I played last night which is something I haven't had any time to do during the last month - I think I played 6 hours in the previous 30 days. To be honest, I was a bit concerned that I would be a bit off which is always something to watch out for after time away from the table but I couldn't have been more 'on'. There are bad beat posts galore online - I thought I'd share some good wins.

First of all, I didn't win that much - the cards didn't cooperate but I lost the minimum with those hands I lost and saved so much money with reads that I walked away very pumped.

eg. A player who usually plays very straight forward raised to $20 out of the SB, I called with AdQd and was called by two players behind me. He then did something very out of character for him - he checked in the dark. What on earth does that mean by a guy who never has done that before? I decided it was a big ace. The flop came Ac9d5h and I checked as well. One of the two players behind me was very loose-aggressive and wanted to give him a chance to bet to see what the SB would do - but it was checked around. The turn card came a Qs. The SB bet $80 and I raised $240. It was folded around to the SB who called. The river came a Kh. He checked. He had to have AK... I checked, he showed me AK.

I'm in LP and theres a $10 straddle on. It's called by 5 players and the player to my immediate right makes it $110 - he has $241 left. He doesn't make this play with an Ace or a pair... he has big cards but no ace... he wants to see the flop with an ace. I look down and see A2o. I figure I'm only about 60:40 but I don't have to commit the $241 unless I hit or he misses. I believe he will bet a miss and check a hit. I call. I don't usually suggest taking 60:40 shots for great deals of money against bad opponents but I'm 60:40 on the flop and I don't invest any more unless I'm ahead on the flop - which makes me 80:20 for the $241. I called and the flop came 5h8s3c and he pushed - I called and he recieved no help for his KcQs.

I call the $10 straddle with the KdJs and a LAP in LP raises to $100. Again I decide that it's not a pair nor an ace. KQ beats me, KJ ties and I beat KT, QT, QJ and JT - I call. The flop comes 9s8h4c and we both check. The turn is a 2s - we both check. The river is a 2c and he bets $200. I call and he shows QT.

I'm holding AA pre-flop and I limp, waiting for the inevitable raise in this game. Not disappointed the LAP in the SB raises to $65 and there are 2 callers when it gets to me. I call and raise to $300. The original raiser calls and the remaining players fold. About $750 in the pot and we both have about $900 left. He's the kind of guy who will limp with a pair trying to make a set but raise with alot of other hands. The flop came AsQhKd and all the bells and whistles went off in my head. He checked and I checked behind him. He had JT - I was sure of it. The turn came a 2c and he bet $200 - about perfect current odds for a call - I had ten outs and called. The river came a 7 and he once again bet $200. I folded and he showed a JT.

I'm not suggesting that these plays should be standard - it was a very unstandard evening. But there are times that I know, with remarkable clarity what my opponent has and this was one of those nights... it's a huge rush when it happens. For instance, in the last example - he only has to NOT have JT about once in 7 times for a $200 call to be correct - but I was certain of it - allowing me to save the $200.

Anyway - have fun.

Wow...that's all I can say. Just incredible.

I know you are a regular on this forum, and I have read several of your posts before - you obviously know what you are doing - so this post is not meant to come across hostile, nor am I calling you a liar.

But could you please explain a little more about how you knew for a 100% certainty that your opponent had JT in that last hand? The way I read it, you seemed to know on the flop that you were beat. What reasoning did you use here?

Is JT the absolute ONLY hand that your opponent would raise from the SB, call a limp-raise and check the flop with? Why not QQ or KK? Or KQ?

I'm sorry, I am just a bit too skeptical to believe that you could peg your opponent on JT there and lay down AA. I guess I've read too much BS on the internet - I'm a bit jaded, I suppose.

Thanks

D

I think i'm more impressed with your A2o and KJ hands. I've seen this guy play in person and he's the best i've ever seen reading what people had but those hands are the most impressive in my mind.

I was at first a little skeptical when I read TUP's posts. In his journal he shows so many winning days and thinks nothing of it. Who wins like 40 days in a row and dosent think he's on a rush? Regardless, after reading his posts I know he's I think he's the real deal, the Tiger Woods/Mike Jordan of poker so to speak. peace

YD

drogga,

No problem - but I'm not sure that my answer will make it any clearer. First and foremost it was a gut feeling and I went with that. Now I've certainly tried to determine where that gut feeling came from and this is what I came up with... well, before I do.. this is not to say that this covers all bases. Another time, another place I might do something else - there are intangibles here and I'm not pretending I can quantify them but anyway:

JT is definately within the range of hands he would have made the call with. He had been reading a copy of the current card player earlier in the evening and there's a good article in there about the strength of JT this month. Had he just read it? I don't know but it crossed my mind. He's a LAP but not a total idiot and called $300 pre-flop... how does that flop NOT hit him? Yet he checked the flop? That was suspicious. Then the turn... $200? Is that a "please call me bet" or what? He's loose aggressive... a $200 bet into a $750 pot is damn near passive. You asked why not KK or QQ. He likes to limp with pairs to try and hit a set. If he had either of these hands though he would not have called the $300 - he would have pushed all-in. KQ was a possibility pre-flop but less likely. He's not a bad player overall in spite of being loose-passive.... well, yes, he's bad but he's not unknowledgeable - yeah - thats a better way of saying it. KQ is likely to be dominated when I make it $300 - JT is not. Too, if he had the KQ and flopped two pair he would have bet the flop - of that I'm certain.

Again, there are some intangibles here - but hope this helps. Don't ever worry about a question offending me - I may not always be able to give a good answer, but I'll never get offended.

TUP

TUP -

Thanks for the reply. The more I think about it - your play does makes a lot of sense. However, I still have one concern.

Preflop:

You seemed to narrow him down to all non-pair hands containing two cards ten or higher, but not containing an ace.

Flop:

Your read on your opponent here suggests that he will bet all two-pair hands - eliminating KQ. Leaving only the possibility of QJ QT and JT.

Turn:

The 200 bet is a "please call me" bet and thus the only rational holding is indeed JT - he would just check again with QJ and QT - you are beat.


However, on the flop - if you could narrow him down to QJ, QT, and JT - why give a possible gutshot a free peek at the turn? Or at this point, did he just check in a way that tipped off his hand as being strong? Seeing that this is live poker, a totally different monster than internet poker.

Thanks

D

D,

I certainly considered the possibility that he had an Ace in his hand pre-flop but when an ace fell is was much less likely. Too, if he had an ace he would almost have to have AK or possibly AQ and when he checked the flop (since he wouldn't check two pair) that analysis was discarded.

By the way, you said:
"Turn:
The 200 bet is a "please call me" bet and thus the only rational holding is indeed JT - he would just check again with QJ and QT - you are beat. "

Actually, with this opponent he probably wouldn't check again with QJ or QT. Since he showed weakness on the flop he would very likely try and represent that it was a trap and move all-in on the turn. Which just made the $200 bet even stronger. Too, he might very well do that on the flop - a pair and a draw with two cards to come might just get all the chips in. What was it about his check on the flop or was that even it at all? - I don't know. But I knew. While I will always try to quantify moments like this at the table in post game analysis, I have learned to trust my instincts while in the heat of it.

BTW, sorry I was delayed getting back to you - had to make an emergency Taco Bell run

TUP

Now what's really incredible is when you have one of those "on" nights and find yourself calling when you know you're beat just to see if you're right. You simutaneously pat yourself on the back while shipping it across the table.

YD,

Thanks for the kind words (you too Brian!) but you sent me back to my journal to do some checking - 23 and then 30... there weren't 40 in a row... but I still got your point. As for the Woods/Jordon of poker - my vote goes for Ted Forrest. But I haven't given up - problem is - he's not the giving up type either.

TUP

TUP- From my brief experience playing 2/5 NL at Vegas, it seems as if it is rather easy to churn a consistent profit simply by playing a significant amount of pots aggressively. Now, I'm sure that could change if I played with the regulars often enough that they knew I was just bullying them around, but at least with no prior knowledge of my play it was fairly easy to get them off of a hand.

Is that at all accurate? I'm thinking of the Monte Carlo game in particular.

palman,

Well, on the aggressiveness side of things there is the whole loose to tight continuum and so I'm a bit hesitant to give a simple 'yes'. but... yes. I mean, are there games where aggression alone will get the money? Absolutely. Shorthanded games are usually the best for this type of thing or a rock garden - both of which Vegas has plenty of. It's the phenomena we see when some LAP is winning all the chips on the table in a tight short-handed game. Despite the drawbacks to his loose - normally losing style - his opponents are playing so tight that they protect him from himself. At that point he doesn't even have to know how to play.

TUP

TUP... I don't wanna sound like the only player here who doesn't seem to know my a** from your elbow, but I would've lost all 3 of those hands... I'm going to Vegas in a couple weeks, and am now questioning myself a little... regarding the infamous "3rd hand" (the JT), what percentage of players do you think would call a $300 preflop bet w/ seemingly poor preflop hands?
MVP

So these reads were WAY more player read dependent than anything?