Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Poker Education & Beginners Questions / Old Hand Analysis Section /

25NL 6-Max: Slowplaying Flopped Bottom Two Pair in a Multiway Pot

 
Old
Default
25NL 6-Max: Slowplaying Flopped Bottom Two Pair in a Multiway Pot - Fri Jun 17, 2011, 02:10 AM
(#1)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
This was my very first hand at the table. I had been observing for a few hands prior though, and I had noticed that there were two players at the table who had awkward stack sizes that were way too small to gain much from a double-up. I assumed this was a sign of weakness from both, and I think I did see confirmation that one of them was fishy right before this hand started. I ended up getting both in this hand with me, and I flopped two pair (up over $100 in the past 48 hours; loving the heater). Thoughts on my line? I was jamming any river bet after my check, FYI.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (5 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

UTG ($13.22)
MP ($21.52)
Button ($11.35)
SB ($25.95)
Panicky (BB) ($25)

Preflop: Panicky is BB with 8, 7
UTG bets $0.75, 1 fold, Button calls $0.75, 1 fold, Panicky calls $0.50

Flop: ($2.35) J, 8, 7 (3 players)
Panicky checks, UTG bets $1.50, Button calls $1.50, Panicky calls $1.50

Turn: ($6.85) 7 (3 players)
Panicky checks, UTG checks, Button bets $1.62, Panicky calls $1.62, UTG calls $1.62

River: ($11.71) A (3 players)
Panicky checks,

Last edited by PanickyPoker; Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 03:16 AM..
 
Old
Default
?? - Fri Jun 17, 2011, 08:25 AM
(#2)
monkeyskunk4's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,818
Bear with me here PP- as is alot going on in this hand-- 1. you are running good, hitting alot of flops, and your confidence in post flop play is high--2.- you are new to the table- and have identified 2 fishy players- so you take a flop relatively cheap with both-

I get that if your reads are correct- you dont really have to bet- 1 of them will do it for you- yet on that flop- kinda draw heavy- wouldnt check/raising be advantageous ?- 1.- to isolate 1 player who is hopefully married to an over pair or top top- and 2. for value- i think you have evry reason to believe you are ahead at that point-- and have no clue you are going to fill up on the turn --

You turn your gin card and still flat--?? obv. wanting to keep both in- yet it doesnt look to me like either one is going anywhere soon- both have invested 25% of there stack(+/-) so why not raise again- for pure value

River is great card - specially if one of them backed into a flush- or or top top made aces up- yet if they think u backed into a flush- i doubt you get paid-- on a river shuv- are worse hands gonna call you there-?

So my ?? to you- is do you think you missed some value there- on 2 streets?- by trying to get it all on the river?

Thoughts----- and gratz on the --run good---

PS. as i think about it more-- the call call - shuv line- you planned- however unlikely- AA JJ and 88- have you beat- and will call-- makes me believe that check raising is more profitable in the long run-- jmo---

one more thing- dont you have to bet that river-again for value- and hope you get raised?/ idk-- or atleast called- did they check it down?

Last edited by monkeyskunk4; Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 10:16 AM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 10:12 AM
(#3)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,809
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
if you think that one of them will bet the river (which from earlier in the hand, it looks like they will)... I like the check/shove line. If you raised earlier in the hand, then they're going to be alot more cautious or even already out. If they push the river (which could easily happen), the only hands that beat you are JJ, 88, A7, J7, AA.... and I'll take my chances.
 
Old
Default
?? - Fri Jun 17, 2011, 11:22 AM
(#4)
monkeyskunk4's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,818
knowing the turn and river - obv- makes this easier to comment on- my ?? is on the flop- against 2 players- oop-- what are you gonna do if the 7 dont come off- and there is say 4 to a straight on board-or another broadway card falls- and you 2 pair is counterfeited- check/fold??- surely one of those guys is drawing-no? so i wanna 1. make em pay to see the turn- or 2.- atleast get a fold out of one of them - and play the pot heads up--as i am oop----and 3. as it happens- build a nice pot- if i get lucky and fill up- stack 1 or both of them-- so to both protect my hand- and build a pot- i think i would check raise that flop-- too aggressive?



wheres Dave when u need him??

Last edited by monkeyskunk4; Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 12:08 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 01:38 PM
(#5)
oriholic's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 751
BronzeStar
Calling with 78 offsuit out of position against two short stacks? That sounds a little leaky. Yeah they're fish, but eh, I'd rather play 94 in position against a fish.

I don't like your check-calling line....way too passive. Aren't you a pretty aggressive player as a standard? You have a fairly strong hand on a board that can start looking pretty scary. Better to raise here before it gets too scary. I'd like to raise here. Doesn't appear that a raise would make them fold either.

On the turn you have a total monster of a hand and there is now a flush draw out there to add on to all those crummy straight draws. You have to get more money in the pot here. You need to charge draws and get as much value from flush and straight draws as possible before they don't come in on the river AND you need to get value from weaker hands that will be scared of flush and straight draws and won't pay off on the river. Also this tiny bet they made sucks as a pot-builder, so you gotta raise it up.

Anyhow, I'd just bet $7 on the river (basically a shove). I don't want to check in hopes that they bet $1 for me.
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 03:00 PM
(#6)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
I'm fine with my flat call from the blinds. I don't think it's leaky at all. I'm confident that I can play an unsuited connector OOP in a situation like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
I don't like your check-calling line....way too passive. Aren't you a pretty aggressive player as a standard? You have a fairly strong hand on a board that can start looking pretty scary. Better to raise here before it gets too scary.
I came prepared for this one, at least. To answer monk's question, I checked the flop with the intention of check-raising it, but I changed my mind after the bet-call for one main reason, and that was the stack sizes. I decided that if I donk lead or check-raised the flop, draws were likely getting thrown away, and I was retaining a very small range of hands from my opponents. I thought that if I could squeeze out a turn c-bet from one of them, I could check-raise then and possibly get both stacks in because they might feel like they were committed. Obviously I wasn't scared of being outdrawn when the turn came, so I changed my mind about my line again.

The reason I checked the turn was because I wasn't afraid of draws getting there, and didn't feel a need to charge them. I figured I might see a turn c-bet, so donk leading would do the same thing as it would on the flop- it would represent strength and would get draws and weaker top pairs to go away. I thought that it might pay to let the draws get there on the river as well. I thought there was no reason whatsoever to bet. After the c-bettor failed to c-bet again, and villain #2 only micro-bet, I decided that I couldn't keep either in with a check-raise, so I thought calling maxed my value again.

On the river, I felt like someone rivering a flush was pretty likely, which is why I checked the third time. A flush would almost certainly value bet it.

I'm pretty surprised you don't like the line, ori. There is some thinking behind it, even if I happened to lose value (if my line lost value, I imagine it was on the turn or river). And yes, I am an aggressive player, often to a fault, so I'm extra surprised you don't see the reasoning when I go out of my way to be passive.

Last edited by PanickyPoker; Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 03:03 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 03:07 PM
(#7)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
If they push the river (which could easily happen), the only hands that beat you are JJ, 88, A7, J7, AA.... and I'll take my chances.
This was a part of my thinking on the flop too, actually. I was never holding the nuts, and raising at any point would likely have gotten most of the hands I beat to get thrown away, and all the hands that beat me would stay. But I definitely thought that I would be value-cutting myself by donk jamming this hand on any post-flop street, for a number of different reasons (that changed from street to street).
 
Old
Default
?? - Fri Jun 17, 2011, 03:39 PM
(#8)
monkeyskunk4's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,818
Fair enuff-- PP- like i said tho- its the flop action that we differ- no idea you are gonna fill up- and botttom 2 is real vulnerable on that board- i wouldnt be unhappy with folds from both - on a check raise- still a tidy $5-50 pot- anyway- ty again for posting an interesting hand-- and gl-- monk...
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 03:41 PM
(#9)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Bottom 2 pr is one of the trickiest hand situations you are going to find in poker.

On the one hand, it has a pretty good likelihood of being the "best" hand on most flops, but on the other it is a holding which can be highly vulnerable for my prefered play style (LAG) because you are often getitng called when you raise BEHIND a bettor. The difficulty just increases when you have little info on your table...

You though, were OOP, so the difficulty increases even MORE.

I know that I "like" playing bottom 2 as a check/raise hand in these spots, simply because if it checks behind me I'm not really overly "scared" of giving the free card (since I'd lead a blank turn, and muck to a solid raise without a qualm). The other sort of hand I will tend to go for the non-standard check/raise is a strong combo draw (such as middle ooe str/flush draw, or a broadway nut flush/gut shot draw).

Based on the factors at work here, I think checking with the intent of RAISING the flop is probably better than your line. The board does hold a potential straight, but with only 1 broadway card and no flush draw shots, flatting this flop bet strikes me as a bit "icky" (not tricky, "icky"). I'd think that you really want to get your value in on the flop since you tend to lack the reads which will tell you an opponent will keep betting top pair for you, see?

When you do binked the turn boat though, you now have a hand that you can be pretty sure is the best. You also have no solid "threats" to draw out on you, and with only 1 card to come you lack the info needed to know someone is fishy enough to call on a flush draw/gut shot STR draw with jsut 1 card to come. This means your turn check is in HOPES that someone will bet behind so you can flat, and give 'em a chance to river a 2nd best hand.

(OK, You are really HOPING after the turn that someone has flopped that straight! )

As for the river, with your boat and the 3rd h, especially the Ah which may have made someone a 2pr hand, I think I'd be more inclined to make a bet sized to indicate a "bluff stab". Granted, you are new to the table and there is little chance they will "know" what your bet patterns are, plus you also do not have info on whether the opponents will regard a very SMALL lead as a bluff, or whether they will view a really BIG bet as a bluff, so making a bet to "represent" a bluff is going to be hard.

If your casual observations showed that the guy who has been driving the betting will tend to make a 3 barrel bluff (as opposed to firing twice then "giving up), then I have ZERO issue with another check here. I do think that third h, the paired board, the possible straight flop, plus your oop flats of 2 bets might be "enough" threat to prevent most player from barrelling the river on even a 2pr hand. this is why I think I'd prefer to TRY a reverse bluff lead bet; at least then I am probably getting a "crying call" from a lot of hands, see?

So what happened?

Last edited by JDean; Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 03:43 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 03:54 PM
(#10)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
Based on the factors at work here, I think checking with the intent of RAISING the flop is probably better than your line.
I would have done this had the stacks been shorter. On the turn, neither villain had two pot-sized bets in their stack, so had a brick fallen, I could have easily gotten either or both stacks committed with one big bet, assuming either had a hand.

Will say what happened a bit later. Don't want to spoil this for anyone. Although, I will mention that my heater is over. I've gotten 67 hands in this morning and already I've been setmined, I've had a flush beaten by quads, and worst of all, I got a flopped full house rivered by a three-outer overboat. Pretty sick morning.
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 03:58 PM
(#11)
oriholic's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 751
BronzeStar
You're not afraid of draws getting there. You're afraid of them not getting there. Unless you can count on a good sized river bluff from a missed draw you should try to get value from them while their draws look live. And if someone has a hand like AJ or QQ you want to get value from them before they get scared of the flush. The river is a good scare card, which is exactly what you don't want.

So do we check or bet?

If we check we expect him to value bet his flushes and full houses, and bluff what? Does he have a bluffing range here? I don't even like check-jamming this river to be honest. How wide is his check-shove calling range? I know it should be 100% of his value range, because he's pot-committed, but does he know or care about that?

If we bet we expect him to raise his flushes and full houses and possibly call with marginal hands like AJ and QQ, folding his air.

I say bet.

Quote:
And yes, I am an aggressive player, often to a fault, so I'm extra surprised you don't see the reasoning when I go out of my way to be passive.
Because it screams out that you're being tricky. And even if someone falls for it you often lose out on a ton of value. Generally it's good to play your big hands the same as your bluffs, because you're likely to get looked up. Sometimes it works if the other player is super aggressive, but not against passive players. They just don't bet enough to make it worthwhile. Also, if you wouldn't play your real hands the way you play your bluffs, then your bluff line becomes super obvious. You have to play your strong hands strong to protect your bluffs.

Yeah, 78 ain't a terrible hand to have there, but an offsuit connector out of position isn't something you want to get into the habit of playing all the time, that's all.

Last edited by oriholic; Fri Jun 17, 2011 at 04:02 PM..
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 04:13 PM
(#12)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
If we bet we expect him to raise his flushes and full houses and possibly call with marginal hands like AJ and QQ, folding his air.
I don't expect a flush to raise me. I expect a flush to call. I do, however, expect a flush to value bet, and since flushes are the hand that seem to have gotten there, betting appears to be value-cutting myself by at least one bet. Even if he will never call a shove with a flush, that's an arguement to check/call, not bet/call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oriholic View Post
Because it screams out that you're being tricky. And even if someone falls for it you often lose out on a ton of value. Generally it's good to play your big hands the same as your bluffs...
I think that general rules like this are very flawed when playing micro-stakes, or non-thinking players at any level. This arguement is the arguement to play unexploitably. But if these guys don't pay attention to my betting habits, then I can open myself up to being exploited all I want and never lose value. This is such a case, I think. So that's reason one that I disagree with your arguement to be more aggressive.

Reason two is the whole value-cutting thing I've explained. I just don't think the hands that will give me value will be continuing if I take an aggressive line. It's sort of the same reason why I occassionally check top pair. I've heard the arguement before that you should c-bet your made hands, because if you're going to c-bet your bluffs, you need to c-bet when you have a hand, too. The problem with that arguement here is that if I bet, then sure, I'm setting up an image. But what I'm also doing is losing value from hands that will only put more money in if I don't bet.

I don't think I'm being tricky; I think I'm being smart.
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 04:21 PM
(#13)
oriholic's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 751
BronzeStar
You bet because the $1.75 he's going to value bet is pathetic. Bet $7 and you will make way more on average than if you check and let him bet I think. And also, he'll check behind a lot of hands that might call a river bet. I check-call the river a lot, but I'm not thrilled with it here, because this guy seems to be betting super tiny.
 
Old
Default
Fri Jun 17, 2011, 04:59 PM
(#14)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
That makes sense. Two of the reasons for checking that were going through my head at the time were, I felt that I was never getting two players to call a river lead-out, but I might get one or both pot-stuck and I might get at least one all-in with a check-raise, and I wanted to encourage bluffs. But I can see how these reasons are pretty weak given this situation. I can see why leading out is good, especially if the biggest river c-bet I can expect is another micro-bet.

I think checking still has merit, especially if, as someone said earlier, I have evidence to suggest that big river bluffs are coming. But I can definitely see how checking probably cost me in this particular spot. Thanks for the explanation, ori. I'll consider leading out more in spots like this in the future.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com