The hand you should have won....

[Sugar]

A thread for your bad beat stories

I've had plenty over the years and i've sucked out a few pots on the river as well

Heres what happened to my mate....

He won US$6000 playing an online tourny i rang him and congratulated him and asked if he was cashing in,He said he would in a few days.

2 days later i rang him he said he was online playing,he told me which table he was at so i logged in and watched the dramas unfold

He was at a cash table with about $5200

Deal......
He bets
Flop A hearts A Spades 6 Spades
He bets and is called
The Turn K Spades
He goes all in and is called
The cards are turned He has pocket Aces givng him 4 of a kind
The other punter has J Q spades giving him a flush
The river hits you guessed it a 10 of spades giving the punter a royal flush

He lost the lot with 4 aces
He wouldn't answer his phone for the rest of the day (Wonder why)
To this day he wont play online anymore.......

 

[HevyDevy]

So he put most of his bankroll on the table?

That's a basic error that any pro will warn against - because it doesn't allow for poker variance.

Anyway, my story from two weeks ago (in a $100 SnG).

UTG raise, I call with 5-5 at the cutoff.

Flop 5-4-4.

He bets, I flat call.

Turn J.

He bets, I re-raise, he goes all-in, I call.

He turns over A-A.

River ... A

 

[Sugar]

So he put most of his bankroll on the table?

That's a basic error that any pro will warn against - because it doesn't allow for poker variance.

Anyway, my story from two weeks ago (in a $100 SnG).

UTG raise, I call with 5-5 at the cutoff.

Flop 5-4-4.

He bets, I flat call.

Turn J.

He bets, I re-raise, he goes all-in, I call.

He turns over A-A.

River ... A

Always on the river:x

 

[Tommy Smith]

This didn't involve me but the worst beat i saw was on pokerstars (surprise surprise).

Two players went all-in pre-flop. One had KK and the other 88.

Flop came: 10 4 K. No backdoor straight or flush draw was on.

Turn card was an 8

The river? You guessed it, another 8.

The most unbelieveable beat i have and will probably ever see. Only on online poker would you see it.

 

[Tommy Smith]

As for me, it was more a group of bad beats i took in the space of about 5 hands that was my worst.

I was chip leader in a SnG with about 14 players left. First prize was only 1k but thats not really the point.

Anyway i had my AK beaten by AQ after a Q hit on the river. Bad, but not that bad. Then two hands later i had 10 10 beaten by 88 when an 8 hit on the river.

Two more hands later i had KK up against 77. The flop came 6 5 8. The turn was a 9.

I haven't played online since.

 

[watatank]

A thread for your bad beat stories

I've had plenty over the years and i've sucked out a few pots on the river as well

Heres what happened to my mate....

He won US$6000 playing an online tourny i rang him and congratulated him and asked if he was cashing in,He said he would in a few days.

2 days later i rang him he said he was online playing,he told me which table he was at so i logged in and watched the dramas unfold

He was at a cash table with about $5200

Deal......
He bets
Flop A hearts A Spades 6 Spades
He bets and is called
The Turn K Spades
He goes all in and is called
The cards are turned He has pocket Aces givng him 4 of a kind
The other punter has J Q spades giving him a flush
The river hits you guessed it a 10 of spades giving the punter a royal flush

He lost the lot with 4 aces
He wouldn't answer his phone for the rest of the day (Wonder why)
To this day he wont play online anymore.......

I've heard of a hand where two players had KK and JJ. after the flop JJ hit their quads, and then both went all in (after raise, reraise, all in) and then KK hit running K's to win.

I thought that was bad, but that's gotta be worse.

 

[zombie jesus]

This past week has been bad, people forgetting where their fold button is and sucking out, a daily occurrence this week. turning 2/3os in to 2's full of threes with runner runners, gut shot straights, even quads being hit the last week or so, I'm having a bad run this week with turn and river cards.

Time to move up $$$ levels I think.

 

[HevyDevy]

Probably right Zombie - the low levels can be frustrating.

What levels do you normally play at?

I've had a bad run too so sticking to the lower 25/50c tables until the confidence comes back.

 

[zombie jesus]

Been playing a lot of SnG's anything from $10-$60 and cash games 50c/$1 tables (not real confident with the cash games yet). I'm just going to stick to playing the large low level ($1-$5) tournies if I get the urge to play for 3-4 weeks while I read some more books. I have a pretty healthy bankroll, so I'm definitely moving up when I get back in to it properly.

I'm thinking of trying my hand at omaha a bit more, I've had good results in the few times I've played, through pure luck more than anything else though, but it seems like a more interesting game and it's not as popular with the fish.

 

[Skeletor]

You will not make more money at higher levels because people "respect your raises". You make more money from bad players who don't know when to fold and stay in hands too long, since you can use your edges to grind their chips away down to nothing.

 

[HevyDevy]

Been playing a lot of SnG's anything from $10-$60 and cash games 50c/$1 tables (not real confident with the cash games yet). I'm just going to stick to playing the large low level ($1-$5) tournies if I get the urge to play for 3-4 weeks while I read some more books. I have a pretty healthy bankroll, so I'm definitely moving up when I get back in to it properly.

I'm thinking of trying my hand at omaha a bit more, I've had good results in the few times I've played, through pure luck more than anything else though, but it seems like a more interesting game and it's not as popular with the fish.

What are you reading zombie?

I'm currently reading Sklansky's Theory of poker which will be followed by Phil Gordon's Little Green Book.

Harrington's was superb too, really helped me.

I'm lucky I have a few Aussie pros helping me out too.

Looks like we're playing about the same levels.

I'm just coming back from a break. Copped a few beats and started playing poorly for a while so I stopped for a few weeks and went back to reading my books.

Have been back on the tables for a few days now and going okay again.

 

[HevyDevy]

You will not make more money at higher levels because people "respect your raises". You make more money from bad players who don't know when to fold and stay in hands too long, since you can use your edges to grind their chips away down to nothing.

Yeah, the swings can be quite large at the lower levels but as you say it's about grinding people down.

To be honest, because of the crazy nature of lower limit tables, I tend to treat Hold Em amost like Omaha - a drawing game - so I'm looking for small-mid pairs and suited connectors in late position.

If I hold Aces or Kings I'm going to bet hard - that way if someone comes with me it's going to cost them to do so. If the flop looks dangerous I slow right down.

As they say - small pots for small hands, big pots for big hands. A-A is not a big hand.

 

[zombie jesus]

You will not make more money at higher levels because people "respect your raises". You make more money from bad players who don't know when to fold and stay in hands too long, since you can use your edges to grind their chips away down to nothing.

I realise this, there's always going to be people making bad calls and sucking out, myself included.

Main reason for moving is my bankroll getting to a point where I should be looking to move up, if I didn't have the money I wouldn't be thinking of moving up. That's the whole point for me, make money, keep moving up and make more money, it's worked so far.

 

[zombie jesus]

What are you reading zombie?

I'm currently reading Sklansky's Theory of poker which will be followed by Phil Gordon's Little Green Book.

Harrington's was superb too, really helped me.

I'm lucky I have a few Aussie pros helping me out too.

Looks like we're playing about the same levels.

I'm just coming back from a break. Copped a few beats and started playing poorly for a while so I stopped for a few weeks and went back to reading my books.

Have been back on the tables for a few days now and going okay again.

I'm going to start reading Harrington's next week.

Spend a lot of time reading articles and stuff online, forums etc.

I've read Phil Gordon's books, very easy reads, I like the way he writes.

 

[Ghoulies]

You will not make more money at higher levels because people "respect your raises". You make more money from bad players who don't know when to fold and stay in hands too long, since you can use your edges to grind their chips away down to nothing.

This man speaks the truth.

I too used to believe in the notion of it being easier to play against skilled opponents than against the "chasers" and the rest of the fish, but I quickly came to realise just how absurd this idea was. Poker is pretty much a battle of mistakes. When your opponents make mistakes, you profit (and vice versa). Naturally bad players are going to make more mistakes than good players (ie chasing draws without the right odds, calling down value bets with relatively weak holdings etc.), so of course it's going to mean more $$$ for you in the long run if you play against weaker players. I don't think I've seen this concept explained more thoroughly than in Sklansky/Miller's Small Stakes Hold'Em (an excellent LHE book which I'd recommend even if you never plan to play a game of limit in your life).

I'd also debate what Hevy said about the variance being greater at lower levels, but I'll save that for another post.

 

[HevyDevy]

I agree with you Ghoulies, good post.

As you say, it is indeed a game of mistakes - by Sklansky's theory a mistake is when you make the wrong decision if you knew what your opponent held. Weak players fail to take this into consideration and are generally more concerned with what they hold in their own hands than what their opponents hold.

It's certainly debatable what I said about swings - probably more due to the unpredictable nature of crap players and the higher likelihood of suckouts. In other words, they will chase outside of pot odds and sometimes hit, so in the long run it's profitable for us but sometimes they will hit and take down some decent pots.

 

[Whos Ya Daddy]

What are you reading zombie?

I'm currently reading Sklansky's Theory of poker which will be followed by Phil Gordon's Little Green Book.

Harrington's was superb too, really helped me.

I'm lucky I have a few Aussie pros helping me out too.

Looks like we're playing about the same levels.

I'm just coming back from a break. Copped a few beats and started playing poorly for a while so I stopped for a few weeks and went back to reading my books.

Have been back on the tables for a few days now and going okay again.

.25/.5 nl is very ez to beat.

since u said u have been having problems i will help u out.

multi table as many full ring games as u can.

play very tight but aggressive when u enter a pot.

the geniuss at this level will not be paying enough attention to realise how tight u are playing and they will pay u off like a bunnie.

u will win playing this style and can evolve your game from here.

phil gordon is a muppet don't bother with his book.

since u are reading theory of poker i hope u have read no limit hold em theory and practice.

 

[Ghoulies]

I've found that swings are more dependent on how loose AND aggressive your opponents are. Weak players calling you down with marginal holdings too often will result in the inevitable suck out or two, but when you're up against strong, aggressive opponents who'll raise and 3-bet you with greater frequency, the variance becomes much greater. I'll try and put this into an example:

You're at a typical 50NL 6-max cash game, players are generally loose-passive and will usually call at least one street of action so long as they've caught any piece of the board. You're on the button 100 blinds deep with A10o and the cut off has limped, so you raise to 4x the BB and the blinds + limper calls. The flop comes 10 7 2 with a heart draw on board, it's checked to you so you fire a continuation bet, the blinds fold and the limper calls. The turn bricks, the limper checks again, narrowing his range to pretty much all one pair hands, any straight draw and any heart draw. Seeing as top pair top kicker has a significant edge in equity over his range, you bet again (for value and to protect your hand). The river brings the J of hearts, completing most draws. The passive limper leads out for 3/4 pot and you can safely fold.

Now if you substitute this loose-passive player for a strong loose-aggressive player, things become much less clear. Instead of the cut off limping, he comes in for a 3x raise, something which he would have been doing a lot of. You still have A10o, a hand much stronger than a lot of the raisers range, so folding is out of the question. You could flat call and look to see a flop, but since you're at a table of decent players, one of the blinds could easily look to pull a squeeze play on you and put you in a difficult spot, or they too could simply call, leaving you in a multi-way pot with a hand that prefers to play heads up. The other option is to 3-bet him, he'll very likely fold the majority of his hands in this spot, but in the times that he doesn't, he'll either 4-bet you or call and play a re-raised pot with you. It's spots like these where variance is at its greatest in hold'em.

I was gonna go into the implications of playing post-flop against an aggressive opponent, but I just realised that this post is way too f**king long as it is, so I'll leave it there.

 

[HevyDevy]

.25/.5 nl is very ez to beat.

since u said u have been having problems i will help u out.

multi table as many full ring games as u can.

play very tight but aggressive when u enter a pot.

the geniuss at this level will not be paying enough attention to realise how tight u are playing and they will pay u off like a bunnie.

u will win playing this style and can evolve your game from here.

phil gordon is a muppet don't bother with his book.

since u are reading theory of poker i hope u have read no limit hold em theory and practice.

I haven't been having problems, just copped a series of terrible beats so I took a break - call it a refresher if you will

Ironically, even up around $2/5 there are still muppets around. I don't play higher than that at the moment.

You've pretty much pegged my style right there, haha. It's the only way to play against loose morons. Most of them are willing to go all the way holding only top pair.

That's why I say that it is basically a drawing game - small-mid pairs and suited connectors in late position. What I find amusing is the number of idiots that play rubbish like J-10 suited UTG!! Oh well, their loss.

Anyway, Gordon's book is highly recommended among a list of books that are considered 'must reads'.

 

[HevyDevy]

I've found that swings are more dependent on how loose AND aggressive your opponents are. Weak players calling you down with marginal holdings too often will result in the inevitable suck out or two, but when you're up against strong, aggressive opponents who'll raise and 3-bet you with greater frequency, the variance becomes much greater. I'll try and put this into an example:

You're at a typical 50NL 6-max cash game, players are generally loose-passive and will usually call at least one street of action so long as they've caught any piece of the board. You're on the button 100 blinds deep with A10o and the cut off has limped, so you raise to 4x the BB and the blinds + limper calls. The flop comes 10 7 2 with a heart draw on board, it's checked to you so you fire a continuation bet, the blinds fold and the limper calls. The turn bricks, the limper checks again, narrowing his range to pretty much all one pair hands, any straight draw and any heart draw. Seeing as top pair top kicker has a significant edge in equity over his range, you bet again (for value and to protect your hand). The river brings the J of hearts, completing most draws. The passive limper leads out for 3/4 pot and you can safely fold.

Now if you substitute this loose-passive player for a strong loose-aggressive player, things become much less clear. Instead of the cut off limping, he comes in for a 3x raise, something which he would have been doing a lot of. You still have A10o, a hand much stronger than a lot of the raisers range, so folding is out of the question. You could flat call and look to see a flop, but since you're at a table of decent players, one of the blinds could easily look to pull a squeeze play on you and put you in a difficult spot, or they too could simply call, leaving you in a multi-way pot with a hand that prefers to play heads up. The other option is to 3-bet him, he'll very likely fold the majority of his hands in this spot, but in the times that he doesn't, he'll either 4-bet you or call and play a re-raised pot with you. It's spots like these where variance is at its greatest in hold'em.

I was gonna go into the implications of playing post-flop against an aggressive opponent, but I just realised that this post is way too f**king long as it is, so I'll leave it there.

Yes, and on top of this it also depends on the particular opponent. Ideally I like to see a few of my opponents hands so that I can look back at how he approached with that type of hand.

For example, let's say he is holding A-8 suited in the cut-off. Does he raise if he is first into the pot? Does he raise over a limper? Does he limp himself? How does he play a hand such as 9-10o? What range does he play from middle position? Does he always raise if first into the pot?

Weak players in-particular like to show off their hands and there is a universe of information to be garnered from that.

As I said before though, a basic rule that is worth adhering to is small pots for small hands, big pots for big hands.