i would call for sure

I can't really see what else he would have, tough fold though.

I think excellent fold.

4 people call on the flop and he reraises allin with 2 people behind him. He must know one out of his 3 opponents could have a monster. How can he bluff here? If the turn had not been a spade maybe he could have Kx + flush draw or something, but I just don't see him have a hand less than 44.

If they're limping in, the worst I could put him on is 2 pair. Do you really put him on that, Rek?

pp 5s or 6s i think. cant put him on 23, or 78..

ya raszi, good fold there you have to figure hes calling with the pot odds to hit a gutshot and since someone who bets out there holds top pair, or maybe a low set, and if he hits his card it's going to be nut straight w/ rainbow board making him golden. if he comes over the top of a strong turn bet the only thing you can really put him on most of the time is a better set, since KK woulda raised pf, and AA would have almost always raised the flop strong with that many opp's. 55 is very possible, but with that turn it's even more reasonable to assume that 78o, or 78s hit the turn. if he held a set it's also more likely he would have played back at you on the flop, because there were so many people int he pot off the flop. if i held 55 off the flop i would have re-raised your bet to protect myself from what everyone else is most likely drawing to: 67o,67s, 78o, 78s.

good fold

semi-bluff ? what sort of hesitation?

its gotta be -ev calling that flop with 78...

not for 3rd or 4th caller though

very true but this guy was first.

I have difficulty putting him on 23 or calling a gutshot 78 for $30 on the flop (although both of these are definitely a possible holding). Calling $30 with 66 or limping in a big multiway pot with KK is also hard to believe. There's zero chance of 73. He either has 555 or you had him IMO. Tough hand.

you damn well know gutshots are a realistic holding for alot of those people!

It's not so much putting him on an exact hand for me, as it is the show of incredible strength of his move. So we witness this strength, as we do more often, and we have to ask ourselves can he be bluffing? I think it's impossible that he is on a bluff, because it is an unraised pot and has so many people in, AND *very important* so many people behind him. Bluffs are never random. They are missed draws, faking cards, etc. There's alot of patterns to bluffs and this does not fit any of them.

I also think it's hardly possible to play a weaker hand this way in a 4 way pot. Not for you, nor for fish. With exception of 56 maybe (which would still be a stupid play but atleast for some of these fish it's a possibility). As I said if the turn had been a diamond/club then the push could also indicate Kx flush draw, but it being from the same color as the king eliminates this option. Replay this hand numerous times and the opponent will have a stronger hand than 44 in most cases.

I don't play full ring anymore, but when I was still playing it I decided that limping with the lower pairs in EP against tough competition is EV- and such hands are an example of why I think so.

You are very wrong.

I woulda called. Seeing as you put him on a straight, you have the odds of making a straight yourself (although it potentially could be lower than his) and also if the board pairs on the river you will more than likely win with a full house.

He doesn't have "the odds" to put him on a straight and call. Don't state these things as if they're facts it can be very confusing for some. Your opinion is fine of course but "odds" as an argument to call against a straight is factually inaccurate. Please.

whoops. He can't make a straight. I've read too much today>_<

Why is that? IMO, if you're playing good players, to play with the worst position with the only hope of making a set or getting out of the hand is a pretty bad offer for me.
First, I may not even be able to see a flop if it is raised and then reraised. For this reason if I'm like UTG+1 and UTG raises I usually fold the lower pairs (although at least I've got position on him).
Second, If I hit my set and win the hand, there is absolutely no guarantee I'm going to make enough money to compensate for the 7/8 times I didn't.
Third, there is the very real possibility of me hitting the set and losing my whole stack. There is a 15% chance for the raiser to hit his set too, if he's got an overpair. If he's got a straith or flush draw on the flop it's not a good position for me either, because if I decide to protect my hand on the flop I'm risking winning too little to compensate for the times I don't hit.

Fourth, the chance to win the pot without improving is very small. Bluffing out of position with no draw whatsoever is completely EV-. The only ok situation is when the flop is completely blank, like 288 rainbow or something and there is good reason to believe you're most likely up against overcards and not overpair and the raiser will probably not make a CB twice.

Fifth, lowest sets out of position do not play that well in multiway pots. If you've got like 2 people drawing behind you you're not in such a profitable position as it seems as you might be the favourite the win the hand, but better position allows your opponents a better control of the pot.

Well, let's just give a few examples of HU possibilities.
I decide to limp 22 UTG. There is a LP raiser. I call.
Flop is 28K rainbow. I check, he bets 1/2 pot. I call. Turn is blank, he bets 1/2 again. If I raise he gets out with his AA, if I call he checks behind on the river. Almost not enough to cover our losses for the 7 times I fold. And if he gets his third ace that 15% of the time I get stacked, geez.
Or he has 78s and gives up on the turn.

Ok, flop 278 with 2 spades. He bets pot and I reraise enough to protect my hand. He folds his AA. Not enough profit.
I call and he stacks me with his 56. Lolz.

There are also a lot of hands that will give me action only if they beat me, like middle pairs. Imagine if we run 22 UTG vs 66 on the button a hundred times. It's a fucking freeroll for the 66 guy and it's not the only example of a lower pair in EP being totally unprofitable.

Well, actually, I believe that in most games limping in EP with lower pairs is profitable, but that is simply because the players are bad enough.

Edit: Btw, if I decide to play pocket pairs from EP, I would actually raise with them, though not a profitable action by itself, at least to create a bigger hand range for my EP raises. I'd probably be raising hands like small suited connectors as well.

On November 25 2005 16:11 Rhaegar wrote: Why is that? IMO, if you're playing good players, to play with the worst position with the only hope of making a set or getting out of the hand is a pretty bad offer for me. First, I may not even be able to see a flop if it is raised and then reraised. For this reason if I'm like UTG+1 and UTG raises I usually fold the lower pairs (although at least I've got position on him). Second, If I hit my set and win the hand, there is absolutely no guarantee I'm going to make enough money to compensate for the 7/8 times I didn't. Third, there is the very real possibility of me hitting the set and losing my whole stack. There is a 15% chance for the raiser to hit his set too, if he's got an overpair. If he's got a straith or flush draw on the flop it's not a good position for me either, because if I decide to protect my hand on the flop I'm risking winning too little to compensate for the times I don't hit. Fourth, the chance to win the pot without improving is very small. Bluffing out of position with no draw whatsoever is completely EV-. The only ok situation is when the flop is completely blank, like 288 rainbow or something and there is good reason to believe you're most likely up against overcards and not overpair and the raiser will probably not make a CB twice. Fifth, lowest sets out of position do not play that well in multiway pots. If you've got like 2 people drawing behind you you're not in such a profitable position as it seems. Well, let's just give a few examples of HU possibilities. I decide to limp 22 UTG. There is a LP raiser. I call. Flop is 28K rainbow. I check, he bets 1/2 pot. I call. Turn is blank, he bets 1/2 again. If I raise he gets out with his AA, if I call he checks behind on the river. Almost not enough to cover our losses for the 7 times I fold. And if he gets his third ace that 15% of the time I get stacked, geez. Or he has 78s and gives up on the turn. Ok, flop 278 with 2 spades. He bets pot and I reraise enough to protect my hand. He folds his AA. Not enough profit. I call and he stacks me with his 56. Lolz. There are also a lot of hands that will give me action only if they beat me, like middle pairs. Imagine if we run 22 UTG vs 66 on the button a hundred times. It's a fucking freeroll for the 66 guy and it's not the only example of a lower pair in EP being totally unprofitable. Well, actually, I believe that in most games limping in EP with lower pairs is profitable, but that is simply because the players are bad enough.

Set is too good of a hand to be missing out on really. I can't really bother going into the situations you sketched, because I can think of a hundred myself where you'd love to hit your set. Specific examples aren't that useful in this case because sets happen in so many different situations. So many explanations, so many ways to play them.

You're only calling low pocket pairs early position to hit a set and nothing more, and there's alot of money to be made from it.

1. Rarely happens. If it does happen I will make a judgement on the first raiser. Whether or not he will come over the top. If I decide he will not do so I'm willing to call a set in early position here (there's more to it when to call and when not to, maybe something for another topic).

2. No, there isn't you're right. That's how poker works. For myself however I think I make more than enough from them.

3. Assuming you're talking about him hitting a set on the FLOP, there is not a 15% chance for him hit a set as well. There's only a 15% chance for him to hit a set in general, but not if you hit one as well. There's only 2 cards left for him to hit a set with then.
Also it sounds almost as if you don't want to have a set against a draw out of position because it might bring trouble on you. Not sure if I read this right. Anyway I wouldn't mind to have a set against a flush draw or straight draw at all, even out of position. If you are more capable than your opponent is this definitely is a winning situation.

4. Definitely agree.

5. I doubt anyone here is folding lower sets against oversets at all, actually. Position or no position would have the same result for 99% of the people here. In fact on lower limits it's probably -EV to EVER fold your low set on a random board.

The last point you make speaks for my case and I fully agree with it. In any game, even including 10/20 PS (which is said to be the hardest full ring game on the internet) there's people bad enough to make money from.

On 3rd, I mean in hitting from the other 4 cards. It bodes well with the overpair on a rag board example in which he may give the hand up if he sees too much action but will give you the action if he hits as well.
I gave this example, because people are underestimating the probability of a set vs overset. It looks like it's very rare , but that's simply because they aren't hitting sets against overpairs that often anyway.. If a set vs overpair results 15% of the time in losing your stack and your opponent is good enough to release his overpair in time when he doesn't hit, then it doesn't seem so profitable after all. The situation changes dramatically if you reverse positions though.

On the set vs draw out of position, I'm definitely on the opinion that it is not a profitable one. First you're going into it in already in the red, having to fold 7/8 times and with position on his side it becomes really hard to make a profit. If you know he's on a draw that would be a fair fight, but you don't and his position should give him complete control of the pot - to build it when he hits and to let go when he decides it's unprofitable. Heck, if he's really good he may even have the option to bluff you out of the pot when another draw gets there. Still, if you're a better player you can make it profitable. But against an equal player, you are on the losing side of the battle.

On fifth, I meant that if you're in a multiway pot and there are several players chasing draws, even bad players, you do not have such a big advantage over them as there are a lot of outs to counterfeit your hand and if they do hit you'll have to pay them off at least a little and they can fold without further investing if they find it really unprofitable. I mean, you might be a 50% favourite to win the hand, but all that matters is that you will not that much when they don't hit as you will lose when they do Still, that's one of the profitable situations.

But finally.. Yeah, this is all really just theorycraft and should be useful only against players that you respect. It is by no means close to reality as I have yet to see a game full of sharks online. There are so many players that will go all in with overpairs and even TPGK. Still, my PT records show my lowest pairs to be unprofitable from EP so there is some truth in this, even against not so good players. Or maybe I'm just unable to outplay my opponents..

But don't you at least agree that it's not a profitable position against an equal player?

Depends alot on situation, I don't like being bullied around. But against tight/good players that will not pay you off fullstack it isn't so good. However then you have the agressive/good players (that are usually the better of the two) that are crazy enough to push a flush draw over your reraise, or to call your allin on a fishy board whenever they suspect to hold the best hand. Also those that will check out every street after they missed the flop. Many situations that might even be easier to play against good players than they are against the bad ones.

Also image comes to mind. All good players (and most others) know I'm not shy to check-raise them without actually holding a hand. I've taken bluffs to the river many many times. If I ever hit a set against anyone I will get paid off alot. If you just like to play your hands and don't do anything crazy I guess I agree with you on this being a losing situation against players of equal skill.

I do think you could atleast be able to go even against players of equal skill. And going even while playing more hands is always a good thing.

After all that I think the best poker skill is table selection.
And may the nuts be with you. Amen.

Maybe he had 7 of spades + a pair, something like 7s5s or suited ace of spades As3s, the ace would make sence on the flop, hes got ace high + gutshot + runner runner, although its a marginal call on the flop for him the turn presents a great semi-bluff oppurtunity. But considering you hardley have any money invested in this pot its an ez fold. Bottom set in a unraised pot can only be trouble :/ I say he was semi bluffing only thing that really had you dominated was trip 5's, but I could be wrong.

Looks to me like he limped with Kings caught a set decided to slow play even more and then fearing a draw out went all in. Either way excellent fold by you. Thats all the matters.

i'd call it

55 is the only hand i see that's possible

On November 27 2005 20:30 SpoR wrote: Looks to me like he limped with Kings caught a set decided to slow play even more and then fearing a draw out went all in. Either way excellent fold by you. Thats all the matters.

yeah right... limp with kings in a 6-way pot?

edit: 8-way*

bump for the lols

Ban.

LOL wow I'm impressed. Quite an evolution around here.

god damn i was good at poker in 2005

id call this in a heartbeat, but then im a fish, doesnt he show up with 56 and open ended spade draw semi bluffs quite often? even against straights you fill up. Seeing as the general consensus is saying the opposite im am aware i am wrong

haha

omg terrible fold and look at everyone screaming fold, poker was good in 2005

not supposed to be in low stakes poker category?

omg this is awesome, i wish i played in 2005.