Cards of glass

So, I'm on the button and find my first playable hand for the night. A fishy player limps UTG, a tightish player (TP) raises next in, a loose aggressive (LAG) calls, I reraise, a fish calls from the BB, UTG folds, and everyone else calls.


Four of us see the flop of AJ9 rainbow. Checked to me, I bet, and all call.


The turn brings an offsuit T. Checked to me, I bet, BB calls, TP raises, LAG calls, I reraise (might as well find out now), BB folds, TP caps (drat, not the desired answer), LAG folds, I call.


The river is a 4. TP bets, I fold. How would you play it?

How would I play it? If I were TP, I'd rake in the chips. If I were you, I'd have included some more information in the post, like what your hand was... /images/smile.gif


DC

Well, of course I had AA. I figured it would be more fun to leave that bit out since it seemed a pretty easy hand reading exercise (hence the post title), but I guess I'm no Hemingway. /images/wink.gif

I don't like your fold...


The only hands that beat you are KQ or 78...would a tight player really raise from early position with these hands, even suited?? Not in my games. I would be more inclined to put him on JJ or 99...most TP's I play with will raise with these hands from early to narrow the field and will call another single bet, particularly if the raise is coming from late position. They would many times slow-play these hands having flopped the set. They would put you on AA, KK, AKs, or QQ with you being on the button. He can beat all these hands but the AA.


Then he check-raises you on the turn, and when you pop it back, he's either gotta re-raise if he doesn't think you have the AA, or fold if he does. At this point I would call his raise as you did, and check-call the river with about 20BB already in the pot.


Back to battle,


Riker

Coilean,


I peaked to see your hand but that is all. Your play is fine up until the river. I almost ran out of fingers and toes but I counted about 19 big bets in the pot on the river. Are you that sure he has KQ or another straight? Is it possible that he had TT and got overly excited when he caught a set on the turn? Or could it be possible that he slowplayed JJ on the flop? Even AT and AJ suited fits in with his play. And even tight players don't always fear set over set or the nuts that much, especially when there is a possible drawing hand to punish on the turn.


Yeah, about nine out of ten times you lose here. But the pot offers an overlay if my estimate at your odds of winning is right. And even if I'm wrong and the consensus is you are really 30 to 1 against winning calling costs only a fraction of a bet. Those fractions of bets add up in routine pots but this pot is not routine. If you don't call and see the winning hand you will wonder about your laydown for the rest of the session. That could cost you more than a fraction of a bet. Finally, these "big" laydowns aren't good for almost any image, as it is obvious that you didn't miss a draw and your opponents may tend to get trickier with you the rest of the session.


Regards,


Rick

I thought the same as you when I read it as well.

But perhaps Coilean had enough of a read to know that his opp wouldn't re-reraise the turn with JJ or 99.


I'd stilla called tho'. Maybe I'm just fishy like that - but as someone once posted - if the pot's so big you can't put your arms round it, then call.

Almost 20 BB here, I reckon. Coilean must have long arms and decided not to call.

With that much in the pot I would not have folded.

So you were really afraid of KQ, the only hand you could lose to?

Yeah, about nine out of ten times you lose here


I think that's a pretty low estimate. Getting capped on the turn in a multiway pot, this just never happens unless someone has the nuts. I'm sure it's somewhere around 97 times out of 100.


natedogg

nate-web@thegrovers.com

Rick's point is that even if his estimate is wrong (which I agree that it may be), it's only a little wrong. 97 out of 100 is about 1 in 30, so each time you make a mistake like this, you only lose a fraction of a bet, since the pot's giving 20:1 or something close to it. However, if you are wrong even one too many times, you make a terrible error. It's much better to make a small mistake many times than to make a huge one even one time.

I assume you either would have lost to a straight or would have beaten three jacks. Would the TP raise a limper with KQ? If not, or if there was any doubt in your mind, I would call to the end. Also, would TP four-bet the turn with JJ/J the same as he would four-bet with KQ? If so, or if there was any significant doubt, call to the end.


I just have trouble laying down a set of aces to one more bet against a single player on the river in a large pot. The key to this hand lies in your certainty of his having KQ and NOT having JJ. There doesn't need to be much doubt with such a big pot to make it correct to call on the river.


Dave in Cali

"...I counted about 19 big bets in the pot on the river. "


Which means he needs to be greater than 95% certain that his opponent holds KQ and not JJ or TT.


"even if I'm wrong and the consensus is you are really 30 to 1 against winning calling costs only a fraction of a bet. "


Being wrong and paying off when you are beat costs you a small portion of one bet. Rick is also right about the psychological aspects that make calling better.


However, folding and being wrong costs you a BUNDLE. The typical player probably buys in for something akin to 20 big bets. So if you lose this pot by folding the best hand, this is akin to losing an entire buy-in because you were trying to save a fraction of a single bet. Again, psychological implications should be crying out for you to call.


So your big set got beat. I would have paid it off anyway. It costs you very little to pay off when you lose, but costs you a fortune (in more ways than one) to watch your opponent stack the chips when you wimped out on the river for one more lousy bet.


Dave in Cali

natedogg,


Generally I agree but by the time the turn was capped by the "tightish" player it was down to three players so this situation just barely qualifies as multi-way action. Also note that the last raise by "tightish" in fact got it head up but maintined the cap somce the other player didn't fold until after the third raise was put in. So the tightish player knew he could put in a raise with no fear of a reraise, possibly punishing or (in this case) driving out the third player.


Think through this hand, close your eyes, massage your temples, and then try to tell me again that my estimate isn't really that close. /images/tongue.gif


Regards,


Rick

Hmm, you make good points. Ok, I'll split the difference with you, to 94%, which necessitates a call.


natedogg

nate-web@thegrovers.com

Rick,


That's how I like to think I would have responded if someone else had made my post. I felt around 99% certain he wasn't capping with a set, as I can't recall ever seeing him put in a 3rd or 4th bet on the turn in the 2-3 sessions I have played with him at this limit (he usually plays 10-20). It should be especially hard for a not particularly aggressive player like him to cap with a lower set here, with an ace staring at him on board and every indication saying I have pocket aces. Wanna split the difference and give me 95%? /images/wink.gif

Colian,


Gee you wrote a “tightish” player in your original post. In California tightish means he probably won’t cold call an early raise with AT offsuit but AJ is fine. A “tightish” player won’t play J2 suited UTG but 76 suited is OK, even in a tough game. Perhaps “Tight Old Man” or TOM would be more telling.


But I’ll settle for 95% and still don’t fold. /images/tongue.gif


Regards,


Rick

Fair enough, "tightish" isn't as informative as I was hoping. I meant reasonably tight with no particular tendencies towards either aggression or passivity. Clearly, I need to work out the geographical kinks in my player lexicon (or just move to California); cold calling a (presumably you meant sane) early raiser with AJo, tight? Yikes! /images/wink.gif

cold calling a (presumably you meant sane) early raiser with AJo, tight?


They have sane players in California?