Translate by kidam
When players to review the way they played a hand, the focus is often their level of aggression. Several errors fall into two categories: play too passive or too aggressive. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose to be too aggressive. Play liabilities is often a losing poker how to play and you can not always live in fear that a player has a better hand than you. However, there is nothing wrong to be careful in certain situations. Maybe the board or how to build an opponent will leave you with reason to believe that your hand is not the best. I played the next hand recently in a hold'em game $ 15 $ -30. Is what I have been reasonably prudent or timid for no good reason? You can judge for yourself.
A very passive player lousse-call while it is UTG (Under The Gun) preflop. An aggressive player to raise his left, which does not surprise me as he repeatedly tried to isolate the UTG player. Other players spend up to me on the button that looks at his cards and see KSJS. Usually I would sleep with this hand two bets. However, since the player who raise is an aggressive player, I know he does not necessarily have a premium hand. In fact, it has already shown several weak hands with which he raisées. This way of working combined with the fact that I was on the button, convinced me to call. Blinds and limpeux also wedged and so we were 5 players in action.
The flop came Ad-Ah-6h. I had missed completely. However, players before me checked. In my younger, carefree years (early twenties), I probably pushed my chips and took the pot - but not today. I took a free card, while a player may slowplayait his ace. The turn brought a Kd. To my surprise, the players were all before me check. I had the strongest pair with a decent kicker. So the question here is, are you going to build this place?
Why or why not?
I do not think the answer is so simple that it seems. There are several things to consider. Let's see the good reasons to bet:
1 - There are great chances for you to have the best hand and naturally you want to bet the best hand. Little lower than yours will give you the action hands, but someone with KT will pay you what kind of hand. It is also possible for someone to make the sheriff of the table and call with a marginal hand just to see if you are honest. The only other players who can caller you are those who are on a draw. Which brings us to the point No. 2.
2 - You want to pay the draws. There are two flush draw here and a player with one or the other will free card as an opportunity too good. Same thing for the player who holds QJ, QT or JT. These gutsho-straight draws are interesting hands. None of these players pay dearly to see the river, but will be happy to take a free card to perhaps complete his hand.
3 - You will know if you have the best hand by the response of your opponents bet. I do not necessarily adhere to this strategy, but many people do and I have to consider this point. The idea is that if no one you raise, your KJ is probably good. If you are check-raised, you can give credit to that person for his set of aces and fold your hand.
There are several reasons checker:
1 - It is suspicious that the player who raise preflop is checked twice. It has so far been very aggressive, which makes me fear the two checks. Other players showed no initiative so far it seems to me he would have taken himself if he had nothing like hand. Especially since it was the last raiser, he logically "right" to try to win the pot and I find it really doubtful that he did not.
2 - It is not unusual for this kind of limit see a player checker twice with a monster. This kind of scheme is not much used for small limits, but players with average limits are sophisticated enough to use. It is not only the player who preflop raise my concern. Other players also could checker with ace expecting that preflop raiseur automatically set the turn. I'm sure these two check are as much a surprise to me than it is for them.
3 - If the preflop raiseur had bet the turn, I would probably lay my hand. Therefore, I do not want to invest in a hand I am ready to sleep, just because I can not explain the checks. On the other hand, what I would do if I check-raised? This leads us to the point No. 4, which was the deciding factor for me.
4 - Building to see if we have the best hand is extremely problematic (reason No. 3 bet). The fact that you are on the button (while in flight) will put your ladle. An opponent may suspect you of theft and decide to check - raiser with nothing and so you will be difficult. Is it really beats you or does he only he can make you fold your hand? Maybe you take the right decision, but why put yourself in a situation so difficult when all you have to do is checker? This is why I hate strategy to build vou to know where you stand. You are on a poker table. That's all you know. Hunters go straight you check-raise only with something good. The most advanced players are certainly capable of simply check-raise to test you, and against other players, you will get no information about the strength of your hand. There is bad is that you lose a bet in this process.
This leads us to a point I discussed with poker theorists. They claim that limit hold'em, play a hand too passively more expensive than play too aggressively and I admit that this is often the case. An unjustified set will cost you a mere bet if you get raiser and you decide to call. Undue check, on the other hand, give an opponent who has a marginal hand, a free card. This opponent would Folde if you bet, but this free card could give him a pretty solid game to beat your hand. In this case, your liability will cost you play the entire pot.
But what happens when you are too aggressive with a marginal hand and an opponent who felt a weakness in you, you respond with a bluff? If your aggressiveness makes you sleep the hand that would have been stronger, it will cost you the pot full. Fortunately, this does not happen every day, but it happens often enough anyway, especially in complex parts where it should not be ignored. This is the dilemma I faced at the turn, because I thought one or the other ways I could have lost the entire pot.
Return to action. When everyone checked to me, I remembered that I do not want to be check-raised and I knew there was a good chance that somebody did. I went with my courage and my intuition told me to check and take a free card. The river brought a 9c. Everyone checked to me again and I was finally certain that nobody had slowplayé. If someone check a big hand three times, I leave him my money. I bet and everyone is lying until preflop raiseur who made a desperate call (probably he had a small or medium pocket pair) and my Ks-Js was good.
From the way it was played, I made the best decision. I had the best hand all along and put my absences would have cost me the entire pot if the river had been different. However, if the same scenario happens again, I probably see the game differently. Several players have suggested that bet the turn was the best option and I can easily put myself in agreement with them .. I can even say that it is a more than respectable option. For cons, I could be if they had suggested to me that it was "the one" right way to play the hand. If I thought that there was a correct way to play this hand, I should have not talked about in this article. You do not want to play in fear, but you do not want to be reckless. It is precisely in these situations that you have a rude awakening.