[mid-table]

To be blunt, yes, i would've played it differently, I would've folded the A5. When you mention rag, what is this rag card? You are only holding a 5 so it can't be that much of a rag. So you hit a pair of fives, if I hit bottom pair (and I presume it was bottom pair), on a 9-handed table, I would expect someone to be outdrawing me, especially with an ace on the board. The fact you hit trips later on is irrelevant.

[mid-table]

To put it another way, if he had been holding AK and that hand happened, he would be calling you all the names under the sun for hitting trips on the river.

[Loki]

I would have played that differently. A 5 Hearts I would have only continued playing after the flop if you had hit your flush or you only need one more card to make the nut flush. You know fine that before the flop comes hitting the 5 is going to lose you money. The fact that the final five completed his full house and gave you trips, thats just poker fucking with you.

There is a lesson to be learned, and it is basically stop playing your ace rags unless you are desperate and you think the table is weak.

The reason the guy played that way? Who knows, he may have had a very good insight into the way you play. I can recognise people's tricks a mile away. certain players will have the same moves and maouvers, through experential learning you pick this up.

I would have said the player played this way as he knows he isn't going to get alot of money from the hand. He bets minimum in the hope you have A K or K (X). If you had raised his bet, he would have thought you had A K at least, no doubt AA the most likely. He could then re raise you. Its also a good strategy to try and let you catch a card, which he did. He allowed you to catch another 5. It was clever play from him. The over size pot bet suggests he doesnt have that good a hand and he is trying to induce you to bluff.

I have played this same gambit many a time with weak players to get maximum profit.

[Karl Fletcher]

I admire the passion for poker on this site, especially you PokerScot. If any of you lot are in Aberdeen and fancy a cash game at the casino, get in touch B)

As for the Ah 5h situation PokerScot I have to say yes I would've played it differently. Wouldn't of been calling his bets hoping to hit an Ace for a start! If I wanted to play the hand I would've raised his first bet after the flop, if he called or raised then you know you're beat in the hand.

[Jambo Stu]

He played it very well to be honest.Killed ya!!Happens in poker,sometimes the cards dont turn other times you make bad plays or someone makes an exception play.

Live poker is better than internet.I usually play a game a week with mates.Usually between 5 and 9/10 of us.Always a good laugh and sometimes money spinner

[Diamonds are Forever]

PokerScot, on Jan 1 2007, 20:14, said:

Hmm. I'm on a really bad run right now. I'm playing $3 sit and go's, and I just can't catch any cards. I keep finishing 8th, 7th and thereabouts, and as a result I'm getting quite analytical about my game. Here's an example:

I am getting the usual nothing when suddenly I get dealt Ah 5h. As we all know, this isn't really a great hand when there are 9 people at the table, so I call the big blind. Everyone folds except one opponent, who also just calls.

The flop is K 5 rag. The fella is first to act, and he bets the big blind (100). I immediately think maybe he has matched the King and is slow playing, or he's searching for a card. As I could catch the Ace on the turn, I decide the low pair is not enough to raise, so I call his 100. The next card is another rag, maybe a 7 or whatever. Again, the guy bets the big blind. I mull for a minute, and again decide he might have the King, so what the hell I'll call his 100 and hope for an Ace on the river.

It was better than that, the river turns another 5, giving me the set with an Ace kicker. I actually can't believe I've outdrew someone, what with the way my luck is going. The guy then lays a bet of 600. Now I decide yep, he had the King and is now pushing with the 2 pair he has. I considered the all-in, but better judgement had me calling his 600 (I was happy with that pot).

The guy turns over pocket Kings. I just shook my head in disbelieve.

Would anyone play that differently, and if so how and why?

The thing is everyone is saying they would play it differently. But you say you just weren't getting any cards, in cases like that people begin to get desperate and start to go looking for hands, which is why you didn't fold. I think most people (amatuers anyway) when they get no cards would play with Ace 5 suited, through frustration more than anything else. Then once you get involved in the hand and have put 100-200 in the pot it takes a very disciplined player to fold. So sitting here it is easy to say that you would play it differently, but I think in the middle of a game when getting crap hands I think most people would have played roughly the same - I would anyway B)

As Carlos said though, the other guy must be quite a good player, he kept his bets small in the hope you would call and pick up a pair or 3 of a kind and then call his final big bet. Worked a treat !

[Swampy]

PokerScot, on Jan 1 2007, 20:14, said:

Hmm. I'm on a really bad run right now. I'm playing $3 sit and go's, and I just can't catch any cards. I keep finishing 8th, 7th and thereabouts, and as a result I'm getting quite analytical about my game. Here's an example:

I am getting the usual nothing when suddenly I get dealt Ah 5h. As we all know, this isn't really a great hand when there are 9 people at the table, so I call the big blind. Everyone folds except one opponent, who also just calls.

The flop is K 5 rag. The fella is first to act, and he bets the big blind (100). I immediately think maybe he has matched the King and is slow playing, or he's searching for a card. As I could catch the Ace on the turn, I decide the low pair is not enough to raise, so I call his 100. The next card is another rag, maybe a 7 or whatever. Again, the guy bets the big blind. I mull for a minute, and again decide he might have the King, so what the hell I'll call his 100 and hope for an Ace on the river.

It was better than that, the river turns another 5, giving me the set with an Ace kicker. I actually can't believe I've outdrew someone, what with the way my luck is going. The guy then lays a bet of 600. Now I decide yep, he had the King and is now pushing with the 2 pair he has. I considered the all-in, but better judgement had me calling his 600 (I was happy with that pot).

The guy turns over pocket Kings. I just shook my head in disbelieve.

Would anyone play that differently, and if so how and why?

Whether to enter the hand depends entirely on your position and the other players involved. From late position it's worth enterting. (Incidentally, A5s only has real value as the nut flush so it *does* play well against nine opponents. From late position against 9 people in a low-stakes SnG I'd consider entering the hand; early or mid position I'd fold without hesitation.)

What is the suited status of the flop? As written (assuming rainbow) fold flop; you have 5 outs to improve (three A, two 5).

There are 3 BB in the pot (including the bet just made); you are in danger of being behind already and the pot is small. To catch 5 outs for this tiny pot is a waste of money. Calling was the worst possible move. Either raise if he is a timid player who will fold to aggression or fold.

Also on the poker forum I use, people do not post results of hands (i.e. what your opponent had.)

This post has been edited by Swampy: 06 January 2007 - 09:17

[Swampy]

JAMBO STU, on Jan 5 2007, 00:08, said:

He played it very well to be honest.Killed ya!!Happens in poker,sometimes the cards dont turn other times you make bad plays or someone makes an exception play.

After the flop call, if I was the KK guy I'd have bet 500 or so on the turn because I didn't see PokerScot folding.

[Swampy]

Diamonds are Forever, on Jan 5 2007, 13:38, said:

The thing is everyone is saying they would play it differently. But you say you just weren't getting any cards, in cases like that people begin to get desperate and start to go looking for hands, which is why you didn't fold. I think most people (amatuers anyway) when they get no cards would play with Ace 5 suited, through frustration more than anything else. Then once you get involved in the hand and have put 100-200 in the pot it takes a very disciplined player to fold. So sitting here it is easy to say that you would play it differently, but I think in the middle of a game when getting crap hands I think most people would have played roughly the same - I would anyway B)

I'm still a beginner but there is no way I'd have played the hand like that.

This was a poorly played hand, no two ways about it. Pretending otherwise will just encourage more sloppy play in the future which is what we are trying to avoid when we ask for strategy tips. Discipline is precisely what's required here, not excuse-making for indiscipline. And folding should never be seen as an admission of defeat. When the pot is small and you hold a marginal, five-out hand that may be losing already, folding is often the correct play.

Quote

As Carlos said though, the other guy must be quite a good player, he kept his bets small in the hope you would call and pick up a pair or 3 of a kind and then call his final big bet. Worked a treat !

Indeed, but as I said in my last post, I think he could have got more out of PokerScot

[Loki]

Swampy, on Jan 6 2007, 09:22, said:

Indeed, but as I said in my last post, I think he could have got more out of PokerScot

If the player went all in Poker Scot wouldnt have folded his trips, so yes he could have got alot more. But also his opponent didn't know the player had caught a card for sure. So he made the correct play at the end, a big enough pot to make him believe it was a bluff, hoping that Poker Scot would then go all in over the top.

In hind sight knowing that Poker Scot has trips, to get the maximum out of him an all in on the river would have done that. Over betting on the turn probably would have scared him away. It was very good play, and by employing this gambit his opponent will take more money overall, and not lose as much. Ensuring overall more profit.

I would say that Poker Scot's oponent was more of a cash table player, and very good at observational study of playes at his table.

I have already stated that Poker Scot had very weak play in this hand, and his opponent picked up on this.

[morrison]

I'm very much a beginner myself - and just now I'm happy enough in multi-table play money tournies and freerolls 'til I feel more confident in my play. I'm still making way too many mistakes in the meantime.

Do you know what the craic is with the Uni Poker Society, Carlos? I'd like to start playing real games as a change from the online stuff. It really is quite addictive

[Loki]

morrison, on Jan 7 2007, 13:00, said:

I'm very much a beginner myself - and just now I'm happy enough in multi-table play money tournies and freerolls 'til I feel more confident in my play. I'm still making way too many mistakes in the meantime.

Do you know what the craic is with the Uni Poker Society, Carlos? I'd like to start playing real games as a change from the online stuff. It really is quite addictive

Yeah they are two different league meetings, the first is on a Tuesday and the second on a Thursday both start at 7pm. I only ever go on a Thursday. Basically the top ten get points each week, and it totals up over the year with prizes given out. If you want to join just text me and I'll get Jon to sort you out.

I detest limit poker. Its so boring. There is very little playing opponents in it. If you just keep to basic pot odds structure, and if you know the odds of your draws happening, you are pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit. I do play it to help start the bank roll, however if you play limit all the time you really have to adapt straight away to no limit or you will be crippled.

Try Pot Limit. It's great, and if you make a bad move you are still going to have chips to carry on in the competition.

[Swampy]

PokerScot, on Jan 7 2007, 15:10, said:

Another thing I have learned, is that the difference between limit hold-em and no limit hold-em is akin to the difference between football and rugby. You might think it's just two teams chasing a ball, but it's not like that is it?

Other factors are stakes, and the amount of players post-flop.

As a result, I am only playing low stakes limit hold-em with 10 players to the table. My games will be based purely on that, just as a child learning his sport in a serious fashion, will choose either football or rugby.

Fellow amateurs should bear this in mind, especially if you are playing real money poker.

I agree with all of that except for the last bit. If you're not playing real money poker you might as well not be playing. About the only use you'll get out of it is learning an interface or perhaps preflop range; nothing else. It's a crapshoot. Even the loosest real money game (2/4 cents) is often tighter than the tightest play money game.

[Loki]

Absolutely Swampy you learn very little playing play money.

[Diamonds are Forever]

I hate limit poker. It's very boring and there is virtually no bluffing involved. A lot less skill is required.

[Swampy]

Diamonds are Forever, on Jan 7 2007, 20:53, said:

I hate limit poker. It's very boring and there is virtually no bluffing involved. A lot less skill is required.

First point: Yes, there is generally less bluffing.

Second point: How so?

[Diamonds are Forever]

Swampy, on Jan 8 2007, 11:52, said:

First point: Yes, there is generally less bluffing.

Second point: How so?

How so what ?

How come there is less bluffing or how come there is less skill ?

If it is the skill one it is basically because you can only bet peanuts. Which means anyone with a half decent hand won't fold. So basically whoever gets dealt the best hand will win (not much skill in that). I have only been playing poker for a year or so but I would say that I am now an alright player who wins the odd tournament. I reckon if I taught someone the basic rules of poker within a week or so they could give me a right good game at limit poker. Whereas if I played them a no-limit I would win within about 10-15 minutes.

This post has been edited by Diamonds are Forever: 08 January 2007 - 16:25

[GavMan_AUFC_1910]

'Diamonds are Forever' how old are you? You seem to know your stuff! B)

This post has been edited by GavMan_AUFC_1910: 08 January 2007 - 17:29

[Diamonds are Forever]

GavMan_AUFC_1910, on Jan 8 2007, 17:29, said:

'Diamonds are Forever' how old are you? You seem to know your stuff! B)

I am a Poker legend as you well know

[Loki]

Limit poker has skill. But its mainly based in knowing the mathematics for your draws and estimating pot odds. It is alot harder to try and place someone on a hand, as they would have stayed in for so many different draws. But thats not to say the game doesnt have skill. There is little playing the players in limit, but it teaches you discipline. of course there is little bluffing as you will be getting significant pot odds to call anyway, sometimes as much as 24 or 25/1. Even an Ace High against one or two opponents thats an automatic call.

Limit, Pot Limit and No Limit are different to one another, and it takes different types of players to play them. But to say there is no skill in any is silly. I could turn round and raise you Omaha to your Hold Em. Alot more skill in Omaha.