I’m curious if how do players in a 6-handed high-stake online game look to exploit weak play. I have no idea.

By the way, is there any difference between actual value bet and scared bet on different streets? And how much limping is permitted?

Also, do you have an idea about the various ways people proceed in continuation betting situations both in and out of position, whether or not there is the lead? And from out of position, how important is the ability to play till the end?

Thank you.
Regards,
Devon

Devon,

1. High stakes player exploit weak play with aggression mostly. They also exploit weak play with playing a wide array of hands and punishing their players when they connect with a flop.
2. The difference between the bets depends on how your read your opponent. This will depend on what you see them show down, their betting patterns, and how they perceive their opponents.
3. From what I have witnessed, not a lot of limping occurs. A player can try, but usually there is a raise.
4. Most players will do some type of continuation bet on the flop if they were the aggressor. An exception would be if they were the aggressor and then they were reraised. They may then relinquish this bet on the flop.
5. Don’t worry too much about playing to the end. You need to focus on being able to make proper decisions on each street. If that means folding along the way, then fold. If it means staying till the end, then stay.

In my case, I love to play small ball poker being the aggressor usually. Oftentimes, I use position and table image to let others feel I am in the pot and that I always run after to taking the pots from their advantage.

Generally, I’m not a big, expert bluffer. However, I make sure that I’m open most of the time and bet a lot in small pots all for my big hands.

What do you think, how will my playing style translate to bigger games? Do I have to expect that other players will block my style along the way by calling me in position or re-raising me more often? Any idea?

Thanks!

Caleb

Caleb,

Players will tend to play pretty much as you stated. They will use position more, reraise you more, and even try to force you to play large pot poker. Some players will actually sit and try and match wits with you in small ball.

If you are planning to play at the larger limits, you need to work on your ability to bluff, and you need to work on your ability to read other players. While I am sure that you do quite well at that, the largest games have the best players and these skills will become more important.

I’ve just started playing poker for some time now. As of the moment, I am in the process of learning how the betting goes especially the purpose of the big and small blinds and also how do they bet.

By the way, your site has been very helpful. Thanks!

Ashton

Ashton,

The blinds are two forced bets that are posted to the two positions to the left of the dealer button. The small blind is half the size of the big blind in most games. How the blinds bet depends on whether the pot has been raised.

If the pot has not been raised, when the action reaches the small blind, they may either call the big blind amount, raise, or fold. If the pot has been raise, the small blind has to either call the raise, reraise, or fold.

When action reaches the big blind, if the pot is unraised, the big blind may either check or raise. If the pot has been raised he may call the raise, reraise, or fold.

Before I lay down my question, let me first congratulate you for having the best site. It has been a great help for many poker players. Thanks a lot for all of your efforts, great job!

Well, for my question, it’s something about going all in when making a bet and side pots. Let’s say for an instance, there are 3 players at the fifth street. Have already gone through the pre-flop, the flop, as well as all the betting. Then, fifth street comes up and eventually player 1 goes “all in” and bets $100. Assume that player 2 calls, same thing for player 3, but the difference is he wants to raise $50.

In my opinion, player 2 may call the raise of player 3 by placing either a side bet or side wager of $50 in a side pot. Typically, player 2 would have to raise or call the bet of player 3. However, I’m wondering if the rules are not the same whenever a player goes all in. Any idea?

Also, I am clueless if player 2 can simply decline to do the side bet to grab the chance of playing for an additional side pot of $100 and just play for the $300 in the main pot. Well, if player 2 can, I guess there would be no side pot.

By the way, is the side pot mandatory at all times? And is player 2 obliged to either just call the raise of player 3 by which is $50 or else just fold?

If the answer for such questions is yes, then I don’t think things will make sense. At least, why shouldn’t player 2 be able to play for the main pot? If player 2 doesn’t have an additional raise, then why should he fold?

Also, player 1 can’t meet the raise of player 3, however, he gets to stay in and play for the main pot. How come? And why should player 2 fold though he placed the same amount of money in the main pot?

Thanks!
Carl Lohanne

Carl,

In the scenario above, player one went all in on the river. Player 2 then called. If player three bets out, then player two must either call the bet or fold. Player 2 at that point forfeits his right to the main pot.

Think of it this way. After player one goes all in, Player 2 and Player 3 must then battle for the right to win the main pot. With his raise, player 3 is saying that he can bet not only player 1 but player 2 as well. If player 2 wants the right to claim the main pot, he must beat player 3 for it.

The reason that player 1 is not forced to fold is because all of his money is already in the pot and once that happens, his portion of the pot is protected.

Back in the early days of poker, if someone was out of money and the other person had more, they could just win the pot by just raising. This was determined as unfair. Someone could sit down with a larger stack than everyone else and just move all in to every bet and take every pot. This would not be fair.

For you, who do you think amongst the players should first show his hand when the betting is finally over? Ever since, I follow the rule by which whoever called should be the first one to show the hand. However, one of my friends just recently went to Tunica, and there he discovered that whoever is left of the dealer should show first. I’m really confused, any comment?

Thank you for your time.

William

William,

This is a topic that has cause a lot of debate. So much so, that the Tournament Director’s Association came up with a rule regarding this for tournament play. Rule 37 of TDA Rules states, “At the end of last round of betting, the player who made the last aggressive action in that betting round must show first. If there was no bet the player to the left of the button shows first and so on clockwise. In stud games, the player with the high board must show first. In razz, the lowest board shows first.”

Many casinos have adopted this rule as their own policy. By this rule, the last person to be or raise must show first. Otherwise, it is the left of the button.