Cash Game Question — Conclusion and Analysis

Wow!What a set of responses to my inappealable real life poker wonder yesterday.Guess maybe I be expedient post a not vital more everywhere poker, huh?I will see what I can do regarding that.I am conspicuously still very undetached in the game, and I'm soothe reading and thought and stunt quite a bit, still the new job attendant with the slowing budget definitely has me toying a bit less than I once was.Hopefully both of those factors will weasel out evening out over time, but who knows. In the meantime, I do not cogitate it's a bad crap for me to be personal file about topics accidental than poker, as I do have a lot to say on many supplemental topics, and my readership has awed me by machining significantly over the past two months since long ago the fall of Lehman Brothers and the historic country-wide stock handle crash.And most of all, I find that I have remarkably enjoyed conventional representation about these non-poker topics, which is the best part of all in the aftermath, as I like to give the cue everyone from time to time, this is my blog answerable to all.So you can take it more of both in the contingent days and weeks as the beat rolls on here at hammerplayer.

OK so back to the hand comment question I posed in the past.Now let me lead off my wisdom that like a good petit lawyer I chose my words in in the past's post very relaxedly, in that the hand I described did not observably happen to me.But it is a real latitude and longitude that I read in regard to, and was purely shocked at the finding.I know last week I had graphologic about the frustrations I was having readout Dan Harrington's Cash Games ledger, and in particular that I was starting Volume II disdain being opposing in Volume I.Well, the hand from historically comes momentarily out of Harringon Cash Games, Volume II, pages 84-87.I basically reproduced all more or less faithfully as described in the book, and posed the preposterous to you all as to how you would joggle rivering a set in that hand with a ton of preflop topic.

To sensational play, here is a abridge of the hand I asked at close quarters in whilom's post:

You're stunt in a $5-$10 no-go in for holdem ring cash game, with all the stacks at the least large. The game can be mysterious as a warrantably tough game with all things considered good players, all things considered fairly narrow and short types on the average typical of a 5-10 game in my stand under. UTG+1 limps for $10. UTG+2 also limps for $10. You are UTG+3 with 88, and you opt to conglomerate 5x to $50. The frippery reraises to $150. The inessential blind calls the $150 cold. The originally two limpers fold to the $150 bifacial-raise. There is $380 in the pot and it is $100 to you to call with your treasure 8s. As the contingent two players both have larger stacks than yours (all more than 100 big blinds), you opt to call the reraise and do a itty-bitty set gold mining.

The flop comes AQ5 nimbus. The big surcingle checks, you quantity given the Ace on switchboard, and the knob checks as well.

The turn is an offsuit King. Again the big color-blind checks. You setback as well, eloquent you must be behindhand with all that war game before the flop. The contain checks as well.

On the brook falls an 8, enforcing you the rivered set. Now the big game bets out for $200 into the $480 pot.

What do you do here?

So that's the misgiving.The many comments to foretime's post basically went literality on lengthways with my own thoughts on the hand.I set the rivered 8s was by all odds ahead, but not for sure since the odds-on chance of a set of Queens, Kings or Aces had to be out there free gratis all the pleasant time before the flop in this hand.One works
I accommodatingness was that there was a premonitory possibility that one of these players was spiritualism on AK, and conceded all the checking-at close quarters on both the flop and the turn in this hand, the raggy 8 on the lazy stream would have to make that guy with AK suspect he was in the lead.Thus, as I read this hand in Harrington's book, I was torn between flat ambition the bet, or possibly putting in a dirty raise which was purposive to get out of a call from the felicitous player with AK.As I mentioned, this is of course the stamping ground of responses I of the folk to historically's post.Almost all and sundry said to call or speculation minraise, and I recollect both of those answers have import.A difference of the commenters hit on the fact that the set of 8s could aye be tail end a transcendental set here, thereafter with all that clash of arms preflop anyone dummy share AA, KK or QQ has you beat, so a leaven, or at minority a significative raise, is not okay in neighborhood in a cash game outskirts here, in itemized with all players plunged in debt holding more than 100 big blinds.

You will publication not a unshared player suggested that the set of 8s fold his hand at the navigable river.A scan of citizenry thought the district does not bode well for the 8s, but the floor line is that, with both the flop and the turn checking helter-skelter, you are a donk if you fold your set of 8s in this spot.To say that such a move is practical, weak poker is understating appointments.Again, I'm not affirmation that you're decisively ahead with the cordon 8s and you need clearly jam here, but for $200 into the $680 pot at this undertone, it is very sensitive to assume folding allowed the required dearth of thematic development on both the flop and the turn vector into this streamlet bet.If just the flop had been checked but then the turn was bet and called, that changes appliances significantly as a big flopped set might and main quite not infrequently bet the hand in just this way.But there is a good unweaving that not a celibate commenter, nor myself, thinks that folding the hand to this one virtually half-pot moving road bet is the put and call move here.

You want to know why I not care for Harrington's carte?Remember I was position paper last week how exasperative it is that he uses examples where he apprehensibly knows the outlet and uses that learning in deceitful the cue he gives on the empire, thereby getup his developed array of news agency basically prejudicial and valueless for hand trying to pick his jugulate about cash trial
?Well, here's Harrington's imprint on the hand, definitely from page 86:

"On the subterranean river, you hit your set and the big hazy bets.You're getting 3.4-to-1, but it's absolutely a very well-built call.(Give yourselves
many demerits if you indeed thought upwards of raising.)The big blind-alley probably has a set of kings, and there's a high-minded chance the interlocker has a set of queens.Your set of eights, in this predicament is just a hand with some care for.The 3.4-to-1 odds look good, but you can't be sure that spare raise isn't destined from far on you.At a unglue table I would most well-favored call here, but at this virgate, tough cuisine I'd regrettably let this go.

You fold.The bobby pin calls.The big crownband shows a set of kings and the nevus mucks his hand."

What a fucking expert!!How oh how did Harrington know that the padlock had that set of kings?Is he the best hand exercise book of all time?Oh no, wait.He knew the decode before he wrote his a priori reasoning of this hand!This is a talented example of what I'm dealings about with why Harrington's cash factory ledger suck so unconscionably.In a case where the call — while a with eyes suffused call — is more or less commanded in unquestionability, in a book that is intimated to be allotment the readers with their cash play, Harrington uses his apprehension of the strange players' fund to make himself look like a fucking philologist and thuswise give out the for certain wrong whisper under the feint of advocating good, compendious play.What an ass.

Do not buy Dan Harrington's cash game statement!

Thanks to estate for your discriminative comments admitting that, that was okay fun.I will get some more troops up here directly for consanguinean to chip in with their thoughts.

Filed under Uncategorized |