From OOP with a weak hand multiway it's pretty terrible.

This is the best advice in this entire thread. Like I said before I nornally fold this hand preflop in EP. I almost always fold to a raise if I do happen to limp in. It eliminates all of these problems listed in this thread.

But once I got to the flop and my instinct was that I was ahead, my mistake was not trusting that instinct and calling the guy down even though my hand was pretty marginal. Every post in this thread ignores the bet sizing tell. I guess nobody here uses them which is a huge mistake.

I see some merit to the people saying check raising the flop is a bad idea, but ONLY, if I am going to commit to calling the guy down on the turn and not just giving up because he bet again.

Whoever said that making decisions using your gut instincts must have very bad live reads. I dont know what else to say about that statement. Its terrible.

are we going to be positionally aware or just give the concept lip service? If we're really going to be positionally aware, there will be hands we play in late position but fold in early position. This is one of those hands. It's not whether it's "too good to fold", it's "can I play it profitably from this position?

I agree with this above that say we also have to take table dynamics into account and that may cause us to vary from our default strategy - but the default strategy should be to drop small suited aces from early position, and save them for LP.

He's not really in Ep though.

$35 into $80, 4way, IP, seems passive, $500 eff, dry A high rainbow flop, - not a betsizing tell of weakness.

Bet sizing tells are useful IF your opponent knows how to properly size bets. My experience tells me a lot of live players are awful at bet sizing. So in this case I didn't rely on them as much as I would against someone who I feel has a clue. FWIW I did suggest calling turn and check/folding river.

What's laughable is your passive/aggressive approach to putting others ITT on blast by saying "every post ignores the bet sizing tell". Meanwhile, YOU IGNORED IT AT THE TABLE. So which is worse, you ignoring it while having all your live reads at your disposal? Or us non-crushing internet warriors?

What's even more ridiculous is that you think that the villain is putting another dime in the pot if you check raise flop. You're never going to have to "commit to calling him down" because he's folding everything worse and continuing on with everything that has us crushed. THAT is the real disaster, not folding the best hand occasionally. Do you really believe he's calling a check-raise with TT on a bone-dry A-high flop when the EP limp-caller is check-raising the world? I don't.

Youre right, I gave up on my read on the turn, which was my mistake. I know he will never put anymore money in on the flop with TT if I check raise. That's obvious. The benefit is that it keeps me from making that mistake that I made which was giving up on the turn.

Making a play on the flop that isnt the highest EV play but that keeps me from making a mistake later in the hand is most certainly +EV overall. Now the highest EV play wouldve been to call flop....grab balls and trust read...call turn. Thats what I ill do next time.

To me it is. Its a weak ace or a middle pair type hand.. The only question to me was whether or not if he had a weak ace it was weaker than mine or not, which is what made me want to check raise the flop instead of try to call down. Making a good read of a weak hand and calling down with A5 only to lose to A7 would be stupid. A check raise avoids that.

So you'll get more tells from the bets of a good player who knows how to size bets than a bad player who doesn't. Seems like you usually post good, thoughtful strat posts here DeathCabforTootie, but come on man that's straight up 'Move up to where they respect your raises,' logic right there. You're never going to get more information from a better player than you will from a worse player, if you did then they wouldn't be better.

Bad players have plenty of glaring bet sizing tells.

I didn't say listening to your gut was a bad thing. I said listening to your gut to make your poker decisions to the exclusion of everything else is. And if you disagree with that then you're just obtuse.

That's what you said, exactly. Nothing about exclusion of everything else. There arent a whole lot of other things better than trusting your gut in live play.

ITT666, what I mean by my post is most bad players IME think if bet sizing in terms of absolute value. As in, "$65 is a fair amount of $$ to me". They don't take into account pot size, relative/absolute position, board texture, etc. So until I have a tell that, say, small bet=weak, I'm going off the assumption that "hey this passive guy has bet into the world on a dry flop and is now continuing on when it's fairly obvious I probably have an ace" and admittedly making an exploitable (and in this case, incorrect) fold on the turn.

Now I've got more info on this opponent, so my adjustment will be to call down lighter when his bet sizing reflects weakness.

I didn't think I'd have to spell it out as much as I did.


And if you think trusting your gut is the best thing then there is no help for you. You need to get out of your own way man. I suggest you read "your worst poker enemy" by Alan schoonmaker. It is exactly what you need to here. I mean that in a nonjudgy way.

As for me and this thread:


Done.

Maybe you should look into this wizardry called math.

I open A5s and stuff like KTs and J9s in lol (prolly not that much in EP). Obv not at an unknown table... only if have reads on everyone/im the best player there

A5 is in a completely different class of hands than J9 or KT IMO.

I'd rather open the latter two hands without reads than A5ss

I *think* ik the answer but im just curious why are they different :?

I agree. I hate suited garbage aces

Math is for wimps.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Perhaps it's been covered upthread, but this is by no means a "weak hand" pre. In addition, "hand reading" and "gut" play have very little to do with playing suited wheels pre and post for a profit. Sure, there are game conditions where playing them can get thin, stacks too shallow, ranges too tight, etc, but for most games we play, conditions are ripe for aggregate +EV as long as we keep PF costs down. You can even sprinkle in A6-A9s in EP at some low frequency in certain games.

To directly answer OPs question, suited wheels from almost any position, should be played similarly to small-mid pps. See flops for as cheaply as possible, don't bluff catch, and pile the money in when you flop strong. Not to go too far in quoting seasoned posters, but hands with polarized flop equity distribution, are MATHEMATICALLY easy to play. Sets aren't to be played as bluff catchers and nor should A5dd on A48xxd even against the LAGgist of LAGs. See flops as often as you can, for as cheaply as you can, with as many players as you can. There are differences of course between 66 and A5dd post, the most obvious being that A5dd derives a little more of its value from properly used FE, but it also carries far less RIO than 66 as stacks deepen.

You can easily nitpick and start worrying about limping ranges, about folding some equity, and other things that likely have very little bearing against 95% of your player pool, but for now, my aim is just to offer up a way you can think differently and play more profitably with Axs.

What are some of your supporting evidence?

Where do you see value in weak suited aces?

1/3 game.....MP raises $7 and gets 2 calls. I make it $40 in the SB with JJ. Original raiser and one other guy call.

Flop ($130ish) KdTd5c. I check, Original raiser bets $30. Other guy calls.

$30 bet into $130 pot? Hmmm... I check raise all in. Original raiser has $125 left and folds. Other guy calls and says "I need a diamond!"

Just one hand but it supports what I see all the time. Weak bet = weak hand.

I'm not sure what your point is or how it supports c/r AI with TP poor kicker

That's not the point Slim.

Did the diamonds get there?

This seems like a wholly different example than the hand you posted earlier. It's a 3-bet pot, so either original raiser has AK or KQ, flats a 3-bet with QQ, a set or your hand is good. His value range is pretty slim here. Unlike your original hand, where there was just a single raise and the bettor has a lot of potential Ax that beats you. Also, when you go to the flop, original raiser hardly has a pot sized bet left, so you're pretty much committed against him . Board is wet with both diamond and straight draws, unlike board in your original post which is bone dry. This guy bets $30 into $130, while in your OP he's betting $35 into $80. Finally, at least against the original raiser, who's never folding a hand that you beat here, all you accomplished was to have him fold the worse hand (of course there's value in getting the other guy to call off with a draw, though I bet he had an A or a Q too so he's drawing pretty live.