RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
September 23rd, 2010 at 2:11:18 PM permalink
I think the only place where you went wrong was raising his river bet. As was pointed out, the only way he should call is if he has you beat, or has put you on a bluff. If he had you pegged as a loose aggressive player, he may have thought you were capable of bluffing like that, but it is hard to imagine at a $1/$2 game. So you are putting raised money at risk, to probably win no more money.

But that is a simplistic statement too. As you pointed out, when you have good hands you need to extract as much money as possible from your opponents. If you over bet and take hands down early every time, you may have a winning hand percentage, but you are not extracting maximum winnings. Playing to end hands early puts more pressure on you to have a larger percentage of winning hands for your session to still be profitable.

You made your read on his hand early, and you played to extract maximum dollars from him. At the river you probably should have only called, unless, you had a previous read that said he was going to call your river raise even if he was only holding 2 pair. If you are certain he was going to call you with 2 pair, then you gambled trying to extract maximum dollars, and you lost that gamble. If you are not certain he would have called you with 2 pair, then you made a mistake by raising the river, since you would have not gotten paid any more than a call would have made.

So, IMO, you gambled trying to extract max value, and lost, OR, you made a mistake by raising the river bet.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 23rd, 2010 at 3:24:25 PM permalink
Quote: clarkacal

I understand the whole pot odds idea but it is revisionist for this reason: You now know he had 8 10. If you read him to have a small to medium pocket pair which I falsely did, you would want to bet an amount that he would call because it looks like you are trying to buy w AK. Also, with me having pocket Jacks and playing at a full table the most outs he could have with an open ender is 6 but more likely he has 5 or 4, definitely not the 8 some are plugging into their equation.

BTW, sorry if I got personal with my comment last night, I had been drinking and I actually do enjoy educated disagreements.



The pot odds discussion only is relevant to your actions on the flop and on the turn. On the river, the question of pot odds is irrelevant because you were at LEAST going to call the $50--any more money you put in the pot was voluntary (to contrast, pot odds WOULD have been a consideration if he had put either you or himself all-in with his river bet).

The analysis that he has a small PP AND thinks that you have AK AND he will call your bets is a parlay. Parlays don't come in very often. A lot of things would have to be true for your play to be correct on the basis of that analysis.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 23rd, 2010 at 3:35:43 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

But that is a simplistic statement too. As you pointed out, when you have good hands you need to extract as much money as possible from your opponents. If you over bet and take hands down early every time, you may have a winning hand percentage, but you are not extracting maximum winnings. Playing to end hands early puts more pressure on you to have a larger percentage of winning hands for your session to still be profitable.



But playing to end hands early will do that exact thing--raise your win percentage. After the flop, our hero was in good but not fantastic shape. Either his opponent had missed the flop completely, in which case he wasn't going to win any more money, or his opponent had some reasonable number of outs, which the check-call on the flop seemed to confirm was the case. Our hero had one pair of Jacks--NOT a monster. The hand needed protection for the twin reasons that it was ahead and it was probably not very far ahead. The key concept, once again, is that a made hand vs. a draw is laying heavy reverse implied odds whenever it makes a small postflop bet. Thus, the risk:reward ratio is magnified, because the made hand will be compelled to pay off the drawing hand when it gets there, due to pot size.

I don't disagree with the small flop bet that much, since Hero didn't know exactly where he was at, but the turn bet should have been the size of the pot, to deny drawing odds. If your opponent calls such a bet, you're happy, regardless of the result. The way it was played, the money went in AFTER the opponent made his hand. Not optimal for Hero.

One of the goals of a winning poker player should be to minimize variance. Making small, callable bets when you are ahead may (or, may not!) increase your overall winnings, but it will definitely increase your variance.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
clarkacal
clarkacal
Joined: Sep 22, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 401
September 23rd, 2010 at 4:34:09 PM permalink
I neglected to mention the rake of 10% max $5, therefore the pot pre flop was $27 -$2or3 and after the flop bet was $57-$5.

To the best of my recollection it was relatively early in play at the table and he was directly to my right. I noticed he was experienced and played a lot of hands pre flop, and I also remember him straddling and trying to get me to straddle a few times which I wouldn't so he probably had me pegged for solid.

Really the biggest factor in making the reraise was looking at his stack and looking at the size of the pot. Like I said, I didn't have him on 8 10 but I was aware of the possibility, but from his willingness to gamble so far I thought he would have a hard time laying down a set or 2 pair getting over 3:1.

It turns out later in the session I gauged him as being a good player, making some good laydowns against me and much tighter on later streets than I thought at first. I did end up winning the $220 back plus about $110
rtpud
rtpud
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 26
September 24th, 2010 at 10:27:50 AM permalink
Not to hijack, but figured this is a similar thread on this discussion:
I'll do it in units instead of cash (its how I think, so i find it easier).
It is my first hand at the table, I come in on the BB.
I have 120 BB stack (table average).
Fold around to button-1. Button-1 bets the pot; 3.5 bets total. Folds to me.
I have 66, I call from BB. Pot = 7.5 bets.
Flop 962 2x diamonds. I lead out with 5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 17.5 bets.
Turn 4 clubs. I lead out with 17.5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 42.5 bets.
River 3 spades. I hesitate, then lead with 35 bets, opponent reraises all-in.
Pot = 112.5 bets with 56.5 bets needed to make the call.

I won't put the result up yet, but I'd like a critique of how the hand was played and what the final decision should be?
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 24th, 2010 at 10:46:31 AM permalink
Quote: rtpud

Not to hijack, but figured this is a similar thread on this discussion:
I'll do it in units instead of cash (its how I think, so i find it easier).
It is my first hand at the table, I come in on the BB.
I have 120 BB stack (table average).
Fold around to button-1. Button-1 bets the pot; 3.5 bets total. Folds to me.
I have 66, I call from BB. Pot = 7.5 bets.
Flop 962 2x diamonds. I lead out with 5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 17.5 bets.
Turn 4 clubs. I lead out with 17.5 bets. Flat call. Pot = 42.5 bets.
River 3 spades. I hesitate, then lead with 35 bets, opponent reraises all-in.
Pot = 112.5 bets with 56.5 bets needed to make the call.

I won't put the result up yet, but I'd like a critique of how the hand was played and what the final decision should be?



It's difficult to imagine a hand that your opponent could have that contains a 5--so you're not up against a straight. The only possibility is something like A5--which he could have been trying to steal the blinds with, but his flat calls on the flop and turn would have made very little sense. He could also have had some nonsense like 75 and have stuck with you all the way--flopping a gutshot and turning a double-gutter. But it's hard to imagine him trying a steal with THAT preflop.

So you have to ask yourself, what the hell does he have? For him to have raised preflop, and then be flat calling your bets (you've shown strength by leading out on each street), means he has a made hand and is in defensive mode (something like 1010), or he has a draw, or he has some kind of monster, and is letting you hang yourself. Just about the only plausible draw is 78, or a diamond draw--and both of those hands are unlikely, given his preflop raise. (As I noted above, though, his range for a possibly steal-raise is pretty wide.) I would expect his single most likely hand to be 99.

The pot is offering you 2-1 on your final call. If you win more than 1/3 of the time, you profit. So, examining your opponent's possible hands, you have:

99 (quite possible)
22, 33, 44 (all possible)
some random 5 in a steal hand (unlikely)
78, or 75 (possible because the draws would fit his action)
a busted flush draw (possible)

Unfortunately, the possibility of a busted flush draw or a smaller set in his hand compels the call. You're probably not going to like the result, though. A tiebreaker might be: is he tight? Loose? Aggressive? What is YOUR table image? How did you make your final bet? In other words, does your table image or the physical way you've been betting suggest that you can be pushed off your hand? The trouble is, someone slowplaying a monster (99) OR someone playing a flush draw would bet with the same exact pattern. That's why you have to make a crying call.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
ItsCalledSoccer
ItsCalledSoccer
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
  • Threads: 42
  • Posts: 735
September 24th, 2010 at 11:42:55 AM permalink
Were you playing PL?

I'm gonna guess he had 99 or higher, specifically TT, JJ, or QQ ... although that would make his post-flop call a weird decision.

I'm also going to guess AdXd, maybe lucky enough to be Ad5d, although that would make his pre-flop bet and turn call a little weird ... not that every poker hand goes exactly to script! If it was Ad5d, the draw to both the flush or straight might have been too much to resist.

IF I'm guessing right, then the only thing you might have done differently - not to construed as me calling it a mistake - was bet more on the turn, say, 25 ... but you may have been playing PL.

EDIT: Forgot to add the decision! I'm going with CALL.
rtpud
rtpud
Joined: Sep 2, 2010
  • Threads: 6
  • Posts: 26
September 24th, 2010 at 1:47:44 PM permalink
Quote: mkl654321

It's difficult to imagine a hand that your opponent could have that contains a 5--so you're not up against a straight. The only possibility is something like A5--which he could have been trying to steal the blinds with, but his flat calls on the flop and turn would have made very little sense. He could also have had some nonsense like 75 and have stuck with you all the way--flopping a gutshot and turning a double-gutter. But it's hard to imagine him trying a steal with THAT preflop.

So you have to ask yourself, what the hell does he have? For him to have raised preflop, and then be flat calling your bets (you've shown strength by leading out on each street), means he has a made hand and is in defensive mode (something like 1010), or he has a draw, or he has some kind of monster, and is letting you hang yourself. Just about the only plausible draw is 78, or a diamond draw--and both of those hands are unlikely, given his preflop raise. (As I noted above, though, his range for a possibly steal-raise is pretty wide.) I would expect his single most likely hand to be 99.

The pot is offering you 2-1 on your final call. If you win more than 1/3 of the time, you profit. So, examining your opponent's possible hands, you have:

99 (quite possible)
22, 33, 44 (all possible)
some random 5 in a steal hand (unlikely)
78, or 75 (possible because the draws would fit his action)
a busted flush draw (possible)

Unfortunately, the possibility of a busted flush draw or a smaller set in his hand compels the call. You're probably not going to like the result, though. A tiebreaker might be: is he tight? Loose? Aggressive? What is YOUR table image? How did you make your final bet? In other words, does your table image or the physical way you've been betting suggest that you can be pushed off your hand? The trouble is, someone slowplaying a monster (99) OR someone playing a flush draw would bet with the same exact pattern. That's why you have to make a crying call.




This is similar to my line of thought.

I could reason 99, although I think the 99 would be impatient on the turn and reraise.
I could reason a busted flush, AK to AT as these are blind stealers.
A5 diamonds was also one I thought of.
I didn't reason the connectors with a 5 at all; don't see how they could hang in.
I couldn't figure what would be so attractive that you go all-in on the river. It has to be a 5 or nothing. I think most people will flat call the river bet even with 99. Because the busted flush was possible (only for this reason), I obviously had to call in case he was chasing the equity he put into the pot by attempting to push me off.

Although it doesn't really matter for the analysis, he showed up 55.

Is there anyone here who thinks that the river bet is unnecessary?
The hands I really had him on, which led me to feed the river bet instead of checking were (EV based on my bet of intended bet of 35 BB):
AK, AQ, AJ of diamonds - these all will fold to the river bet or bluff, EV=0 or +EV=>35 bets.
TT, JJ, QQ, KK, AA - these all call the river bet, +EV=35 bets.
22, 33, 44 - these all call or maybe raise the river bet, +EV=35 bets.
55 - reraise the river all-in, -EV=91.5 bets.
99 - call or reraise the river, -EV=35 bets or -EV=91.5 bets


My reanalysis here still puts him on an overpair more often than 99 or 55 based on hand dynamics. I think on the flop or turn, 99 or AA will reraise; my true read in the situation was JJ/QQ/KK or AdXd. Most people playing 99 there will reraise the turn, while most people with AA will reraise the flop to see where they are. Without assigning percentages, I still think leading with the bet on the river is a positive EV play.


Does anyone check the river? Does anyone bet a different amount?
I was not playing PL, FYI. But I usually refrain from betting more than the pot unless on the next street I won't have enough money in play to follow up with another pot sized bet.
mkl654321
mkl654321
Joined: Aug 8, 2010
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 3412
September 24th, 2010 at 4:08:34 PM permalink
Quote: rtpud

It has to be a 5 or nothing.

Is there anyone here who thinks that the river bet is unnecessary?

I still think leading with the bet on the river is a positive EV play.



No, he doesn't have to have a 5 to shove on the river, because from his point of view, it's extremely unlikely that YOU have a 5. What hand containing a 5 could you possibly have that justifies your actions? Only a few, not very likely possibilities.

You pretty much have to bet the river for the same reason, i.e., that it is unlikely your opponent has a 5. His actual hand, 55 was very unlikely because that meant he called on the flop with third pair and on the turn with third pair and a gutshot. If you can get people to play that deep into the hand with you with nothing but a baby pair, you'll make money, this particular hand notwithstanding. You were something like a 9-1 favorite after the flop.

This was pretty much a case of "donkey bites man", and the only consolation I can offer is that the presence of people who chase with crap like third pair and gutshots is ultimately profitable to you.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
BigTip
BigTip
Joined: May 25, 2010
  • Threads: 3
  • Posts: 67
September 27th, 2010 at 1:49:22 PM permalink
To the original poster, I would have called, and MAYBE gone all in too.

The problem is that you were screwed from the get go when he called the pre-flop raise with garbage when he was in such poor position to boot. I am generally as wary about people playing garbage from the button as I am about un-raised big blinds. But someone UTG calling usually means he has something. Unless, of course, he is a loose, chasing, drunken idiot, "gambler". Seems like they are always the ones to win the really big pots though. The reason is simple. You can't put them on a hand. They are being rewarded for their "gambling".

I disagree with whoever said that you have to factor in it was only a 1-2 table. I don't see any more stupid stuff at a 1-2 table than I do at a 2-5 table. Heck, I don't even see a lot of stupid stuff on Poker Stars when I'm playing at a one cent - two cent table. People for the most part are competing and the way to keep score is money, regardless of what those units are.

Take solace in what Doyle Brunson said in his book about doing all the right things but still getting hosed on occasion.

"Sometimes you lose."

  • Jump to: