Originally Posted by TheLangolier

We should be raising the flop with a set, not the turn, but nope, not worried about losing AA/AK if we raise the flop.

I agree with this...

My comment was directed at the way the hand played out...if he wanted to check the flop to slow play, at the latest he should have raised the turn. On the turn is when it was said Sjekkkk was sure his opponent held a value hand. If he slow played the flop, then that was the point he should have raised to extract value from his slow play.

Well, you know what was weird about this hand, is that if sjekkk had a made hand with like 88 or AK, that set or TPTK was possibly good (if QQ was in the villain's range), but also possibly behind.

Like it's another one of those middling hands.

In which case, the shove on the river to get the villain to fold was kind of weird - like, wouldn't a set of 8's WANT AA and AK to call a river raise?

Except that the hero had no way of knowing if they were ahead or behind.

Like there's that dilemma with a middling hand of whether to pump up the pot or try to pot control.

What do most of you do? You figure maybe with hands that are right in the middle of a villain's range, in which you have no way of knowing of you're ahead or behind, that it tends to wind up a wash over time if half of the time you wind up winning and half the time you wind up losing, such that ultimately it doesn't matter if you raise more or try to put control?

Like sometimes you're able to obtain better clarity about where you stand by betting, but sometimes not, eh?

That's kind of been something that's been on my mind with regards to getting reraised with QQ. In SNG's there was always more time to develop reads, so it wasn't uncommon for me to take a pot-control line, although that got debated once at a table, and one person favored a fold pre, and another person favored a reraise-shove.

But lately I've been playing cash tables, where you don't really get the chance to develop reads, and I've been playing these pots for stacks with QQ and ... I guess they've wound up a wash - one time I was up against KK, another time it was TT. But such a small sample size ... anybody have any thoughts?

Sorry for going off on a tangent ... in my mind, these comments seem related to the o/p, but then again, maybe not so much, eh?

I am getting really confused with this one; so there is nothing new there then

Originally Posted by Sjekkkk

You were right dave and chucky, I had 87 (but of clubs). And yes the guy was really that transparant.

Siekkkkk says here as I read it that he had the 87 clubs.

But how could he have 87 clubs when the flop contained the 8 clubs

Flop comes

[Kh] [8c] [3h]

Or am I missing something?

Cheers,

Tony

Yep sam, my intention was to get the villain to fold. Since I had 87 of clubs.
Would I have hit trips or two pair, I´d bet in a range of 66% which he definately would have called.

You know what I really liked about your hand sjekkk was the fact that the line you took (1) made your hand confusing , and (2) could potentially be used for a value hand, but isn't a line I'd usually take ... so the novelty of it really sort of caught my eye

Like if I have a better than average hand, but where I stand relative to the villain is unknown, I've been tending to either go (1) raise, raise, raise, or (2) check-call, check-call, check-call, or (3) raise, raise, check ... like usually I've been saving check-call, check-call, raise for when I feel I have more clarity, or if I flopped the nuts and I'm slowplaying. But I've never used that line to try and push somebody off what might be a better hand.

And so I tried it yesterday, and it went horribly wrong, when the hand I was trying to represent the villain actually held. That's so unfortunate when that happens

My reads were off, so that was part, then there were cues I didn't pay sufficient attention to because they didn't seem terribly important until I looked back on them after the hand was done. So I guess I'll chalk that up to a learning experience, but it's always fun to feel like you've learned a new move, so I guess I'll keep trying

Originally Posted by JDean

I agree with this...

My comment was directed at the way the hand played out...if he wanted to check the flop to slow play, at the latest he should have raised the turn. On the turn is when it was said Sjekkkk was sure his opponent held a value hand. If he slow played the flop, then that was the point he should have raised to extract value from his slow play.

My comment about raising the flop with a set was actually in response to trustysam's comment here, which I quoted in the reply:

Originally Posted by TrustySam

Wouldn't anybody be worried with a check-raise on the turn with a set (of 8's) that they'll only get called by better (set of K's), and fold out worse (AA, AK)?

But yeah I agree with you if we haven't raised the flop with a set we should at least be raising the turn with it.

Originally Posted by topthecat

I am getting really confused with this one; so there is nothing new there then

Siekkkkk says here as I read it that he had the 87 clubs.

But how could he have 87 clubs when the flop contained the 8 clubs

Or am I missing something?

Cheers,

Tony

You're not missing something. There's a typo in there somewhere, since it's reasonable to assume he remembers distinctly his holding, I'm guessing the 8 on the board was a spade.