Need Opinions On This Hand

Assume a typical middle limit game. You are in middle position with the As-Ac. An early player limps. You raise. The cutoff calls. The big blind calls. The limper calls. The flop is: Kh-Qd-Js, giving you an overpair with a gutshot. The big blind checks. The early limper checks. You bet. The cutoff folds. The big blind calls. The early limper calls. The turn is the 2c. The big blind checks. The early limper checks. What do you do?

Given that I just finished the section of your book on playing the turn, I'll take a stab at this. I would "grit my teeth and bet" here. No one has showed any strength yet, and if you are ahead here you really don't want to give a free card. If you are behind here and get raised, you have four outs to the nuts and another two outs to beat two pair or a set.

Is this a trick question Jim? Or am I missing something?


I bet. I will not let Kx or Qx or a straight draw get a free card from me at this point.


I must say, I'm very interested as to why you asked. Are you thinking it's worth my while checking in the hopes that the bb bets out at you on the river in the hopes of...what, stealing the pot?

If you are against two pair you have 4 outs to the nut plus another 8 outs (pairing the board of different cards then your opponent holds, plus two aces, when the ace doesnt make somebody else a straight). For example if your opponent has KJ, you have a total of 12 outs.

three 2's

three Q's

four 10's

two A's


Kris

You have to bet here. Giving a free card to someone holding a 10,AQ or AK, which seems likely here, is IMO giving away the best hand.

Hi Jim - I would bet out here. Since no one has shown any preflop strength, I think your hand is good at this point and there is no reason to offer a freebie. Babe

You're in a tough spot here. You may be already behind. If not, any 9,T,J,Q,K or A on the river may kill your hand. Giving a free card does not matter here, as nobody with an open ended staight draw is going to fold to your bet. If you bet here, you most be willing to call a check-raise and then call the river, most likely losing 3 BBs. If they just call, it would mean they are drawing and would fold on the river not improving. So, you would collect one or 2 bets if one or both call respectively.Therefore, I believe you should check the turn and call a bet on the river. If a nonthreatening card comes off, I'd bet if checked into.

Fair enough... I had a brain fart (you can tell I'm new to poker). Indeed a 2 on the river would probably be a pretty good card for you. The trouble here is that you might be stuck in the middle between someone drawing to the straight and two pair or a set. If that is so, you are in a bad way.


I still think that no one has shown strength here, and a better hand than yours would be almost forced to bet here to protect his hand, making a check-raise less likely here. In more cases here than not, I think you are ahead here... against something like AQ and JT or something... and you should bet.

I think bravo is correct. I would definately check it. Like he says, someone with a t is going to come anyway. I think the most profitable situiation would be check, then call on the river for a single bet. In HPFAP, sklansky recommends checking hands with outs on the turn, and betting those without outs. U have outs . CHECK.

You have outs? What happened to betting the best hand to get more money from those draws? What about charging the A,9 that called the small bet on the flop for a gut shot another bet to hit that gut shot or the pair of nines that took one off to hit a set or straight. Not giving a free card is not the only issue here. What you are saying is don't bet scary boards. What you might want to consider is to bet scary boards if you have outs if you are behind but there is a good chance that you are ahead.


Vince

Bet!! No reason to give a free card. You should still be ahead.

Bet!! No reason to give a free card. You should still be ahead.

When players call flop bets, they are doing so because their hand somehow fits in with the board. Hands like A-T, T-9, K-Q, K-J, and Q-J are typical preflop limping hands or hands that players call raises with out of their big blind when multiple players are involved. Given that two of the three preflop opponents called your flop bet, you are quite likely beaten at this point. Your opponents checking on the turn is almost SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) if they have a straight because they want to check-raise. They know that a flop containing a king, queen, and a jack rates to help a preflop raiser when it doesn't give the preflop raiser an overpair. With two pair, they may or may not play aggressively out of fear that you have flopped a set given this board and your preflop raise, who knows?


If your hand is best, a bet will not win the pot for you since you will get called by anyone on a straight-draw. Someone who limped in with a medium or small pocket pair figures to be gone once the flop comes and you bet. Someone who has K-T, Q-T, or J-T is drawing but it is unlikely that BOTH your opponents have these holdings.


Normally, it is good poker to follow up your flop bet with a turn bet when you don't encounter resistance and feel you have the best hand. But I believe this specific hand is an exception. In Holdem Poker for Advanced Players-21st Century Edition, S&M discuss an important fourth street concept. The concept is that it is frequently correct to check a hand with outs and bet a hand with no outs. You have outs to beat straight or two pair. If you get check-raised, you are now faced with some tough decisions. If someone has A-T, you are playing 3 outs to tie. If someone has T-9 you are playing 3 outs to win provided the other opponent does not have an ace. If someone has two pair, then you have a lot of outs. The problem is that you don't know where you are at and will frequently end up burning up 3 big bets or trying to make a tough fold and put an entire pot at risk.


It is true that you lose a bet when your hand happens to be best, you give a free card, and you end up with the winning hand. But this is really a fraction of a bet since sometimes your opponents will draw out on you anyway or sometimes your hand holds up anyway. I think you are better off in this particular case simply checking it back and awaiting developments.

There is such a thing as "over thinking" a situation just as there is such a thing as over playing a situation. I believe you may be too smart for your own good. If you bet and are raised it costs you two big bets in those situations where you are behind and lose the hand. (That is, if you call the river). By not betting you cost yourself bets also in those situations where you are ahead or end up ahead. There is no easy way to determine what your EV is for a bet or a check. But when you are wrong by betting you are costing yourself only a fraction of a big bet (maybe a little more) given that you will split or win the pot occaisionally making the nut straight. If you had a single opponent I might agree with checking but with more than one opponent checking is out of the question in my view.


Vince

Interesting, but I think a large portion of your fears depend on someone having two pair, and I feel the vast majority of players would have played two pair quite aggressively on the flop. Hence you probably need only worry about someone inproving to a straight or trips. If they flopped a straight, oh well, you sometimes have to take your lumps in poker. I would guess that at least one player holds a pair with a suited high card but nobody holds more at this point.

I like your analysis given this flop. I just fear that some may take your excellent analysis and misapply it to other seemingly similar situations which are in fact quite different.


I would have no difficulty checking the turn in this situation because of the following reasons:


1. There is no flush draw on the flop (or the turn for that matter) so this reduces the number of enemy hands that your AA is ahead of;


2. You have two opponents which of course increases the chances that you are behind on this co-ordinated (with high cards no less) flop;


3. You have a gutshot to the nuts and would hate to have to fold to a raise or invest two bets to catch a Ten which may only give you half the pot.


4. If you happen to be the best on the turn, you sometimes would go on to lose the river anyway so "chickening out" on the turn may retrospectively turn out to be the better move;


5. Alternatively, if you happen to be the best on the turn and a brick comes on the river, you may get a curiosity call or induce a bluff/thin value bet from your opponents that you can pick off with a call. Sometimes, even that is a bonus if it turns out that your opponent would have folded to a turn bet but now your check causes him to lose another big bet on the river (but this is not a very likely scenario as there simply are very few hands that your opponents could call with on the flop and then fold on the turn).


6. The pot while sizeable is not huge. Further, with this board, there is next to no chance that your turn check can turn out to be a "mathematical catastrophe" as that phrase is used in the S&M books...after all, what hands could be out there for your opponents where they would feel compelled to peel off one but not two?


On the other hand, I would note that folding to a checkraise might turn out to be a mathematical catastrophe.


Anyway, one could drum up several reasons for betting but I like the check here given this board and situation. Change things around a little and I might say "bet" and call the checkraise or sometimes, even "bet" and "three bet" if checkraised with the intention of checking the river if you don't improve.

I'm looking at the action of the other two remaining players to this point: limp, call, call, check, check, call, call, check, check. Those just don't seem to be the actions of players with A-T, T-9, K-Q, K-J, or Q-J. More like Q-T or J-T or 9-9 or A-xs or A-J or T-8s or K-9s or ???. Plus I'm not particularly fearful of an early player who limped and a cut-off who cold-called pre-flop. They sound like passive, non-tricky players to me who put you on A-K or A-Q and are trying to outdraw you.


Anyway, when I have A-A I keep betting until they give me a reason not to. And the 2c couldn't have been a bad turn card for you.

M is - of course - perfectly right.

Checking is very wrong because there are no sets due to preflop play and people don't usually slowplay two pairs on this board. Straights are unlikely enough to not enter them into consideration.

Who the hell am I to be so sure of myself whereas Jim Brier thinks it is close?

Well, don't worry, I am going back to study the game on my own.

skp,


As usual, you do good work. Your reasoning is sound. The one disturbing phrase I am having trouble with is "one could ""drum up"" several reasons for betting".


Speaking of :drumming up reasons, lets look at your no. 4. reason for checking:


"If you happen to be the best on the turn, you sometimes would go on to lose the river anyway so "chickening out" on the turn may retrospectively turn out to be the better move;"


This reason is almost always true. Unless you hold the nuts. No? So maybe you should always check A,A to two opponents on the turn if there is a straight draw out there.


And how about no. 3:


"You have a gutshot to the nuts and would hate to have to fold to a raise or invest two bets to catch a Ten which may only give you half the pot."


You fail to add "and an over pair" to "you have a gut shot to the nuts". Doesn't that count? Would you really fold to a check raise?


Next to no chance your check could be a mathematical catastrophe? Suppose a 9 comes on the river. Let's just say one opponent took one off with 9,9, or J,9, or Q,9,.


Well, anyway, let's just say we disagree a little. Your reasons seem very passive and almost apologetic. You do not offer any positive reasons for checking. What concept would you use here to justify a check? I'm interested in hearing your response.


As always, your buddy.


Vince

Jim,


This should have been posted last night but I was having problems with my ISP.


You wrote: ”When players call flop bets, they are doing so because their hand somehow fits in with the board. Hands like A-T, T-9, K-Q, K-J, and Q-J are typical preflop limping hands or hands that players call raises with out of their big blind when multiple players are involved.”


But JTs, QTs, KTs, Axs, and even T8s are also limping hands of typical players. You want every one of these hands to pay now.


”Your opponents checking on the turn is almost SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) if they have a straight because they want to check-raise.”[b]


Maybe, maybe not. Why not bet, raise and reraise (as opposed to checkraise) with a straight from flop to finish since this flop is coordinated and likely to generate plenty of action against a pre flop raiser?


[b]”…a flop containing a king, queen, and a jack rates to help a preflop raiser when it doesn't give the preflop raiser an overpair. With two pair, they may or may not play aggressively out of fear that you have flopped a set given this board and your preflop raise, who knows?”


All but a LOL or TOM will tend to play two pair aggressively IMO. Most people don’t fear sets until they are raised on the turn.


”If your hand is best, a bet will not win the pot for you since you will get called by anyone on a straight-draw.”[b]


But you need to make the straight draws to pay. And a pair/straight draw (e.g., KT) calls the turn and maybe the river too.


[b]” Someone who limped in with a medium or small pocket pair figures to be gone once the flop comes and you bet.


If they aren’t gone why give a weak player a free shot if they hold 99 or even 77?


”Someone who has K-T, Q-T, or J-T is drawing but it is unlikely that BOTH your opponents have these holdings.


Only two tens need to be out so they could have these holdings. Also, consider a weak ace with any of the above holdings.


”The concept is that it is frequently correct to check a hand with outs and bet a hand with no outs.”


But doesn’t this concept apply more to situations where free cards aren’t such a problem (in other words, if you are beat you are already beat by quite a lot?).


Regards,


Rick

skp,


Vince beat me to the punch regarding your post but one factor tilting the play towards checking the turn would be when my two opponents were very tough and tricky. I would usually bet against typical, softer opponents.


Regards,


Rick

"As usual, you do good work. Your reasoning is sound. The one disturbing phrase I am having trouble with is "one could ""drum up"" several reasons for betting"."


The reason why I used that phrase is because I was drumming up reasons to check :-)


"Speaking of drumming up reasons, lets look at your no. 4. reason for checking:


"If you happen to be the best on the turn, you sometimes would go on to lose the river anyway so "chickening out" on the turn may retrospectively turn out to be the better move;"


This reason is almost always true. Unless you hold the nuts. No? So maybe you should always check A,A to two opponents on the turn if there is a straight draw out there."


It's a balancing act. That reason to check is always there but generally takes a secondary role to other factors. Here, it's still a secondary factor but takes on greater importance when you combine it with the main reason to check your AA which is that you may well be beat given two callers on a highly co-ordinated board that offers no flush draw.


"And how about no. 3:


"You have a gutshot to the nuts and would hate to have to fold to a raise or invest two bets to catch a Ten which may only give you half the pot."


You fail to add "and an over pair" to "you have a gut shot to the nuts". Doesn't that count? Would you really fold to a check raise?"


I wouldn't fold to a checkraise so you are quite correct. Note also that if the checkraiser has KQ/KJ/QJ, I would have 12 outs to beat him.


"Next to no chance your check could be a mathematical catastrophe? Suppose a 9 comes on the river. Let's just say one opponent took one off with 9,9, or J,9, or Q,9."


Again, it's a balancing act. The pot is not huge. That is a key here. Also, hands like Q9 and J9 may not fold on the turn (which is fine by me - I just point out that the reason to bet to avoid the mathematical catastrophe may not apply here if they were planning to call). 99 would fold but 99 would probably have folded on the flop.


"Well, anyway, let's just say we disagree a little. Your reasons seem very passive and almost apologetic. You do not offer any positive reasons for checking. What concept would you use here to justify a check? I'm interested in hearing your response."


This ain't clever or well phrased but I would say check when there is a real doubt that you are trailing and when giving a free card will only cost you bets as opposed to a pot.


Maybe I'll drum up a better sounding concise concept later on when I have some more time. Just got back from a week off and the friggin' mail at the office has piled up...doh!


Ciao Vince.

"..(in other words, if you are beat you are already beat by quite a lot?)"


If someone has a straight with A-T or T-9 I would submit that you are "beat by quite a lot".

I would contend that it's entirely correct to slowplay two pairs on the flop if you were in the bb. If I had KQ, I would usually checkcall the flop and checkraise the turn. Occasionally, I would bet the flop and hope to get an opportunity to 3 bet. There are many reasons why a checkraise on the turn with two pairs is the preferred play:


1. There is an extremely good chance that the preflop raiser will bet the flop and turn so there is little risk in having the turn checked through;


2. If an ace or Ten comes off on the turn, I will be happy that I did not raise on the flop. In the case of an Ace coming off, no one with a ten would have folded to a checkraise on the flop anyway. Plus, the Ace may well vault the preflop raiser into the lead even if he does not have a ten and was trailing on the flop. In the case of a ten, again, the preflop raiser is not likely to drop an Ace for a checkraise on the flop although the limper might with something like Axs;


3. Checkraising the turn and gauging how the preflop raiser (who would be my primary concern) reacts to that is way more telling of the strength of his hand than is checkraising the flop and seeing how he reacts. His reaction to a flop checkraise is not apt to tell me very much - worse, his reaction may (will?) be purposefully misleading;


4. There is obviously greater value to wait for the turn to decloak when my hand is good. Again, note that there is little concern about the preflop raiser checking the turn...unless it's Jim Brier or me with AA :-). A turn raise also puts far greater pressure on someone with an open-ended straight draw to stick around and complete his draw.


In short, a flop call by AA's opponents does not mean that they must be drawing or must have a straight. They could very well have two pairs. In fact, I would bet or checkraise the flop with a straight from the bb but wait for the turn to checkraise with two pairs. So, if I am in the bb and checkcall the flop, you can probably rule out a made straight for me.

skp,


First, I owe you a "little" apology. I interprteted "drum up" as "trumped up". And you being a lawyer and all I ASS-u-ME(d) you were criticising reasons for betting as almost fallacious (as opposed to fellatio(s)).


A concept that David and Mason, I believe, have previously written about may apply here. Maybe they just mentioned it in passing, I'm not sure which. Anyway it goes something like this: "If you fear ( feel there is a good chance) that you will be checked raised with a hand that can't stand a check raise then you should check.


The question you must ask yourself here is given the unfolding of events and the board will I hate a check raise? If the answer is yes then a check is probably right.


Vince

Well one main reason most players will not slowplay two pair on the flop in a raised multiway pot is: they know they probably have the raiser beat AND they are scared to death of another straight card falling off. In other words they are very afraid of the gutshot draws, and they should be. What's more most gutshot draws will fold facing a cold raise unless they have two overcards as well.

I don't think AA will hate a check-raise here since it might be coming from two pair and if that's where it is coming from, AA may still have still lots of ways to win: the straight, the counterfeiting two pair, and trips. Besides a hand like top pair with a ten could even be check-raising. I agree with your original choice of betting. skp is overcomplicating this IMO and I think waiting to check-raise the Turn with two pair would probably be a substantial error. As you once so eloquently posted, "Smoke some dope and play your hand!"

Of course if you are playing this hand against especially tricky players or against skp it becomes less wrong to check.

but how likely is this? there are lots more combinations of hands which consist of a pair and a nearby high card (probably giving some sort of straight draw) than those two nightmare hands. A pair with an Ace, Ten or even 9 is more likely than those two hands, and represents a threat to make two pair, trips or the straight.