Please consider the following situation, and tell me where you usually put on the brakes in a full limit ring game. Is it on the flop, the turn, the river, or never?
Say you are in a tough 5-10 or 10-20 game. You have AKo in a middle position. You raise, and only the bigblind calls. Bigblind is a good player who is not too loose but is capable of bluffing.
Flop comes J 9 5 rainbow.
Bigblind checks. Do you bet, or put on the brakes?
If you bet, and he calls, and a 4 comes off (still rainbow), BigBlind checks, do you bet, or put on the brakes here?
You bet, he calls, and the river is a 2. He checks. Bet on the river, or put on the brakes?
I know every situation is different. But I have a feeling that everyone has a spot that they find themselves putting on the brakes most often. Any responses?
I would leave the game if possible.
My default play is bet, bet, check the river unless I improve. The beauty of playing like that is if you river an ace or king you get the extra bet, you aren't giving any free cards to draws and sometimes a worse hand without a draw will call and a better hand will fold. But you have to mix it up. If your opponent likes to bluff, I might check the turn and call down on the river, unless another card in the zone fell(Q,10 or 8).
I think I'd bet-bet check as well most of the time. If he raises along the way I'd probably fold, but read Rformans post in the quiz thread. Knowing when to bet and when to fold in these situations is an artform.
Also you should consider the likeliness that he's holding a draw. This is determined by the flop, and how he has played previously.
I would play the same way in limit. But would you apply the bet, bet, check method in NL as well? Say in a tournament situation?
I played in a 200 player tournament last week and even though some cards came my way early, I just could NOT hit a flop to save my life. The times when I was first to act and checked, the other guy bet so I folded. This exact situation we are discussing here has stuck in my head since then.
So in a NL tourny, If I have a hand (AK, AQs etc.) but miss the flop and the flop has no draws, do I bet into it if first to act? If I am second to act and it is checked to me I will surely check as well but if it is bet to me should I fold? I have been very confident about my play but after busting out around 100th last week and never having a comortable stack I am wondering if it was my play in situations like these or just not hitting flops that caused me to bust early.
I would bet the flop, check the turn, then call if he bets, or check it down...this way, you m ay induce bluff and get an extra bet that way, and you are still betting the same ammount in the bet, bet check scenario...also, I might bet the river if Ichecked the turn...maybe he will fold something like 5's thinking I have something like 9's and was worried about theovercads on the turn, now I'm responding to two checks...
I have an unbelievable story that happened to me last Sat. nite. I was playin in a home game with 9 people. 5 of the people are regulars that I play with quite frequently. At best these guys are ok poker players, but happen to be very good friends. I win at least one game a night and dominate overall, sometimes playin loosely or even throwing a game or two just to keep the buyins higher and keep their interests in. These guys never or rarely play in casinos, but do play quite often in rather large home games. Ok, to my point...Given the amount these guys play, I just assumed everyone knew all the rules and knew them well. When someone is low on chips, they know how to divide pots etc...so that no-one can win more than his stack from anybody. Very basic, I know. But this game got down to me and another guy heads up. Both of us had about the exact same stacks. We traded chips for a few hands but then it finally happened. We both went all-in. I won with a straight. After counting the chips I had all but one chip, leaving him with one. So he still had a chance with one chip. I'm big blind on the next hand, but that doesn't matter, cause he's all-in with one chip. I throw in one to match and he laughs and says to match the rest of the big blind. I thought he was jokin. It turns out that more than half the people in that room thought that blinds were ante'd no matter what the situation. That I should allow him a chance to get 10 times his one chip just cause I'm supposed to ante the big blind. I argued this for a half an hour. UNBELIEVABLE! They actually thought that the blinds were put in regardless of chip counts. I finally played their way, just to get it over with, ante'd it in and took him down next hand. Then told them all to get a rule book and call me when they want to play by the rules.
Yes, you must post the full blind regardless of whether someone is all-in with a smaller amount. Were you guys heads up? If you were, than I can see where you would be correct. If he has the best hand, I believe all he can win is an amount equal to what he has (in this case one chip). But if there are other live players in the hand, you must post the full blind, and any callers most also post and create a side pot with the overage.
you should of posted the big blind......but he can only win what he has,(chalk it up to procedure) so if he would of won, you would of taken all but 2 chips and he would of received those 2 chips. YOU CAN ONLY WIN WHAT YOU HAVE AND NO MORE!!! Don't play with these clowns, and make sure the rules are posted somewhere.
Yes, that was my point, it was heads up. They actually thought that he could win all ten of mine to his one. This is actually one of the first times this has happened to me in a long time...if ever. Usually when someone cannot match the blinds, there are more people still in the game, not very often does it happen heads up! That must be what created their confusion, cause they usually play the game right.
