10-20 Foxwoods Game -- Did I Totally Overplay It?

[BarronVangorToth]

Due to attending an almost week-long convention, I didn't have the chance to play much, so I wasn't sure if I really did overplay this when a buddy of mine called me on it.

Figured I'd post up what happened and you all could let me know if you think this was an appropriate line I took.

Any comments, as always, are appreciated.

10-20 Foxwoods game.

I'm Under the Gun: A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif

I open-raise for $20.

I'm expecting a few callers. Everyone folds around to the Big Blind who throws in his extra $10.

Pot: $45

Flop: A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Bingo! I think. Top pair, top kicker, nut flush draw, and I'm in position.

BB checks.

I bet $10.

He check raises.

I three-bet.

He four-bets.

The dealer says "it's capped at $40" and while I'm thinking "No, dude, it's not capped ever when it's heads up" I also think I'm going to wait and see what he does, so I just call.

Pot: $125

Turn: 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

BB checks.

Now I figure maybe he was just CR'ing the flush draw... or bullying me. Or whatever. So I bet.

He checkraises me again. But he looks annoyed, as if he can't believe I took another stab at the pot. I'm not sure why, but I 3-bet again.

And he 4-bets.

I call.

Pot: $285

River: 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif

BB bets out.

I raise.

He gets REALLY annoyed and says, "A flush draw?!?!" and calls.

I flip over my hand and he mucks his.

I find out that we have a friend in common who was watching the action and told me that I was totally overplaying my hand.

I thought that I wasn't ... and I remember last time I had a disagreement with someone at The Woods, that I got some sound advice. So....

... was I completely off how I played? I know the final result is that I won, but that doesn't mean I didn't overplay it.

Thoughts?

Thanks!


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)
"Captain Overplay"

[Tosh]

It looks so likely he has a set by the turn, the 3 bet was OTT and a losing proposition IMO.

[DcifrThs]

yes you way overplayed it...

the reason is because at no point did you say, "what does he have that i beat?" "what could he have that is played the same way that i lose to?" and "which of the above 2 questions has more answers?"

called fromt he bb w/ two chips...could be a lot of hands.

the checkraise; does he have a weak ace?

you 3bet, he 4bets; only think he could now have that i beat is AQ, but i raised under the gun so unless he's a maniac he's got 55, 95, A9, or A5.

turn he checks. NOW you should be thinking "dude, free card, sweet" and check. but you didn't and you bet. he checkraises AGAIN!; 55 looks like its a surefire hand reading winner to me although he's retarded for checking the turn.

river duh! nh.

but do you see what i mean? you have to constantly adjust your read on what he has (or in your case, think about what he has) and then react based on that changing information.

you didn't do it here b/c after the cap the only hand you beat is AQ and who "caps" the flop against a UTG raiser showing continual strength? somebody who has top pair top kicker in pretty bad shape, thats who!

thinking about it now, you definately did play like you had AKo and he felt the turn was safe to check b/c theres 12 ways to have AKo and only 1 to have AcKc so assuming you have some ace and some king its 12:1 against AcKc. thats why he checked the turn and let you trap youself again.

hope this helps in your future battles
-Barron

[arkady]

seems like he is facing 99 or AA more so than 55, but thats obviously a moot point, excellent analysis!

[BarronVangorToth]

Thanks for the thoughts thusfar.... When I was there, at the time, I probably was just annoyed with getting CR'ed again on the turn -- but his turn check completely threw me off so I figured the bet had value. I definitely shouldn't've 3-bet the turn, though, as that just invited the 4-bet which I then just have to call hoping to suck out on the river like I did.

Now I'm wondering if I should've just called the flop CR -- I've had that happen where a guy with a weaker Ace will CR "putting me on" stuff like JJ, QQ, KK... but, yeah, it could've just as easily been a two-pair CR.

Even when you win at this game -- you still think you made errors. I guess that's what keeps us all interested.

(Not to mention the extra random spending cash is always a bonus.)


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)
"Will Attempt Not to Overplay Next Time -- Even When In the Heat of a Heads-up Encounter"

[Dante]

I'm in agreement here, AA or 99 is becoming more likely than 55 with each re-raise.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
seems like he is facing 99 or AA more so than 55, but thats obviously a moot point, excellent analysis!

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks...and i think you're right. the reason i said 55 so surely was that think about it...YOU have the case A. 99 would reraise preflop and the only hand i could see played in this fashion with the bayesian analysis kicking in is 55. would you simply CALL with 99 in the bb? with all those possible overcards i'd like to get some fold equity in there possibly. AA i'd call with for deception but 99 i'd definately reraise unless i knew the raiser was solid, then i'd call and play it as the bb did.

-Barron

[elysium]

hi barron
something important here that you might not have considered is whether or not this opponent thinks that you know the betting is unlimited and not capped heads-up. if he does think that, then betting when he checked to you on the turn is wrong. now, if you thought that he didn't know you knew that the betting wasn't capped, and you really think he doesn't think you slowed down on the flop, then betting is correct when he checks to you on the turn. i personally do not think that this opponent knew that you knew the betting wasn't capped. you thought you concealed the call with a phantom cap. and so you did, barron sir. so you did at that, i think. here's why;

this is identical to backing down to a 3-bet.

barron, this entire hand hinges upon what we are addressing right now, and nothing else. not telling the dealer that you knew that you could reraise, but that, instead, you had decided to voluntarily call, could have been an error. the reason it would have been better to tell your opponent that you were voluntarily calling is that, when heads-up with what certainly is a 3-betting hand and last to act, against a solid opponent, knowing for sure that he knows your call is voluntary assists greatly in determining whether to betout or check-down the turn when we are checked to. in this example, as long as the 4-betting opponent isn't a known tricky type, knowing for certain that he knows your call is voluntary would have made it incorrect to bet when he checked to on the turn. try not to become confused here barron, it's really easy. your opponent in this case doesn't think that you backed down against a show of great strength. it's a little confusing because of the unchallenged statement by the dealer.

as always, i'm going to give an identical situation that is more common than the hand and situation posted, the advice to which can also be applied in the posted hand.

if you had, for example barron, had a solid opponent in this same situation, and backed down to his 3-bet, or called any non-tricky 4-bet in a 5+ cap game, and in the case of the backing down to 3, your image is also good/ solid; perhaps you've run a few good plays; when you suspect that the 3-bettor is slightly ahead of your very strong non-nut made hand, but you also think that your 3-betting (4-betting) opponent thinks that you think that your backing down may have concealed the strength of your hand, and while you actually believe that your 3-betting opponent is slightly leading, and you are actually calling not to slow-play setting up for a turn raise, but rather to save money, you think that your opponent suspects that you are trying to manipulate him into a position whereby you can raise him on the turn; do you follow me so far? o.k. barron i hope you do. reread to catch-up here if you have to, because this is what you must know to correctly play the hand you posted; when you think that your opponent thinks that you think you have concealed your hand's strength, your opponent doesn't think you are considering the possibility of being behind in the hand. he thinks you think that you are leading. and you can reread this if you have to here. i'm going to pause for a moment.....

i'm back. did you get all that? what does your opponent think in this hand? exactly. he thinks you think that you are ahead, but far more importantly, he thinks that you think that he thinks that too; so in order to play your hand correctly, is that all you need to know? no barron? what else must you know? no. no barron. your opponent knows that you are not leading therefore he must think that he is ahead. he thinks he's leading. we know this. my gosh he 4-bet for crying out loud. no. what else must you know in order to play this hand correctly? remember, he thinks you think you're leading, and that he thinks this too. o.k. give up? what's that? all-in....no, no barron. totally irrelevant.

you must know whether he thinks that you think that he thinks the strength of your hand is concealed. if you think he thinks this, then even though he may have put in the last raise, if he checks he thinks you'll bet, therefore you should check it down. do you have all that? very good.

when your opponent checks to you in the hand you posted barron, what does he think? he thinks you'll bet. therefore, what do you do? no. that's wrong barron, but that's o.k.; in the hand you posted, even though when your opponent checks he thinks you'll bet, you still must bet. why? why were you correct to bet? no. but that's fine. close.

very close.

he doesn't think that you think that he thinks the strength of your hand is hidden. he thinks that you think that he thinks he's trailing in the hand. he believes that you believe you are leading, and that he thinks the same. now betout when checked to on the turn. did you do that? good. very good.

do you see how in the first instance, with the lead, he would naturally go for a check-raise. why? his high expectation that although he thinks that you may think he's going for a check-raise when he checks (hand strength concealed), he thinks you will betout anyway, almost hoping that he does check-raise.

in your example, when he checks, he thinks that you think he's very possibly going for a check-raise, but now he doesn't think that you will betout with such certainty, because he doesn't think that you think he's slow-playing a strong hand. his check-raise doesn't have the same value since it would cause you to make a tough fold more often, and there is a stronger liklihood that you will check down the turn not wanting to scare him out. so while he thinks you think that he's aware you're powerfully strong, because of the possibility that you might think he will fold if bet into and therefore you might slow-play check it down and possibly also that you fear a check-raise, when he nevertheless checks into you anyway, you've got to feel good about it. that's exactly what you want.

now i know that in this particular case, the guy checks to you with the nuts at that point. well, i have the guy betting using the above theory. well he checks. so now i'm asking barron; the dealer thingie you posted....what, do you think your opponent thought that you thought that he knew you knew the round wasn't capped? i personally don't think he thought you knew. but i wasn't there. did he know? if he did know, and if you thought that he knew and thought he also knew you knew, then we have a problem with your turn betout when checked to, because now, according to the above theory, we may both think he didn't think you thought that, but maybe one of us thinks that he thought you did know, and that you thought he knew that you thought that.

so you did think that. well then barron, in that case any fool can see that you should have checked it down.

admit barron, you thought that you had concealed the strength of your hand by not speaking up when the dealer said the betting was capped. and both of you knew that each other knew the betting wasn't capped. you should have checked it down. and forget about the hand.

i'll prove the theory right now; you knew that he knew that you knew that you could have raised, dealer misstatement not withstanding. is that correct? if yes, the above theory is correct; if no, the theory in this hand didn't hold up. did you think that you had concealed the strength of your hand by not correcting the dealer about the cap having been lifted? did you think that your opponent thought that you had to know about the betting rules by now? and did you think that he thought that you thought he knew this too?

[BarronVangorToth]

I think that he knew it wasn't capped.

I think that he knew that I knew it wasn't capped.

Then again, I think everyone knows the rules about no-capping when it's heads up ... but then again, random new dealer didn't know that.

That is a very interesting take on the situation, though, regarding who thought what.

I certainly wasn't going to 5-bet the flop, though, even if the whole not-capped thing came out publicly.

I really thought I was behind on the flop when I was 4-bet ... but that ridiculous turn check caught me completely off guard and I fell into my own favorite thing: the double check raise.

In this situation, though, I think he should've bet out on the turn -- but he had a great read on me and knew I was going to bet out due to getting confused by his checking.

I definitely sucked it out at the end and I have no doubt that without a club, I was dead. Even if an Ace or a King hit on the river, I was just going to call or check-through.

Something to think about with the who-thought-what-about-the-capping, though, Elysium, I hadn't thought about that angle on the hand.

Very good point.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[elysium]

hi barron
at the higher levels, and sometimes the 10-20, you must be careful during those times that your opponent may suspect that you think he is underestimating the strength of your hand. now, of course, there will be a somewhat reasonable chance that he's actually underestimating your hand strength. when he checks, however, that chance isn't as good as it might have been while he was betting into you. he has a made hand. why is he, therefore, checking? this isn't a case of dragging him down onto the river because you think he's setting up a check-raise and don't know with the certainty that you have here, how strong he is, or whether a bet will only be called by a stronger hand, and doesn't have any value. no. here, you know this opponent is strong. not understanding that his underestimation of your hand strength, you think, undermines your position. he is often not underestimating your hand strength. he has a good read. this is where we lose most players because you may know that he has a good read on you, but if you don't step it up to the next level of thought, and understand that he also knows you have a good read on his hand strength, since you both know each of you has a good accurate read, there doesn't appear to be any room for the insertion of the inclusion of strongly considering that someone, somewhere is underestimating hand strength somehow.

if you both know that each of you has a good read on one another, there is no motivation to even consider underestimation of hand strength. that's why the stepped up level of thinking is often neglected. the very thing that you need to focus on is nowhere before you. it's not until you realize that perceptions about perceptions supersede the underlying facts. it is not at all easy to understand that knowing what your opponent knows, is not the same as thinking what he thinks you think. he knows that you know that he has a strong hand. he knows this. he also knows that you know he knows that you have a strong hand. totally irrelevant. now i'm up here barron. he thinks that you think that he thinks the strength of your hand is hidden. his perception of your perception. and now i'm back down here at level 2 thinking again to make sense of this. what has happened is that your opponent knows that you have a good read on his hand, and he knows that you know that he has a good read on your hand, but he doesn't think that you have a good read on how hidden the strength of your hand is.

now , very importantly. is it possible that the logic herein is somehow faulty? that your opponent cannot know that you know he has a good read on your hand's strength, and yet at the same time think that you think that he thinks the strength, nevertheless, is hidden. how can he find something he knows, only to lose it to a perception of a perception? could the logic be faulty? could it be wrong? the answer is no. not putting in the cap, or backing down to a 3-bet, forcibly inserts this 'hidden strength' issue into the equation, not as a thought so much, but rather as an involuntary reflex that you have no control over. he know that you know he knows, but since you backed down to the 4-bet, he thinks that you think that he thinks that you will have this knee jerk reaction to proceed in the hand as though circumstances may have afforded him a measure of camouflage with which to insert hypothesis that you can at once know something, and at the same time, not know it. he thinks that you think that he thinks the circumstances involved in the hand, will cause you to forget what you know he knows. he thinks that the way to get this knee-jerk reaction is to check to you, and by doing so you will fixate on the fact that you didn't reraise or couldn't reraise in the previous round, and he thinks that you think that, at the moment he checks, he thinks the strength of your hand is hidden. and he thinks you'll think this just long enough to bet, even though you should know better, and do know better. the logic seems faulty because he thinks you'll have a momentary lapse of reason, and instead of using your brain, he thinks that his check will induce a reflexive response brought on by the external dynamics of the hand. when can this happen? when you think that he thinks that you think the strength of your hand is hidden. no, that's why it can happen. when can it happen? the instant he checks on the turn. correct. when the brain isn't being used. that's correct.

[BarronVangorToth]

Wow.

Great post - definitely something to think about.

Thanks.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[sleepyjoeyt]

I haven't read any other posts, but I think it was played correctly.

You had a solid hand (top pair, top kicker) but even if that was beaten you were drawing to the nuts.

When checkraised again on the turn, you may have slowed down and not reraised.

But I would definitely bet when checked to on the turn.

Nice hand.

[BarronVangorToth]

My turn 3-bet was definitely psychotic -- and my buddy was definitely right to call me on overplaying it. While it's fortunate that even when you make errors that you can still be a profitable player due to a majority of players making errors bigger than this and far more often, it's still aggravating when you're trying to continually improve your game that stupid things like this happen that NEVER should, the more I think about it.


Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)
"Thank God That Even If I Occasionally Play Terrible, Most People Play Terrible All the Time at The Woods"

[bobgreen]

"Unless he's a maniac, he's got 55, 95, A9, or A5"

Some part of the time he's a maniac. Some part of the time he has 8c7c or 7c6c. Some part of the time he has XcXc. Some part of the time he has AK.

When he does hold 55, 95, A9, or A5 (or AA or 99) most of the time he will bet the turn. Some part of the time he will check the turn.

So, does his turn check make him more likely to hold a better hand than TPTKnFd or a worse hand. And even if he does checkraise and cost us two bets, we have so many outs that I think we ought to bet the turn almost every time he checks.

I do think it is rightly unanimous that the turn 3-bet was unwise.