Yeah, mpv, I'm glad to see you here again! (looked for you the other night on one of my HU binges on Stars)

I really think we're going to have to some extent 2 distinct "forums" going soon in this section (regrettably, B&M doesn't get as much traffic), as I'm starting to see some MAJOR differences in these games. Basically, after a while, B&M becomes just a game of reads, and I suspect that you, I and rdale are the people playing the most B&M here now (hopefully there are others among the strong players here).

Here's what I've got with regard to "other hands":

MP: basically all unsuited big cards jacks or bigger, suited, tens or bigger.

LP: Throw in AXs, all suited one gappers, open big cards T or better.

The real problem I'm having is dealing with loose raisers. I'll try to start a thread on that one as well, but I really feel like playing tonight, so I don't know whether to post or hit the road...

Glad to be here again Ais... I took July off to basically try to bust my ass ONLY playing SNGs... Since I'm back, I guess you can figure out how well I did at THAT little experiment...

I think there are times I'm playing a little too tight... If you don't mind, whenever you get back from your game, can you elaborate a little on the hands you'll play from MP...

Like... MP w/ QJ, I think you said you'd limp, but expect you won't call for a raise... What happens if you limp w/ 3 others, flop a Q, and have action coming at you...?

Are you playing ANY of these hands for a raise, or are these just limping hands...?

BTW... I'm having a couple problems on my own, and will try re-invigorating the B&M section...

Well, actually, part of your question has to do with my post-game thoughts tonight (finally a winning session again!). Basically, I think the real difference between T9s/JTs on the one hand and the little suited connectors (54s-98s) on the other is that the former are not capable of handling a raise--despite the fondness of some for JTs.

My reasoning is this: Against any credible raiser (unless you have some sort of tell indicating that they're raising an underpair to your JTs), your straighting outs are taken away by the usual hands they're representing, and if they happen to be present, you may be getting into your draw against someone holding a big set (e.g., JTs on a board of Q9X).

If you have 76s against a credible raiser and hit your draw, then there's really at most one big card on the board. And, again, fours, fives, and eights are all still in the deck as far as you know. Moreover, your true longshot boards of something like 772 or whatever are at least out there and aren't going to run into real difficulties most of the time.

Anyhow, while I know JTs (and even JTo) are very popular for calling raises these days, that's why I don't think one is going to show any kind of profit off of that move (barring some very specific tells, which I at the moment don't have in that great detail on anyone).

As to your QJo question, I just lay it down normally if I have a Q with action coming at me. I think ice and I are in very slight disagreement on this one, but I personally prefer just to fold if I'm not capable of raising (and I might actually raise it under certain circumstances, but I'd say those would be pretty rare--like players who are all about Q5 in that situation).

I actually had a hand like that tonight, on which the turn made things pretty easy: I limp with QJs in MP, 6 see the flop. Flop comes Jrags (one to my suit but rainbow). I bet pot and LP flat calls. For some reason, I put him on something like KJ rather than anything else (in fact he had AJo--it was a fairly tight player). And when I got the call, I was a bit concerned about what to do on the turn (correct would have been check-fold imo, but I'm not sure I would have had the discipline, I'll regrettably have to admit). Anyhow, the turn comes a Q, giving me 2 pair (by the way, another heart, which was my suit, and I would like to check-call here), so I bet a little more than half the pot. River a blank, and we show down after we both check.

I could also have bet the river here, I suppose (cf. droq's thoughts of a few weeks ago), but I really don't like it. We had a pot by that time of $200, so I guess I could fire $80-$100 at it, and let him possibly make a river mistake by calling (and I suppose I'd have to call if he raised me). But that's the way I played it, and I'd like to have more of a hand before trying to milk the river, really.

My real view of these trouble hands under normal circumstances (i.e., you flop TP) is that they're just "keeping up with the blinds" hands. You really want everyone to simply fold to your flop bet and then forget about the hand after picking up the blinds and however many limps are out there. This is particularly true imo if you don't truly have top kicker with your top pair. The good thing about them is that they're high percentage in terms of hitting the flop (in contrast to sets or suited connectors). But you don't want to deal with any real heat on them.

One other note: While I definitely see differences emerging between B&M-style play and the tables ice, kenny, droq, stel, kent, MadGenius et al. (sorry if I've left anyone out of this group, but those are the ones who just come to mind at the moment) are playing, I also think our various experiences online and B&M can definitely complement one another.

I do think a good B&M player is going to have to get very very good at playing the player and capitalizing on much more exact information, but there's a great deal of common ground here. And I'm sure they also have a bunch of regulars on whom they have some pretty detailed reads (and who have detailed reads on them). Generally, too, I think B&M there's going to be a very strong inclination for players to see more flops simply because you play only about half the number of hands per hour even if you're single-tabling. And obviously, if you're quad-tabling, even if you see 15% of flops, you're seeing WAY more action than you do if you're seeing a similar number at B&M.

Anyhow, one good thing about the direction our game seems to be heading is that I think I'm the only player at the game who actually has the discipline B&M to see less than 20% of flops. And while I'm actually fairly LAG-ish in subsequent play, I just always have some dead money in there, because the remaining "at least decent" players (plus the occasional moron who comes in, goes broke and never returns) play too many, hence inferior starting hands. It was kind of sweet tonight, actually, and I even thought of moving tables at one point because we had a table full of regulars and no complete fools, then I decided, "No, I'm going to see what I can do with this game." And, I finished up $244 (nothing special, but still ...) after 6 hours and what felt like a pretty average run of cards.

Oh, one kind of tell that does belong in the B&M section, but which I haven't been able to get anything out of yet: Harrington mentions that he looks a lot at people's hands for tells (how they put their chips in). I did at least get a bit of a start, I think, on one of our regulars (who isn't particularly good). Limping with AQo in LP, he kind of frivolously threw a chip high into the air when he entered the pot. Then a bit later, he just kind of half-ass pushed the chip in when limping UTG. He ended up folding the UTG hand, so no clue what he had there. He did kind of briefly study the flop in the latter case, but my suspicion is simply that he was pretty weak (the difference could also have just been a question of mood, though), but I wouldn't put something like KX past him on that bet (maybe).

Maybe, but I really didn't have him pegged all that well. It was the first time I'd played with him, and we'd been playing for about an hour. All I'd really observed in that time was that he wasn't playing stupid.

As I recall, there was no apparent made draw on the river, but I had no real reason to believe that he wouldn't be someone who might just flat call a set on flop and turn, then pop the river. If I could really accurately say KJ or AJ there, then sure, might as well bet, but I didn't feel confident enough.

OK - cool to hear about "real" poker (B&M). I have yet to make an appearance in one.

But what about your thoughts on playing various suited connectors. You hinted at some point a week or so ago that you were thinking hard about some related issues. And Ice gave some hints as to how he handles various suited hands (Axs; sc's), though it seems to be very much "situational" for him. I strongly beleive that there is order to chaos, and that a basic "normal play" must incorporate a share of the wild and dark side (which must then be adjusted to "reads" etc - but in the absence of good reads, a somewhat randomized normal style should be the default - just my thinking).

Also, the suited connectors seem ideal for mixing up ones play, especially in LP where the occasional free card can make a big difference.

Was this JTs vs 87-54s the essence of your thinking? I fully agree with your reasoning.
I prefer to stick in the odd play every once like 5% of the time playing one-gappers (75s favorite) for a raise, or a call in LP. These are REALLY sneaky. A 963 flop or related 43A hides a true monster draw. And the 2p's are also in my experience better disguised, but just as likely to hit as for 76s. Sometimes I also come in as second+ caller and will draw even against slightly unfavorable odds when the opportunity presnets itself.

Hitting either the DBBS draw or a backdoor flush has been really good for me occasionally with these hands.

Did you detail your novel hand selection already? Don't think I saw that yet.

Cheers,
Rush