Any diamond, K, Q, J, T, 8, 6 or 5 is a scare card for you, that is about 30 cards I think. Protect your hand.

Originally Posted by Pok 7's

Or was I right in taking the pot down right here?

At the table for a while new guy sits down to my left (MP1 in this hand) and playing real aggressive. Raising 5-10x BB anytime he plays PF. After a while he gets a bunch of callers and they're playing anything. So I get thrown my "lucky" starting hand and decide to call with it. I would've probably bet about 2/3 the pot or the pot of it were a rainbow flop but wad concerned about a flush draw. Just wondering how I did on this one, thanks.

I'm thinking, because of your intro, that the table was getting to know MP1 as a maniac and so were willing to play looser and betting harder against him while they also knew you to be tighter and more conventional so were more cautious of your play when it departed from what they expected from you. When you overbet the pot by a 33% I think the others must have put you on to a set and the cost was too steep and the player too tight to challenge with what they were holding.

As for taking the pot down right there on the flop, I'm not so sure it was absolutely necessary becasue of the flush draw. You could have just bet the pot (or 3/4 of it) and thus reduce the pot odds so that anyone drawing to it would be making a mistake. Sklanski promotes the idea of making a bet/raise so that calling would be a mistake and you should be rooting for the call because in the long run it pays you more than if they do the correct thing and fold. On the other side of the coin, he also promotes the idea of making a mistake by folding to a bet/raise when they have a better hand. So, I guess the question now is, did you think someone had a better hand and did your bet cause them to make a mistake?

In the long run, your play seems to be -EV here. You called $0.16 to win a pot of $0.60 or just under 4:1. Problem is that you need at least 7:1 odds to make this play if you're only going to play the set, so you really need to pick up a bet on the flop.

Particularly with MP+1 being so aggressive, wondering why you didn't go for a checkraise to make up the difference (unless he's agressive PF, but not after).

Of course, you also don't want to get yourself in a spot where you lose the pot trying to make up your odds differential.

Originally Posted by Jason75

In the long run, your play seems to be -EV here. You called $0.16 to win a pot of $0.60 or just under 4:1. Problem is that you need at least 7:1 odds to make this play if you're only going to play the set, so you really need to pick up a bet on the flop.

Particularly with MP+1 being so aggressive, wondering why you didn't go for a checkraise to make up the difference (unless he's agressive PF, but not after).

Of course, you also don't want to get yourself in a spot where you lose the pot trying to make up your odds differential.

If someone hand Aces, or a K in there hand, he would have gotten much more money. But unless the table was really loose post-flop, the bet was a little big.

Originally Posted by Beavis68

If someone hand Aces, or a K in there hand, he would have gotten much more money. But unless the table was really loose post-flop, the bet was a little big.

I agree. He made a bet that only a better hand or really loose player would call. That's why I was thinking check raise here - let the agressive player continuation bet, then come over the top. You might even get an additional caller before it gets back to you.

Just seems like with so many opponents calling this raise, someone was liable to bet if he checked.

Do you feel bad about not making more $?
or do you truly believe you would have got outdrawn..

since you did win, take it to heart that it is better to win a small pot than to lose a big one.

I don't like a check-raise, you DO NOT want to give free cards.

At this level, people will pay a lot to draw and over play top-pair. May as well make them pay. This flop must have missed everyone.