[trutan]

I know Jojo and I have posted about this before but I just can't believe that this works so much.

PokerStars Game #15063692739: Tournament #76344562, $1.00+$0.20 Hold'em No Limit - Level II (15/30) - 2008/02/04 - 20:07:31 (ET)
Table '76344562 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 2: HeavyDee_57 (3263 in chips)
Seat 4: eyoregs (1810 in chips)
Seat 5: Solberg1905 (2990 in chips)
Seat 7: mmsoldier (2725 in chips)
Seat 8: LeblahLeblah (1317 in chips)
Seat 9: anla616 (1395 in chips)
Solberg1905: posts small blind 15
mmsoldier: posts big blind 30
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Solberg1905 [As 2s]
LeblahLeblah: folds
anla616: calls 30
HeavyDee_57: raises 30 to 60
eyoregs: folds
Solberg1905: calls 45
mmsoldier: folds
anla616: folds
*** FLOP *** [3s 6s 9s]
Solberg1905: checks
HeavyDee_57: bets 150
Solberg1905: calls 150
*** TURN *** [3s 6s 9s] [4d]
Solberg1905: checks
HeavyDee_57: bets 150
Solberg1905 said, "really?"
Solberg1905: calls 150
*** RIVER *** [3s 6s 9s 4d] [Qd]
Solberg1905: bets 420
HeavyDee_57: raises 420 to 840
Solberg1905 said, "I don't believe you"
Solberg1905: raises 1790 to 2630 and is all-in
HeavyDee_57: calls 1790
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Solberg1905: shows [As 2s] (a flush, Ace high)
HeavyDee_57: shows [Qh Ks] (a pair of Queens)
Solberg1905 said, ";o)"
Solberg1905 collected 6040 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 6040 | Rake 0
Board [3s 6s 9s 4d Qd]
Seat 2: HeavyDee_57 showed [Qh Ks] and lost with a pair of Queens
Seat 4: eyoregs (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: Solberg1905 (small blind) showed [As 2s] and won (6040) with a flush, Ace high
Seat 7: mmsoldier (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: LeblahLeblah folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: anla616 folded before Flop



Note: I know this is a $1 +.20 but c'mon!

[BassVillan]

I think your "note" at the bottom of the thread said it best. I'm not saying they're aren't any fish to real in when playing higher stakes but they're fewer and far between. At a $1 tourney not only are you playing with a bunch of stations but these stations also treat top pair as if they're holding the mortal nutz.

[byline9]

LMAO...really?...LMAO....

[whataboutj]

Whats even funnier is he didn't have top pair until the river. I see this all the time in low stakes SnG's and tournies. People try to push other players off hands with nothing and don't get it when you re-raise them. The worst is when a doknament stays in a hand with Ace high and hits a 1 outer on the river to win the hand

[jdunford]

Originally Posted by trutan

Note: I know this is a $1 +.20 but c'mon!

Ya, that guy was hopeless. Not sure how he thought his rivered top pair could be winning after missing his K-high flush draw.

But what do you say if/when the board pairs on the river and he shows you the boat? You'd look pretty stupid for slow-playing that flopped A-high flush...

But I guess by calling him down, you get the opportunity to make sure the board doesn't pair before risking your entire stack. Could be argued either way.

[trutan]

Sure. If the board pairs on the river, I ceryainly play the river differently. However, with that board (through the turn) the only hand that he would min-raise UTG with that would boat up on the river is a pp that flopped a set.

Against, better competition, I would definitely play this faster. As is, I don't think it would have changed things with this guy.

[jdunford]

Originally Posted by trutan

Sure. If the board pairs on the river, I ceryainly play the river differently. However, with that board (through the turn) the only hand that he would min-raise UTG with that would boat up on the river is a pp that flopped a set.

Min-raising with a small pocket pair is pretty much textbook poker. In fact, it's so common that I don't do it anymore (at least not very often). He could easily have 33, 66, or 99 and play it exactly like that. Even 44. If this was a "what would you do?" thread and the river pairs the board, I'd say "call" when he raises you on the river... and it would be a crying call, 'cause to me, it looked like he had a set the whole way. Well, that or the K-high flush draw... which is what he actually did have.

[trutan]

Originally Posted by jdunford

Min-raising with a small pocket pair is pretty much textbook poker. In fact, it's so common that I don't do it anymore (at least not very often). He could easily have 33, 66, or 99 and play it exactly like that. Even 44. If this was a "what would you do?" thread and the river pairs the board, I'd say "call" when he raises you on the river... and it would be a crying call, 'cause to me, it looked like he had a set the whole way. Well, that or the K-high flush draw... which is what he actually did have.

You are preaching to the choir sir!

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by jdunford

Min-raising with a small pocket pair is pretty much textbook poker.

which textbook is this? i think it's a pretty horrible play in the same way that any variation from a standard raise sizing is horrible if it's always done with the same hand/type of hand.

i know that some people raise a little bit with pretty good hands (33, KJ) and more with great hands, but i don't know that i'd call it textbook, just b/c it's so weak and exploitable. calling it textbook indicates that it's been recommended by some reliable source of inforamtion.

jdun: i'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to figure out why you referred to it that way.

[jdunford]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

which textbook is this? i think it's a pretty horrible play in the same way that any variation from a standard raise sizing is horrible if it's always done with the same hand/type of hand.

i know that some people raise a little bit with pretty good hands (33, KJ) and more with great hands, but i don't know that i'd call it textbook, just b/c it's so weak and exploitable. calling it textbook indicates that it's been recommended by some reliable source of inforamtion.

jdun: i'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to figure out why you referred to it that way.

I can't remember what book it was... some introductory (and not very good) book on NLHE saying that, in order to ensure you get sufficient implied odds (i.e. will get paid off when you flop a set), min-raising a small pocket pair is generally a good play.

Somehow, this became common knowledge at my home cash game. Then it got to be that whenever someone min-raised, one of the guys would almost certainly start razzing the raiser, saying, "Got another small pair in the hole, eh?!" If the flop was something like 2-3-7, there was no way you could get any more money out of the hand because everyone was certain a bet or raise meant you flopped a set. Of course, this could work to your advantage from a bluffing point of view... but it generally sucked. Hence, I don't do it anymore!

Yes, it's a very predictable play and is easily exploited. But this is a $1 tourney, so I'm sure you're bound to find lots of beginners who read that book and would min-raise with a small PP.

If I remember what book it was, I'll let you know. In fact, I should ask the guy that does most of the razzing! He'd probably remember. In fact, he might be reading this. He's a "CT lurker"... likes to remind me how much of a chip-geek I am by quoting my CT post count, often to within a few percent -- so he must be on here fairly frequently!