I would have gone a little higher on the flop, at least 150. Danger with under-betting it there is that you get a call and give him a chance to hit his straight. Make him pay for it if he wants it.

Not a lot of response on this thread...

What I wanted to know was if this is a standard push? Given the action, what do you put MP3 on?

Anyone...?

I think he has a set. raising 3x your bet is worrysome. I don't think a draw would raise that much unless its made and at this point it can't be. At this point I wouldn't push, I'd call him down or even fold to big bet on the turn if a 3rd card to either the flush or straight comes.

I didn't even think of QT. Maybe that's because I NEVER PLAY QT. Tough loss with aces, but oh well, bless the retard for playing QT, because he'll lose more often then not with it.

I feel you, CJ. I get frustrated as well. I took a shot at the $22 and $11 SnGs over at Prima last week, but I couldn't find any action whatsover. I'm serious. I had to sit down at a table and wait for at least 20 minutes before it filled up. I play at Royal Card Club (with rakeback), but I assume all the Prima skins share the same SnG players? UB is another option, but PokerOffice is non-supportive of that room, so I'd have buy PT to start playing there.

I'm going to keep saying that you guys are wrong about the Party structure. I've dropped down and multitabled some $30's lately, and my ROI was very close to my historical average -- well over 30% over about three dozen SNGs. My totals on Party for SNGs with 800 starting chips is over 40% ROI, so I don't see how you can seriously say that a better player just can't win when there are 800 starting chips.

Nash, I don't necessarily believe that, either. Fewer starting chips give the odds less of a chance to even themselves out, true. But over the long run, the better player is going to win more no matter how many chips you start with. The key is that you have to adjust your game a little bit to work with it.

With Party's 800 starting chips, I think it's even more important to play squeaky tight in the beginning -- conserve your chips and let a couple or three people eliminate themselves before you start getting involved.

Given that, I still would have played this hand the same way the OP did with the caveat that I would have bet the flop harder to start.

I'm sorry I didn't answer Magic's question. (There was a Green Bay quarterback once upon a time named, I believe, Don Majakovski--they called him Magic.) I would have bet the pot on the flop, then folded when the guy reraised, which I hoped he would. A smaller bet is just asking to get bit in the ass.

Nash, I understand what you're saying, and while you may find it the same, I sincerely do not. I do see the same kind of play at every site now, most players are still in with blinds way, way up, but they don't win, consistenly. They pass chips around. With a higher number of chips, I can be MORE patient and syphon off a bunch over a longer period of time. If you're stuck with 800, you're down close to 600 when the blinds get up to the level of "time to go." You're around 6BB. Your 2X raise doesn't have any power behind it. You raise 3X, and you might as well go all in, because you have NOTHING left for a strong turn bet. (The turn is where I win or lose.)

Isn't that the same for all strong players? Those who are better, play post-flop better. That's where the rub of being short-stacked comes in. Now, if I could manage to win one or two decent pots in the first three levels, then we're talking something different. However, with 1500 starting chips, I don't HAVE to win ANY pots for the first three rounds, plus I can take MORE SHOTS and still have enough chips to make some noise when the blinds are 50/100 and up.

Sorry, I know we're probably not ever going to agree, but I think you'd win a LOT more if you were playing on any other site. Party rewards luck more than good play. IMHO. (see sig below)

CJ