reraise is that he will play heads-up and either eliminate or double-up one player. Either way it does not immediately affect what will ultimately be won and by whom.
In the second example, all the players involved were already "in-the-money". Therefore, the expected value is in eliminating another player and guaranteeing more for those who remain, regardless of its effect on any one player's chip stack. (Note: Eliminating other players can also be more important than chip accumulation at or close to the bubble).
Let's assume that the all-in player has pocket Aces and all the callers have small pocket pairs... 4s, 5s, and 6s. If the flop is 8h, Kd, 2c and two players check to the player with 5s who presents a bet, the other players are likely to fold forcing a heads-up situation. Before the bet, the player with 5s (and everyone else) needs one of six cards to hit in order to improve: a 4, 5, or a 6 (30.7%). After the bet and subsequent folds, there are only two cards (5s) that can hurt the all-in (11.7%). The all-in player is now more likely to win and quadruple-up.
There are always exceptions. Substantial side pots or big hands (straights, flushes, full-houses, etc.) may be justification for a bet. However, most players will understand the implied complicity of checking down a pot when it will likely result in climbing even one rung in the reward ladder.
As always, your comments are encouraged.
With two full tables left, raising to isolate makes sense. At this point in the tournament, a player needs to focus on accumulating and preserving chips. By reraising an all-in you are likely going to scare off all but premium hands. He clearly wanted to isolate and take his chances against only one player.
Example 2: Blinds 2,000/4,000, 8 players left. A player pushed all-in for 6,000. There were three callers including me.
Post-flop, it was checked to me and I checked the dry side pot. But, the third live player didn't get the memo and made a bet. There were grumbles from irritated players who chided the bettor. (Note: in most tournaments, encouraging other players to check-down against an all-in while cards are live is complicity and considered a form of cheating).
Why would other players care? Aren't we still trying to accumulate and preserve chips? Wouldn't anyone want to increase their odds at the pot and play heads-up against the all-in?
This is really a question about expected value in relation to the stage of the tournament.
In the first example, the reraiser has to eliminate 8-10 other players before he can win anything. Therefore, the expected value from the reraise is that he will play heads-up and either eliminate or double-up one player. Either way it does not immediately affect what will ultimately be won and by whom.
In the second example, all the players involved were already "in-the-money". Therefore, the expected value is in eliminating another player and guaranteeing more for those who remain, regardless of its effect on any one player's chip stack. (Note: Eliminating other players can also be more important than chip accumulation at or close to the bubble).
Let's assume that the all-in player has pocket Aces and all the callers have small pocket pairs... 4s, 5s, and 6s. If the flop is 8h, Kd, 2c and two players check to the player with 5s who presents a bet, the other players are likely to fold forcing a heads-up situation. Before the bet, the player with 5s (and everyone else) needs one of six cards to hit in order to improve: a 4, 5, or a 6 (30.7%). After the bet and subsequent folds, there are only two cards (5s) that can hurt the all-in (11.7%). The all-in player is now more likely to win and quadruple-up.
There are always exceptions. Substantial side pots or big hands (straights, flushes, full-houses, etc.) may be justification for a bet. However, most players will understand the implied complicity of checking down a pot when it will likely result in climbing even one rung in the reward ladder.
As always, your comments are encouraged.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Poker Blog
My blog is back up and running.
http://christianrivera.squarespace.com/poker
I'll be posting my bankroll progress, net profit, advice, tournament info, strategy, hands of the week/game and poker news. Be sure to check it out!
Sunday, October 4, 2009
200K Double Deuce
Playing the 200K Double Deuce on Full Tilt. Follow me as FuseThe2Kapow and on twitter at http://www.twitter.com/FuseThe2Kapow
Friday, September 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)