On Two Plus Two, Sklansky wrote an article about a high-stakes limit hand that he played. He said two things in the article that I don't understand, and I was wondering if anyone had an explanation.

Sklansky's in the BB with . He notes that everyone folds to a player in middle position, who raises. There are then folds to a player in late position, who cold calls. Sklansky then writes, "the late position cold-caller has probably played his hand incorrectly. In hold 'em, there are very few hands where it is correct strategy to just call a raise (unless you are in the big blind) where there is only a raiser in the pot."

Why is that? If you had a hand like 88 or 99, isn't that worth a call from late position? Are you supposed to raise with this hand to try to get the blinds to fold so that you can play this hand heads up with the raiser?

In any event, Sklansky goes on to say that the SB and he call also, and they see a flop of . Everyone checks to the preflop raiser, who bets, and then everyone called.

The turn brought the , which Sklansky considered a good card because it meant only the or the could beat him. He notes that everyone checked, including the player in the SB. Sklansky then writes, "while the player in the small blind might also have one of these cards, when he checks he is less likely to hold it, especially the ace. (I hope everyone sees why he's less likely to check the ace than the queen)."

I'm completely lost about his parenthetical. Why would someone holding the nut Ace be less likely to check than someone holding the Queen? Is it because if you bet the Queen and are called, that person probably holds the Ace, whereas if you bet the Ace and are called, it is by a player who has made a mistake?

In limit 88 and 99 are regarded as too weak to cold call with.

Look at the hands people raise with, and these hands do not hold up well against them and the more people in the pot the bigger your disadvantage.

Unless the game is really loose, you won't be getting the odds to play for set value.

I really don't like his call with T9o, and I could make guesses as to what he means by the A vs Q, but I really don't know.

Originally Posted by mxp2004

Why is that? If you had a hand like 88 or 99, isn't that worth a call from late position? Are you supposed to raise with this hand to try to get the blinds to fold so that you can play this hand heads up with the raiser?

You should raise, get it HU w/ pos and initiative. But i hear a lot about floaters in casino that give you lots of trouble by coldcalling like this.

Originally Posted by mxp2004

In any event, Sklansky goes on to say that the SB and he call also, and they see a flop of . Everyone checks to the preflop raiser, who bets, and then everyone called.

The turn brought the , which Sklansky considered a good card because it meant only the or the could beat him. He notes that everyone checked, including the player in the SB. Sklansky then writes, "while the player in the small blind might also have one of these cards, when he checks he is less likely to hold it, especially the ace. (I hope everyone sees why he's less likely to check the ace than the queen)."

I'm completely lost about his parenthetical. Why would someone holding the nut Ace be less likely to check than someone holding the Queen? Is it because if you bet the Queen and are called, that person probably holds the Ace, whereas if you bet the Ace and are called, it is by a player who has made a mistake?

good question, and i think your point is a good one. just to paraphrase what i think your saying, The queen has less value to gain because there are less hands that will call his bet that are worse than his. (specifically only Td and maybe 9d would call him (infact 9d would prob just fold maybe); he doesnt get value from teh Ad calling him b/c then he has the worse hand) The ace can get value from Qd, Td, and maybe 9d. This makes the ace more inclined to bet i think.

But i get a feeling that theres more to it than just that.

Originally Posted by Beavis68

In limit 88 and 99 are regarded as too weak to cold call with.

Look at the hands people raise with, and these hands do not hold up well against them and the more people in the pot the bigger your disadvantage.

Unless the game is really loose, you won't be getting the odds to play for set value.

That's what I was thinking about a hand like 88 or 99, but I guess it led me to the opposite conclusion. In other words, with a hand like this, I'd ideally want to have at least 4 players in the pot. If I just call, at least the BB will probably call, too, for one more bet, and the SB often calls with any kind of hand for 1.5 bets.

In any event, I see your point.

philosophist?

Or maybe he is a psychologer....