Rivered top trips, but is the T kicker good?

[RunDownHouse]

In this hand, what I'm unsure about is my river play. Specifically, is this a clear raise? I was worried about my kicker, and the thought of him holding an overpair didn't even cross my mind. A note on the CO and UTG: on the previous hand, soon-to-be-CO raised with A9o. Flop has 9 as middle card and two clubs, soon-to-be-UTG bets, is raised by soon-to-be-CO, and 3bets. Turn brings J, soon-to-be-UTG check-raises soon-to-be-CO. River is a blank, no flush hit, soon-to-be-UTG check-raises and then caps river... with AT of clubs. So between UTGs bizarre play, and CO's willingness to walk into check raises from a blind on two consecutive streets holding middle pair, I wasn't giving either of these guys much credit. I had a slight, unsteady read on CO that he'd raise with any two paint, which is why my T kicker bothered me.

So now that I'm done rambling, the question again: easy decision to raise on the river? Also, should CO's call one bet then cap on the flop tip me off as to his holding?

Ultimate Bet 1/2 Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG calls, MP folds, <font color="CC3333">CO raises</font>, Button folds, Hero calls, BB calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (8 SB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, CO calls, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, UTG folds, <font color="CC3333">CO caps</font>, Hero calls, BB calls.

Turn: (10.50 BB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(3 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls $1 (All-In), <font color="CC3333">CO raises</font>, Hero calls.

River: (15 BB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(3 players, 1 all-in)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">CO bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 17 BB

[deacsoft]

I play it as you did most of the time.

[RunDownHouse]

Thanks for the answer. Clearly, I'm new here, so I'm trying to feel out how my instincts and processes compare to others.

[deacsoft]

No problem. Welcome to the forum. This site along with experience has sharpened my instincts. The first time I realized how much better they have become freaked me out. I still have a long way to go with them though. I just fall in to "the zone" once in a while and seem to able to do no wrong. Just keep working hard at learning as much as possible.

cheers,

deacsoft

[Magikist]

Yikes. This is a really messy hand. I think "misplayed on every street" applies here.

Preflop: This is not a great call preflop. Unless CO has no raising standards whatsoever, QTs is simply trash out of position against a raiser.

Flop: It may seem like you're getting a fair price to call CO's cap, but you have to be worried about drawing very slim here. Calling this street may be excusable if only because BB was going all-in, and we all know how players get when they're down to the felt.

Turn: If you were intent on calling down you most certainly should have check-called. Instead, you bet out and received further confirmation that you were beat only to call another big bet!

River: Any half-wit's going to check behind with an overpair when the river pairs the top card after the action in this hand. You should bet out and call a raise. Having checked, yes, you should checkraise.

[Magikist]

If you think this hand was played well you may be overestimating your sharp instincts.

[The Setup]

I would fold this pre-flop Q10s is simply not good enough to call a raise in the small blind IMO. The way you played it I'd raise the BB like you did I would probably call the 2 bets back to me as the pot has gotten large. If I call the flop I would check-fold the turn unimproved.

[RunDownHouse]

As I noted, I wasn't giving either of my opponents much credit, especially UTG. I thought CO would raise with a fairly wide range of hands, and originally put him on Ax, suited or off. His turn raise is what slowed me down and made me think that I had a dominated hand.

Sharp instincts? Perhaps not, but I never claimed that, either. In fact, the reason I'm here is to sharpen those thought processes, not show off how great I am.

In this one, UTG had 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, CO has KK.

[deacsoft]

Q-Ts has an EV of +0.12 in this position and 6 handed.

[naphand]

You are probably right Deacsoft, but you may find that Magikist is not really interested in what others have to say, his preference is lecturing in the style of a condescending born-again bible basher.

[naphand]

If you think people are here to read your condescending pap, you may be overestimating your ability to make useful insights into the game.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
Any half-wit's going to check behind with an overpair when the river pairs the top card after the action in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Ultimate Bet 1/2 Hold'em (6 handed)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
River: (15 BB) Q (3 players, 1 all-in)
Hero checks, CO bets...

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is clearly too advanced to understand the game conditions presented here... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tripdad]

preflop: the call, while marginal, is clearly OK if you are pretty sure BB will come along. folding is just fine, too.

flop: you should only check/raise this if the bet comes from the preflop raisor. after the BB bets out, and it is smooth called by UTG and CO, i just call as well. the only reason to check/raise this is to try to get heads up with the preflop raisor. it is not a check/raise for value, as TPMK does not play well against so many opponents.

turn: check and call. you want to see the river as cheaply as possible. you are likely behind and will need some help from above to pull this out.

river: bet and call a raise. it is highly unlikely CO has the Q. more likely an overpair or a set(now would be a boat). like Magikist says...anyone with an overpair and some sense would check behind here.

cheers!

[Magikist]

Naphand,

First of all, this statement:
[ QUOTE ]
If you think people are here to read your condescending pap, you may be overestimating your ability to make useful insights into the game

[/ QUOTE ]

makes no sense. If you insist on posting clever ripostes, at least upgrade your wit.

Secondly, while my response deacsoft may have sounded harsh, I hope he reads it and, at minimum, reevaluates his thought process on this hand. Without a doubt the original poster did not play this hand well, and to suggest otherwise belies a significant conceptual error.

However, your responses to me were little more than mean-spirited flames combined with your own brand of condescension. Only too frequently have I read your habitual griping about other poster's styles, mainly because they come off as authoritative. You are the hypocrit who clutters this forum with garbage responses that, I'm assuming, aim to knock the original poster down a peg. Instead, Naphand, you are only embarrassing yourself by demonstrating a singular insecurity and a large chip on your shoulder, that you would spend the time and effort to insult other members of this community.

If you don't have anything good to say, don't say anything at all. If you need to be argumentative and demean other members of this community, not because they've posted something incorrect or debatable, but because of their own personal style, then I suggest you just stop reading their posts.

This is the first and last time I will ever address this hang-up of yours. I've written this message so maybe you'll get the message, loud and clear: nobody wants to read mean-spirited drivel. I suggest you stick to poker content.

[Magikist]

Deacsoft,

You will find plenty of evidence from simulations suggesting simply outrageous plays that you would never consider at a card table. Why? Because they're positive EV!

+0.12 EV? Yea, only if you play it optimally.

Good luck.

[Nemesis]

i would call this from the BB for sure, prolly not the SB. The flop action is rough, check-call on the turn seems clearly better to me if you're wanting to get to show down... which i think you do. As far as the river goes i think bet and call a raise is better than a check raise, you don't wanna check raise and be 3-bet. However since you DID check and were given the opportunity to check raise you have to take it, if you thought your Q with T kicker was bad on the river then why did you even take it that far?

[naphand]

Hoo-hoo. I do like a good rant every now and then.

[ QUOTE ]
If you insist on posting clever ripostes, at least upgrade your wit.

[/ QUOTE ]

My wit, is without doubt superior and deeper than yours, if that is the best you can muster. And you are of course, expecting others to believe that your original post (to which this was an answer) did make sense? Or was helpful? Just like your "nice work" comment previously. Perhaps you could explain to the Forum exactly why and how this type of post is going to help people? Modify your style, and you will be amazed at how eager people are to hear your voice.

[ QUOTE ]
Without a doubt the original poster did not play this hand well, and to suggest otherwise belies a significant conceptual error.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not a poker authority close to the standing of many (more experienced) posters on this forum, yet you speak as if your authority cannot be questioned. One of the cheesiest and weakest attempts to avoid accepting criticism, is to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is clearly stupid or ignorant. A case of the "Emperor's new clothes" if ever there was. And remarkably stupid considering the huge variety of opinion expressed on this forum and elsewhere. You think poker is this black and white?

To describe your responses as "your own personal style" is pretty feeble. Communication is an art which can always be improved, or do you believe your posts are the best possible way to convey learning? I can quite imagine you would support the moronic posting "styles" of the likes of "MensaIQ" in the name of "personal style".

[ QUOTE ]
You are the hypocrit who clutters this forum with garbage responses that, I'm assuming, aim to knock the original poster down a peg.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your assumptions are wrong in the general sense, but in the case of posters like yourself - you're damn right. You do need to be brought down a peg or two, and show some respect and consideration for others on this forum, particularly those more recently joining the forum, whose openness and honesty should be encouraged. The fact that your posts almost inevitably deviate significantly from the opinions of others suggests you are either (i) somewhat out of touch yourself, or (ii) merely seeking extremes of opinion to spout your "gospel of truth" in situations where it is difficult to be certain of correctness.

[ QUOTE ]
...demonstrating a singular insecurity and a large chip on your shoulder, that you would spend the time and effort to insult other members of this community.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to devoting "time and effort" demeaning other posters on this forum? I am in the position where I do not have to rely on the support of people like you, nor do I particularly care what you think of me. I am only too keen to discuss play with posters who undoubtedly possess a greater skill and depth of understanding than me, where a meaningful dialogue can be entered into. I am old and ugly enough to have lost the pretension that I am "the greatest" or even the need to aim for such a position. Perhaps you would have more fun posting on RGP, where your proselytising style might generate the kind of respect you clearly crave. My venomous posts are singularly reserved for twits like you who feel they have to "compete" for their place on the forum by demeaning the play of others. While that may appear to be hypocritical to you, it is done with the purpose of defending the integrity and openness of this fourm. "Openness" does not imply "no holds barred", just as "freedom" does not imply the right to shoot your neighbour for disagreeing with you.

[ QUOTE ]
nobody wants to read mean-spirited drivel

[/ QUOTE ]

You are, without doubt, the most humourless and tedious poster. I think the term mean-spirited can justifiably be your own personal label. As for drivel, you can hold that opinion if you wish, you have already demonstrated your capacity to consider all other opinion subordinate to your own, so it's hardly a surprise to hear you talk this way. Maybe if you tried to develop some humility and a little respect, you would not find yourself in such hostile company....

[ QUOTE ]
Only too frequently have I read your habitual griping about other poster's styles, mainly because they come off as authoritative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I habitually gripe at posters who come off as authoritative? This is how you justify my response to you, OK. You consider yourself as authoritative? There are plenty of examples of posters who try/claim to be authoritative, but whose posts are rarely of any use to anyone. I recognise an authority as someone who not only understands, but is able to convey that understanding. If you think you are there, you are kidding yourself. Never underestimate the power of denial....

[naphand]

And there are plenty of situations that appear to be -EV that can, in fact, be played for a profit (even if only in a meta-game sense).

That a situation holds the potential for profit, albeit played optimally (though we only have your stated opinion on this), should mean there is room for discussion. Dismissing situations out of hand, when there is evidence to suggest EV can be gained, might be considered somewhat blinkered.

At this level QTs is a big hand, and certainly plays well against random Aces (and is not that far behind AK), particularly in games where position is nowhere near as important as in higher limits.