Thought process: Obviously if he thought you had a pocket pair, he wouldn't show the queen, because he wants pocket pairs to call. So he either thinks you have a queen, or that you're on a flush draw (some people consider flush draws very strong).

If he's a nit, there is a remote possibility that he's scared of the flush draw and just wants to take it down with his Q.

If he's a real nit, JQ suited is his absolute worst hand (3 combos), and he probably has AQ (8 combos and more likely from a nit). If he's spazzing he could have JQo or QTs.

How sure are you about your read of him being a nit preflop? How long have you been playing with him?

Been at the table for 2.5 hours. Fwiw, I have a very loose and aggressive image, have been raising in LP at least once per orbit. Also had to show down J8o that I had raised a limper with when I was OTB.

I'd say the Q's that are in his preflop range are QJo+ and Q9s+, something like that. Although that's not necessarily the range he is over shoving with.

W/r/t him being afraid of the FD, that's what I was thinking was going on because that's exactly the vibe I picked up on, and explains him over shoving and showing the Q. I Think? Even before he showed, I knew he has a Q... he's not gonna play 66 like this obv.

Blah, been in Vegas for 4 days and running so bad I am questioning everything.

Snap call, obv. If he flatted OOP with AQ, meh.

Thanks, do you even think short stacking is profitable live? Is it worth the time?

Thanks! Do you feel short stacking a live 2-5 game is even profitable/worth my time?

There is a fairly new 3/5 NLH game with a buy in of $200-500 at a local casino. Instead of playing the 2/3 NLH with a buy in of $300 I will be playing the 3/5 with buying in at ~$250.

Thoughts?

Prob with live SSing is that you can't pick up and re-buy short again, like you can online. Therefor, if you double-up, you must be able to switch gears. Personally, I don't like SSing, because we have to pass up on so many spots that would be +EV if we were full, so it has a large opportunity cost and it is just insanely boring.

What are the worst hands that you guys feel that you can profitably flat in position are?

it depends on villain type, his leaks, how light he'll stack off or how big of a hand he'll be willing to release, stack sizes, number of opponents and hero's hand reading ability.

What is the difference between broke and cash broke? Is there a difference? They talk a lot about poker players not actually being completely broke in the book "The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King," when they claim they are broke. Can someone elaborate on this?

You are correct! Thanks for the reminder by the way! Assuming no reads and I am not playing against a complete fish/drooler what hands are good candidates? What suited aces? What suited connectors? What 1-gappers? What 2-gappers? What offsuit hands? What certain hands should likely be 3-bet or fold because they really cannot stand a raise?

Thanks for this advice. I was wondering myself if this were the case. I feel that since we both agree at the very least there is a significant opportunity cost it likely isn't even worth it. I probably won't even bother.

I was thinking about this myself. Garick provided a useful response to me. The fact of the matter is that there is definitely an opportunity cost to short buying a game. However, it may be worth it for you. I would say that if you bi for $300 in your 2-3 game it will be possible to achieve a similar hourly figure if you play $300 in that 3-5 game in $/hr but not bb/hr. So in my opinion if you are going to enjoy the 3-5 game more and take it more seriously therefore play better than that may be the way to go for you. My concern with this strategy is that you will be forced to flip constantly with a slight edge shorting the 3-5 game instead of consistently putting money in with a greater edge you will be able to achieve playing deep stacked in the 2-3 game? This could mean the variance will be significantly higher. However, maybe you take down so many pots no contest that it doesn't really even matter. Does anyone else have any useful opinions on this?

^Yeah, I figure the 3/5 game will be higher variance and smaller edges but an overall higher win rate per hour.

As far as cash broke and broke, the difference is some poker players might have money tied up in investments such as property. Edog famously said he was cash broke so implied he had money tied up in other ways. Players such as him will always almost have the ability to get backed so they are never broke in a way because they can always be in play. This can be because of their poker ability or simply being famous.

(Edog made the WPT final table recently but owes many people, pretty sure he still lives the good life)

So if I am cash broke I may have real estate etc that I can sell to become solvent. If I am broke broke I have no cash and no assets to allow me to continue playing? Does this sound about right?

Yea try out shorting that 3-5 game. TBH I am in the same situation and I am thinking of trying it out too as opposed to playing 1-2. If you think about the pots that brew and all the dead money you may very well be correct that it may provide a higher hourly. Let me know how this goes for you. If I do the same I will let you know my results as well. So you are shooting for a 250bi. How do you feel about a 200bi or 300bi? What hands do you plan on getting it in with? (99+, AQ+) Do you plan to just limp/jam if it is not raised to you? Are you ever open raising? I remember Barry Greenstein being a huge advocate of shorting tables for about 50bb's.

Again, all of this depends on the factors we already covered, plus the tendencies of other villains. If people behind squeeze or 3b a lot, we must take that into consideration before flatting. Some hands we flat with become 3bets or folds.

Thanks for following up with that!

1/3 NL, 10 players

So-so table, I've got a couple of marks to the right of me but other than that the table is on the tightish meh side.

V1 ($500) is 55+ white guy. Seems to just be playing tight and straightforward, not getting out of line. He's passive.

V2 ($130) is 45+ white guy. Seems splashy.

Hero ($425) is 40+ white guy. Haven't done much of anything other than take a few pots down preflop / cbet. Probably seen as tight/rockish.


Preflop (10 players): Hero is UTG+1 with Q Q
V2 limps UTG, Hero raises to $20, V1 calls in MP, V2 calls

[Nothing to see here.]

Flop (3 players, ~$60): J T 9
checks around

[This is the most debatable street. Against V2, I'm committed due to stack size and would love to just pot to shove turn. But bigger stack V1 is involved, so I have to play versus his stack. This ain't exactly a great flop for me against V1, imo. I have straight outs if behind, but would hate to get raised off my hand by V1 who could have smashed this board (there's a crapload of hands that are ahead or doing very well against me). So I kinda check just to see what he's going to do and to see how my hand shakes down on the turn before thinking about building much more of a big pot. Is this thinking defensible? Does anyone think of committing with overpear + OESD here for 142bbs against V1 if he's willing to get it in?]

Turn (3 players, $40): 2
V2 checks, Hero bets $40, V1 folds, V2 check/shoves for $110, Hero calls

[Not a great turn, but I felt V1 would have probably taken a shot at the flop (even a smallish bet) with a flush draw; if V1 raises this turn I feel I can easily fold. I don't want to give single hearts a free chance or anything else hence the bet at this point. I've always felt committed against V2, so getting 3:1, the fact I could be ahead, the fact I could have straight / set / counterfieting outs, etc. made this a call, right?]

Defensible?

GcluelessNLnoobG

bet flop is still better vs a tight straightforward V1

Further given that description flop is mostly a bet/fold vs him

Do I really want to put myself in a situation where I might have to fold the flop with nuttish outs? I was thinking bet/folding the flop is much easier to do if I didn't have the ~nuttish outs.

I was also thinking there are a crapload of hands that have very decent equity against me (JJ/TT/99/JT/T9/J9/KQ/87, pair + draw, overcard + draw, draw. etc.). Is this the flop I'm looking to continue building the pot versus him?

If he's got crap (such as 55), he's on a two outer and I don't have to worry about him getting out-of-line.

yeah but you're missing value from a ton of 1 pair/draw hands of his by checking.

You can bet/call reasonable bets given you have 8 outs.

Further you're going to magically get value from his hands that whiffed by checking, he sounds like he won't bluff or magically call a turn bet because you checked flop. So checking flop seems to consist of hoping we hit a straight, not actually changing his betting or calling range.

Ya, definitely not checking to set up a bluffcatch vs this guy.

More just checking to hopefully control size of pot since most hands he calls the flop with are doing ok against me (even most 1 pair hands he has against me should be coming with a draw), plus the risk of being raised of my ~nuttish draw.

And while I may miss value on the flop, what's the plan? Are we betting each street in order to play for stacks vs this guy OOP?

Then again, this board is drawy as hell and there's a good chance that if he's behind he has many outs to hit on the turn, and I just gave him a free shot at it.

Let's take the alternative route. We bet $40, V1 calls and V2 folds. Pot is now $140 on the turn, we have $365 left, and a blank comes. Bet/fold the turn? What if we bet $100 and he just calls, which leaves us with a $340 pot and only $265 left on the river? We're shoving the river? Check/folding?

Why are you trying to pot control on the flop vs. a straightforward villain who can call with worse?

The time to pot control is later when you've narrowed his hand range down to something tighter. I'm not necessarily firing 3 barrels here but I'm not giving him a free turn when his range is behind mine.

Why are you afraid this villain is suddenly going to bluff you on the turn if you double barrel?

I think I'd rather bet/check/bet or bet/bet/check than check/bet/bet

Here's another quick one, was pretty sure I missed a value bet on the river.

Villain is same guy as above (old white guy, hasn't gotten out of line, tight, passive).

Hero is middle aged white guy, has raised a few hands preflop and taken it down right away or with a flop cbet, but other than that hasn't done much.

100+ bb stacks.

One limp to Hero in LP with AT and I raise to $20, Villain calls out of the blinds, limper folds.

HU to a Q66r flop, Villain checks, I cbet almost 1/2 PSB, Villain calls.

Turn 2r. Check/check.

[I'm thinking everything to the turn is standard.]

River T. Villain checks.

Villain seems pretty passive, so he could easily be in bluffcatching mode with Qx (I sorta doubt he has a 6, but I guess you never know). But I guess if he's bluffcatching with Qx then it's possible he's bluffcatching with a bunch of pocket pairs? I obviously never have to worry about a bluff/raise vs this guy.

I checked this back and was pretty sure I missed a value bet. Confirmed bad?

GcluelessNLnoobG

Kinda on the fence on that one. I guess it's a matter of how likely he is to check the river with a Q. If he's not the type to do that then it's a clear value bet. In my game, I'm going for thin value against 77-99 almost all the time because they're not smart enough to check the Q.