I don't understand how you can play so badly while you know what your opponent has.

ii think my preflop raise was awesome as many others agree i guess the real question is the flop bet which i guess everyone decided is best to bet like 10 bucks (or less lol) to induce a raise or get super thin call by villian in hopes of hitting somethin on turn

you said yourself he can fold his complete air. J high on a TT3r board constitutes as complete air. You gotta check/call the flop imo. Why risk him folding to a small bet or just calling when it's extremely likely that he'll auto bet (larger) when checked to?

Then if you run good enough, he'll pick up a draw or a pair ott and you can check/raise and win a real nice pot. Even if he wiffs there's a legit chance that he reps a T or whatever falls on the turn because you've "shown some weakness." I'd be checking 100% on the flop in this spot.

Why does everyone think he will raise a small flop bet? Is it not more likely that after hero checks he "puts" us on AK AQ and tries to win the pot? I would think he would bet more like $50 into ~$70 pot? Then we can wait 15-20 seconds call and see what the turn brings.

We know his hand, we must give him every opportunity to catch a piece of the board or hang himself. I'd think letting him be the first one to put $ in post flop would do this.

What would be interesting is what would we do if we get to the turn and an 8 comes off? This may be a spot where I'd be more inclined to bet small and hope he raises/shoves. Although if he's never folding why not make sure the money gets in and over bet the pot ourselves?

OP has complete information about the present situation. That does not make him clairvoyant. Knowing the Villain has J9 does not mean you know he's going to call a ridiculous raise with it.

I flop quads in a 4-way raised pot and open shove the 9-9-4 flop from the SB for eight times the size of the pot. Button calls with 44. Does that mean I made a great bet? No. I made a terrible bet and got extremely lucky.

who the **** cares about your raised 4-way pot?! whether you were lucky or good isnt what we're talking about. this whole back and forth started when you commented that I was thinking too results oriented. and as i've said multiple times, with this hand because you have 100% information, that is what you should be. you seem to keep muddling the issue with tangents that mean nothing to this specific hand that OP asked about

and as far as OP's bet. he got called. he's at the table with the villain, not us. he either had a reason or he spazzed. IMO, that isnt even the part of the hand worth talking about BECAUSE he got called. if he doesn't get get called, then sure, lets talk about his bet sizing. post flop is the main issue

Not letting people know that you saw somebody's cards while you still have a hand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-flop >>>> pre-flop

omg, no one cares about your moral compass. we're not talking about you and your values, we're talking about a hand someone else played. congratu-****ing-lations, you're a better person than OP. no one gives a ****. go EAD...

/done rant
/done hijacking thread
/done responding to the ****ing moron known as Hollywade

At least three other people in this thread have suggested that continuing in the hand without saying anything is not the right thing to do. Are they all morons as well?

It's common sense. If I have information that I'm not entitled to, and the other seven players don't, then I have an unfair advantage over them.

As I stated in my first response, it is possible to continue playing the hand while still making the hand fair for everyone.

Typically accepted poker etiquette is to tell someone that they're exposing their hand one time. If they keep doing it after you say something then meh they deserve to lose.

Here it's a grey area but certainly by your betting pattern preflop and otf you give this villain ample opportunity to get away from his hand so I don't think it's terrible really.

because your so dense, i'm going to break my own response of not responding anymore and respond only 1 time. and the only reason i'm responding is because i dont want you putting words in my mouth about the other people who think OP should say something. the 3 other people itt arent morons - nor are any else who thinks OP should say something. only you! only you because you can't keep straight what we are even talking about and completely go off track with ridiculous tangents that have nothing to do with why you and I even started going back and forth in the first place, so i'm going to spell it out for you, like you're a child...

Post #14 by me:
"you can think thats an awful bet, but if the Villain calls it, it was actually pretty good."

Post #19 by you, quoting the above line:
"Well that sounds pretty results-oriented.
"That was a great 1/8-pot bluff on the river because my opponent folded."
The fact that something worked in your favor doesn't mean it was the correct play."

Post #20 by me:
"are you serious? the point of poker is to make money. you have 100% information for this hand. its a completely different situation then every other hand played because you never know what someone has. you can't think of this hand in normal context because it's not. most people will play a hand like this so infrequently that it really isnt even worth discussing how to play it. in this specific situation, you maximize the money you make because you can't unknowingly lose."

Post #24 by you:
"WTF are you talking about? OP 3-bet to 35 big blinds against an opponent who he knows to be holding jack-high."

Post #25 by me:
"and he called. i'm not sure what you don't understand.

would i think that j9 suited would call a 35bb raise? no. about 99% of the time that is insane. but you and i were not at that particular table with that particular villain. hero was. he raised that much and got called. so, therefore it is a great read.

your comment (which was the one i commented on, which you commented in this particular quote) was that the OP was being too results oriented. my point is that on this particular hand, being results oriented is completely legitimate because you have 100% information, something which rarely, happens. all subsiquent moves in this hand are to get the Villain to throw as much money in the pot because Hero knows he can not lose."

Post #30 by you:
"OP has complete information about the present situation. That does not make him clairvoyant. Knowing the Villain has J9 does not mean you know he's going to call a ridiculous raise with it.

I flop quads in a 4-way raised pot and open shove the 9-9-4 flop from the SB for eight times the size of the pot. Button calls with 44. Does that mean I made a great bet? No. I made a terrible bet and got extremely lucky."

Post #31 by me:
"who the **** cares about your raised 4-way pot?! whether you were lucky or good isnt what we're talking about. this whole back and forth started when you commented that I was thinking too results oriented. and as i've said multiple times, with this hand because you have 100% information, that is what you should be. you seem to keep muddling the issue with tangents that mean nothing to this specific hand that OP asked about

and as far as OP's bet. he got called. he's at the table with the villain, not us. he either had a reason or he spazzed. IMO, that isnt even the part of the hand worth talking about BECAUSE he got called. if he doesn't get get called, then sure, lets talk about his bet sizing. post flop is the main issue"

Post #32 by you:
"Not letting people know that you saw somebody's cards while you still have a hand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> post-flop >>>> pre-flop"


where in any of those quotes do i say he should not tell the guy next to him about seeing his cards???? yet you keep bringing it up. we were talking about bet sizing!!! yet you cant seem to wrap your head around that.

if you really feel like continuing this, by all means, start a new thread so we dont continue to hijack this one...

Well that's ironic.

Not putting words in your mouth. Clearly you don't need any help with that. Just asking a question.

I don't consider it a ridiculous tangent when other people have brought up the same point. I'm perfectly clear about what I'm talking about. Is it not possible to have more than one thought on a hand? Mine are: 1) It's unethical to play this hand without making it known that you've seen your opponent's cards 2) If you're lucky enough to know your opponent has a trash hand, you should do whatever you can to prevent him from folding by only making bets that he is likely to call or raise.

Your level of outrage is fascinating.

ok so let's say I check the turn and villian makes a pair on the turn and leads for $40

what is the best line here given stack sizes ?

raise for value, w/e you think he'll call. he has 2 outs and prolly wont fold.

No. this isn't worth any discussion. There is only one correct thing to do. As soon as humanly possible after seeing his cards, I would tell him. Presumably if you saw his cards you are right next to him, so you probably can accomplish that before he even puts his bet in. In any case, you should certainly be able to tell him before he calls your 3bet.

There is a slight caveat. I usually give people 1-2 warnings that I've seen there hand (possibly more if they seem very new or whatever) before I just play on in hands if I've seen their hands. You can't just completely give up your ability to play against someone (usually the person you have direct position on) because they are being irresponsible and exposing their hands even after explicit warnings. But if this is the first time, not informing him as quickly as possible is scummy (it probably doesn't violate any actual rules, but that's not the point).

There isn't any useful strategic discussion to have here either. Depending on whether there is a club on the flop, you're somewhere between 93-96% favorite here. Given the fact that there is a 0% chance he's calling a bet, there are a lot of turns that he might call a bet on (but NONE that put him ahead of you), and that checking may induce a bluff from him, your flop bet is atrocious. Easy check back in a situation you never should have been in in the first place.

Sort of. It is certainly evidence that you made the correct play. But its evidence you wouldn't have before you raised.

OP might have had a good reason for his raise sizing. It certainly isn't all that unreasonable in a LLSNL game where open size tend to be larger than "average." If he didn't have a good reason, then "well the guy called this time" isn't a justification. But we don't know, I don't think he really said anything abou this raise sizing. So it could certainly be that before the raise he had good reason to think that a raise that large would get called by a wide range, a belief that is confirmed for us when he gets called.

Not necessarily. The whole reason for the flop check is he is very often folding the flop. and there are a lot of cards that give him hands that he will call 1-2 reasonably sized bets with. Plus there's some non-zero chance he turns his hand into a bluff if we check.

Its probably not worth it to risk the potential value from those scenrios (which is almost always going to amount to more than $10-25) for a small chance that he will call a small bet. Especially because I think he is a lot less likely to call something like $25.

If there is a club on the flop I would be more inclined to bet.

When he asked do you want me to call, I would have said sure, because I saw your cards when you looked at them. The entire hand plays differently after that.

I may have even said it before then. But at that time with extremely high probability.

Surprised at the moral outrage tbh.

I dunno about anyone else, but I play for a living and got bills to play. I pay my taxes and donate to charity.

I don't go out of my way to try to see exposed cards, but if someone is bad at protecting their cards, not my problem.

I'm a bit surprised that you, as an experienced live player, feel that way SABR.

Why are you looking? I understand it can be really tough to NOT see a player's cards when they have a habitual problem protecting them. In this case it is your responsibility to speak up. There is no grey line here.

This thread would be much more interesting if you had 72o and tried to run an true angle on your opponent.

this
QFT

Spot on. Glad to see there are so many honest people in this thread. The more I play in live games, the more I wonder if 75%+ of poker players are miserable, d-bag degenerates.

My god! Are we still talking about this? Let it die! Reasonable people disagree on this subject. Poker is a game of information and some believe that if you can garner more info, that's fair game. Others believe that it is borderline cheating to look at someone else's cards because that info is not supposed to be part of the game.

There are no right or wrong answers to this. My personal feeling is that I'll tell someone once, and if they are drunk or otherwise have difficulty looking at their cards without exposing them, I'll continue to try to help them. If they are douchey or just DGAF, I'm done. This is just something I came up with after feeling skeezy after playing for an hour with a guy who exposed his hand every single time.


As far as the hand itself, I check flop and give him the chance to catch up a bit or to start bluffing. If he had a PP I would bet, since LLSNL player tend to be unbelievers on paired flops and we could likely get some value out of him.

I tell people when I see their cards.

Let me ask you all a question though... if someone is new or drunk and unknowingly revealing their cards but the player next to them is obviously looking towards their hand/cards at the start of each hand what do you do?