Delayed show of strength

I have Qd6d on the button and call. Both blinds are in and we see the flop 8 handed.


Flop: 9d9h4h


Checked around.


Turn: 6h


Checked to me. I bet. The bb raises and goes all in. Everyone folds to a good player who is to my immediate right and he suddenly displays a show of strength by 3 betting.


What should I do?


...anyway, I called feeling fairly confident that the dude had an offsuit AJ/AT with the Ace of hearts. I have no idea what the bb has at this point except that I am pretty sure that it ain't a flush or trip 9's as he no doubt would have bet the flop given his short stack and try and get whatever calls he could muster.


River: Ks


The good player checks to me. I value bet. No monetary value there... He folds. In retrospect, it was a dumb bet because he couldn't call with his Ace high when the bb was all-in but I think it sent him a message that I knew exactly where he was at and that's always disconcerting to players....so, maybe it was a value bet in that sense.


Alas, the bb turns over Kh2s and wins the pot. I get the sidepot.


The question: My turn call. I thought that I was in the lead but knew that I was at the mercy of 15 to 25 bad river cards (i.e. dude to my right probably has 15 outs and the bb may have up to 10 additional outs if he has something like 8s7s...in most cases, I would be at the mercy of 15 to 20 cards if the bb had som,ething like Kh7s).


Do I call, fold or 3 bet the turn?

I'd 4-bet the turn. Guy who 3-bet is obviously, as you correctly surmise, on a flush draw. BB can't win any of the 4-bet money so why not raise when I have the best of it? Plus putting more into the side pot might cause him to bluff or call my value bet on the river with just Ace high.

"I'd 4-bet the turn."


this is why im not playing 30-60 at commerce anymore. a few of you are playing on a much higher level of thought. well thought out.


i wouldve folded for sure.

Preflop, I think paying a full bet with queen-shit suited even on the button with 8 players is a debateable play. My preference is to fold. Make it king-shit suited and calling would be acceptable to me, although marginal.


On the turn, I still would not bet into 8 players with an open-pair and a three-flush on the table despite all the checking. With all these players, the pot is protected and you will need to end up with the best hand to win in most cases. Despite the large field, the pot is small because there was no raising preflop nor any betting on the flop so there is only 4 big bets in the pot. I don't have enough outs to merit continuing when I am behind and I have a hand that cannot take any heat if I get played with here on fourth. I would check and see what happens. I would fold if it gets bet and raised back to me.


I agree that betting the river was a mistake given the presence of an all-in player.


What is interesting is that your "read" of the situation was somewhat accurate but you lost anyway. Now couple this with times when your "read" is wrong because someone has trips, a flush, or simply a better hand than yours which results in you dumping significant money in a pot while drawing dead or almost dead.

A counter-argument:


"On the turn, I still would not bet into 8 players"


So far the action has been limp, limp, limp, limp, limp, limp, limp, knuckle, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check, check. Wouldn't someone want to protect their 9 with a 3-flush on board? Wouldn't someone have bet either a 4-flush on the flop or a made flush on the turn? Isn't it unlikely someone has A-xs of the appropriate suit if they limped, checked, checked?

Isn't it likely you'll now get called by flush draws only? And I think the pot being small can also be a case for betting than for checking since he won't get very many curiosity calls since there isn't much money to be curious about.


And he was only betting into 7 players /images/smile.gif


"I would fold if it gets bet and raised back to me."


Depends who's doing the raising. In this case, no way BB has a hand with only two bets left, he would have bet before or he wouldn't raise now; and no way cut-off has a hand after he checked twice. Plus skp's bet looks like an out-and-out bluff. Plus it's more likely that BB, if he's got a draw and wants to see the river (and we always want to see the river when we're almost down to the felt), is going to raise all-in, hoping to drive skp (and all the others) out.


Yes, there are a lot of cards that skp might not like on the river, but he's getting 4:1 on his bet with a much better change than that of winning the pot.


Whaddya think, Jim?

"Wouldn't someone have bet a four-flush on the flop or a made flush on the turn?"


Some players get jittery with a large field AND an open pair on the table. Other players like to try to sandbag on the turn having trips or better since they assume that one of their many opponents may well bet.


Andy, the problem I have with all of this is that if I am going to play against a LARGE field, then I want to win a LARGE pot. I don't mind trying to push through a piece of cheese like this against a SMALL field even when the pot is small since my chances of winning the pot outright are quite high, the chances of my hand being best are reasonable, and there are not so many collective outs against me when my hand is best. But in this situation, I have a LARGE field with a SMALL pot which is the worst scenario.


Scary boards with lots of opponents and a small pot make playing on for multiple big bets a losing proposition in my opinion.


I would rather save my money for a better gambling opportunity.

just read the two posts above.


andy's is all about the very specific nature of the hand, logical reads on players, and then sticking it to your opponents when you put togther that you have likely the best of it. i mean, 4 bet the turn? holy sh#t that's just terrific poker thinking.


jim's post (and i respect the guy a lot) is all about generalities:


"when the pot is small.. not so many collective outs... LARGE field with a SMALL pot...Scary boards with lots of opponents and a small pot...I would rather save my money for a better gambling opportunity." yadda yadda yadda.


it's all good what jim is saying but it's nowhere as precise and tough and aggressive as what andy's suggesting. and that's the sort of thing we're looking for right?


bottom line is andy (and skp, although he apparently missed a bet and then flubbed the river) would read the turn action as nonsense and then attack accordingly turing the small pot into a nice medium sized one and a sufficient side pot.


hell what am i saying? id still fold!

"On the turn, I still would not bet into 8 players with an open-pair and a three-flush on the table despite all the checking. With all these players, the pot is protected and you will need to end up with the best hand to win in most cases. Despite the large field, the pot is small because there was no raising preflop nor any betting on the flop so there is only 4 big bets in the pot. I don't have enough outs to merit continuing when I am behind and I have a hand that cannot take any heat if I get played with here on fourth. I would check and see what happens. I would fold if it gets bet and raised back to me."


I couldn't disagree with you more, Jim.


While I have 7 opponents, none of them have made a move on two rounds of betting. If the pot had no money in it, I might still bet thinking that my hand is probably best :-) But the pot has $80 in it. That's not a huge pot but it's well worth betting when it's quite likely that I can either take the pot down right there or get called by someone who has a big heart draw (which would likely give him 14 outs). I need to protect my pair of 6's by betting. Otherwise, any card higher than a 6 on the river may very well hit any of my 7 remaining opponents.


I agree with Andy's read of the situation: That is, no one likely has trip 9's or a flush given the deafening silence of the action on the flop and turn.


Calling, folding or 4 betting are all posible plays once the player to my right 3 bets the turn - I like Andy's 4 bet idea - but I would have thought that my initial turn bet was a gimme.

I think it is very common for players to slow-play in this situation hoping that someone else will bet given the large field present. Some players feel that their hand is too big to bet and are willing to wait hoping for a check-raise. Reduce the field from 7 opponents to 1 or 2 opponents and I would bet every time. Change the board from 9d-9h-4h-6h to something like 9d-7d-4h-6h and I would bet. But the double-edge boomerang of having a tough board and lots of opponents makes leading out wrong here.


In a post above, mike 1. felt that I was being too general and that Andy was being very specific. But I think the opposite is true. You guys are being very general in believing that because you have a tiny piece of the board on the turn and no one has bet that this means you should bet. But you have to look at HOW many opponents you have AND the TEXTURE of the board before making this decision, not just the previous betting action and your own hand-holding.


I would submit that most of the time you will not be in the lead and will be faced with a tough decision when you get raised. The other problem is that even in the small percentage of cases your hand happens to be best you will get drawn out a high percentage of the time anyway. For these reasons, I think betting out is wrong especially when there are only 4 bets in the pot.

Jim,


This reply of yours reminds me of the play in your book where you have 99 and the flop comes eight high. You bet and get called in several spots. The turn is an 8. You suggest checking. I disagreed vehemently with that play. But at least in that example, you have players doing something to indicate that they may have caught an 8 which *might* lend some credence to the idea of checking on the turn. In my example, guys have done zip to show that they have a 9 or a flush.


Sure, they could be slowplaying - it would be a might strange slowplay - but in any event, I will grant you that it's possible.. But how do you find out unless you bet?


Let me address some of your statements:


"I think it is very common for players to slow-play in this situation hoping that someone else will bet given the large field present. Some players feel that their hand is too big to bet and are willing to wait hoping for a check-raise."


True. But it's also very common for a paired board to miss everyone. That is, all the checks may in fact truly mean that no one has a damn thing. If you check on the turn, you are saying goodbye to 80 bucks a great percentage of the time.


"Reduce the field from 7 opponents to 1 or 2 opponents and I would bet every time."


Sure. But it appears that you may be putting too much emphasis on the number of opponents and not enough emphasis on the action to date on the flop and turn.


"Change the board from 9d-9h-4h-6h to something like 9d-7d-4h-6h and I would bet. But the double-edge boomerang of having a tough board and lots of opponents makes leading out wrong here."


Well, Qd6d gives you a pair and a flush draw; there is no doubt that you should bet.


"In a post above, mike 1. felt that I was being too general and that Andy was being very specific. But I think the opposite is true. You guys are being very general in believing that because you have a tiny piece of the board on the turn and no one has bet that this means you should bet. But you have to look at HOW many opponents you have AND the TEXTURE of the board before making this decision, not just the previous betting action and your own hand-holding."


All 4 factors have to go into the mix. But surely the previous betting action and your own hand are more important criteria at this point than the number of opponents and the texture of the board. Don't forget that it's not like we have nothing when we bet (although sometimes, even betting with nothing in this spot might be profitable). You have a pair of 6's. Given the action to date, that may well be a monster.


"I would submit that most of the time you will not be in the lead and will be faced with a tough decision when you get raised."


What factors lead you to that conslusion other than the conjecture that "guys like to slowplay"? Also, sometimes, getting raised in this situation is a boon because you can deduce with a great degree of certainty that the dude does not have you beat and is raising merely because he thinks that your bet is bluff. So, not all raises levae tough decisions here. In fact, such a raise may give you and additional 40 to 60 bucks if he follows up with another hopeless bluff bet on the river.


"The other problem is that even in the small percentage of cases your hand happens to be best you will get drawn out a high percentage of the time anyway."


Really? If you are called, there is little doubt that the caller will likely be drawing with a high heart. Let's also give him overcards to our 6. This then gives him 14 outs. He will get there 1 in 3 times on the river. From an EV standpoint, betting is clearly correct. So, I disagree that you will be drawn out a high percentage of the time. Again, in this instance, if you knew that someone would call you with say AhJd, you would bet if there was no money in the pot at all. With 80 bucks in the pot, you should definitely bet.


"For these reasons, I think betting out is wrong especially when there are only 4 bets in the pot."


I question the use of the word "only" in the above statement. In any event, this therefore means that you are much less likely to be called by someone because he is facing a situation where you are betting and the pot now has "only" 5 bets for him to try and outdraw or outplay you. Also, again, keep in mind that we are not stealing here. We are betting to protect the probable best hand.


Overall: IMHO, in this instance, you are giving disproportionate significance to the number of opponents and not enough importance to hand reading and psychology.

"I think it is very common for players to slow-play in this situation hoping that someone else will bet given the large field present"


If someone had raised, pre-flop, I would tend to agree more. But no one showed any strength pre-flop. No one bet the flop; no one bet the turn. Especially now that there's a 3-flush on board, it's must more likely someone has a singleton A or K of the flush suit than a flush since all 7 players limped and checked twice. Sure, someone might be slow-playing, but much more likely, IMO, someone (or two) now has (have) a draw.


"You guys are being very general in believing that because you have a tiny piece of the board on the turn and no one has bet that this means you should bet"


-I can't speak for the others but I don't in general believe you should bet because you have a tiny peice of the board on the turn and no one else has bet without consideration of the texture of the board and the number of opponents. In specific case, you have second pair and it's unlikely someone has top pair because there are two of them on the board and there was no bet on a two-tone flop.


One question of semantics: I always thought "leading out" meant betting when you're first to act. Or does it just mean you're the first one to bet regardless of how many have checked in front of you?

than mine directly below.

"You guys are being very general in believing that because you have a tiny piece of the board on the turn and no one has bet that this means you should bet."


in this specific case it does. skp doesnt have "a tiny piece of the board". he has what is very likely the best hand, but a very vulnerable one that he doesnt want to see get caught by someone holding a small or medium card of the trump suit or one of many random overcards that could get there if he checks.


skp CANT check the turn here. he has a 6 with a decent kicker on a board of 994-6 w/ three of one suit. he has to bet when everyone checks to him in order to protect his hand despite the pot being small.


the likelihood he has the best hand and wants to protect it is not only based on the rampant checking on the flop and turn, but also based on just looking at the board. how many preflop limping hands have Q6 beat on a board of 994-6 even with 3 of one suit?


now the call or raise after it gets 3 bet seems to be a better point of debate, but the turn bet here is mandatory i believe.

Perhaps the term "leading out" is not technically correct here. But it still comes down to the fact that you are betting into 7 other players who can act. This is vastly different than betting into 1 or 2 opponents. Frankly, I would rather bet into 1 or 2 opponents who have not yet acted than to be betting into 7 opponents who have all checked.

" But it is very common for a paired board to miss everyone. That is, all the checks may in fact truly mean that no one has a damn thing. If you check, you are saying goodbye to 80 bucks a great percentage of the time."


Not true at all. No one on a flush draw is folding. With seven players, someone almost certainly has a singleton heart. Someone with a straight draw may not be folding either. Someone with a pair of sevens or eights would not necessarily bet into 7 players but might well call if someone else bets because they think "the pot is big". Players will call with a lot more hands than they will bet with themselves especially with a large field involved.


"But surely the previous betting action and your own hand are more important criteria at this point than the number of opponents or the texture of the board.....You have a pair of sixes. Given the action to date, that may well be a monster."


Nope, not at all. The number of opponents is always a critical consideration. The texture of the board AND the number of opponents frequently overwhelms all other considerations when you have a modest holding. Having only 1 or 2 opponents is not just a little better than having 7 opponents, it is a lot better. Having a raggedy board makes it easier for you to asses where you are when you get called or raised. But having a coordinated board means that you have no idea where you are at when you get played with. Is a guy check-raising you with a made hand or a draw? Did your bet give one of your many opponents the opportunity to do so some "creative raising"? There are a number of better holdings that might call your turn bet here like a bigger six or a higher pocket pair especially if a heart is included. Your pair of sixes could never "be a monster" in this situation.


If you get check-raised on the turn with 7 other players involved, I don't how you can deduce with a great degree of certainty that "this is a boon". If you get popped in this situation with that board you are frequently badly beaten if not drawing dead.


"If you are called, there is little doubt that the caller will likely be drawing with a high heart."


If you get called you could easily be looking at a bigger six (8 hands), a higher pocket pair like sevens, eights, or tens (18 hands), or trip nines who are now afraid of the flush possibilities (dozens of hands). With 7 opponents at least one of these hands can be likely. Of course with 1 or 2 opponents they would be less likely. Only if you one caller with precisely overcards do you have a legitimate play here. But this is only one of many possibilities. By the way, suppose you get one guy calling with Ah-Jc, another guy calls with K-Q, another with J-T, and another with 8-7? How do you like your chances now?

(n/t)

"No one on a flush draw is folding. With seven players, someone almost certainly has a singleton heart."


-And they'll be putting in $40 to win $120. You win when you bet in this situation.


"suppose you get one guy calling with Ah-Jc, another guy calls with K-Q, another with J-T, and another with 8-7? How do you like your chances now?"


-Lots of guys raise pre-flop with A-J or K-Q, but let's assume they didn't. I can't imagine K-Q or J-T calling here unless they have a heart. (I also can't imagine 7 guys limping, checking the flop, checking the turn, and then 4 of them calling a bet, but let's assume it does happen.) Assuming K-Q has the Kh, and J-T has the Jh, I count (by my admittedly fuzzy math) 26 cards that beat skp on the river, so it's still a good bet.


Besides, suppose one guy has Ac-Js, another as Kc-Qd,another has Jd-Tc, and another has 8-7. How do you like your check now?

Me: " But it is very common for a paired board to miss everyone. That is, all the checks may in fact truly mean that no one has a damn thing. If you check, you are saying goodbye to 80 bucks a great percentage of the time."


JIM: Not true at all. No one on a flush draw is folding. With seven players, someone almost

certainly has a singleton heart. Someone with a straight draw may not be folding either.

Someone with a pair of sevens or eights would not necessarily bet into 7 players but might well

call if someone else bets because they think "the pot is big". Players will call with a lot more

hands than they will bet with themselves especially with a large field involved.


ME: Firstly, while I would like to have someone with a singleton heart fold, I don't mind it if he calls. The latter event is the lesser oftwo goods but I'll take it. Also, I disagree that anyone with a singleton heart will call. The Ace of hearts and perhaps, the King of hearts will call. Do you really think that a guy with the singleton Ten of hearts will call?

Secondly, if it's incorrect for me to bet my pair of 6's into a large field, why do you say that it is suddenly correct for straight draws, pocket 7's a singleton medium heart draw etc. to call. And what about some hand reading: Wouldn't 77 bet this flop to see what gives? Wouldn't they then bet the turn once everyone checked? I mean, your scenario has players sitting there doing nothing but meekly checking and then bravely calling on the turn with all kinds of marginal holdings after I have bet. But then you say that I ought not to have bet because it's a trouble board. That's a contradiction the way I see it. Don't forget: They don't know what I have. I could easily be betting the Ace of hearts as a semibluff: Why would some guy with a Jack of hearts draw be suddenly so brave as to call my bet?


Me: "But surely the previous betting action and your own hand are more important criteria at this

point than the number of opponents or the texture of the board.....You have a pair of sixes.

Given the action to date, that may well be a monster."


Jim: Nope, not at all. The number of opponents is always a critical consideration. The texture of the board AND the number of opponents frequently overwhelms all other considerations when you have a modest holding. Having only 1 or 2 opponents is not just a little better than having

7 opponents, it is a lot better. Having a raggedy board makes it easier for you to asses where

you are when you get called or raised. But having a coordinated board means that you have no

idea where you are at when you get played with. Is a guy check-raising you with a made hand

or a draw? Did your bet give one of your many opponents the opportunity to do so some

"creative raising"? There are a number of better holdings that might call your turn bet here like

a bigger six or a higher pocket pair especially if a heart is included. Your pair of sixes could

never "be a monster" in this situation.


If you get check-raised on the turn with 7 other players involved, I don't how you can deduce

with a great degree of certainty that "this is a boon". If you get popped in this situation with that board you are frequently badly beaten if not drawing dead.


Me: Nothing you say is technically incorrect but you are completely ignoring the "glass is half full side" of looking at things. 7 guys checked twice. The way you have got it analyzed, it's as if someone has to hit something on every board that is ever laid out in a hold 'em game when you have a lot of people taking the flop. That's simply not true. Plus, hand reading comes into play: why would trip 9's check the turn? Why would a non-nut flush check the turn given that he has already blown it by checking the flop? Why would a nut flush check for that matter?


When people check on 1 round of betting, it usually means they don't have anything worth betting. Now and then, they may be sandbagging But when they check twice, the chances that they have nothing are greatly increased. I mean, if A9 checked twice here...he would have to be a pretty lousy hold 'em player.


As for welcoming a raise in certain instances, the hand I played is a perfect example. There was little doubt in my mind that I was ahead on the turn after the bb raised and the guy to my right 3 bet. Make no mistake: I would rather have had them both fold. But they didn't co-operate. But still, I gauged that I was ahead and could call. As it turned out, there were 17 collective outs against me and one of them hit. But if one of the 25 blanks landed on the river, the turn raises would have netted me another $100 in addition to the $80 pot that was already there. That is what I meant by the "boon" comment.


Me: "If you are called, there is little doubt that the caller will likely be drawing with a high heart."


Jim: If you get called you could easily be looking at a bigger six (8 hands), a higher pocket pair like sevens, eights, or tens (18 hands), or trip nines who are now afraid of the flush possibilities (dozens of hands). With 7 opponents at least one of these hands can be likely. Of course with 1 or 2 opponents they would be less likely. Only if you one caller with precisely overcards do you have a legitimate play here. But this is only one of many possibilities. By the way, suppos you get one guy calling with Ah-Jc, another guy calls with K-Q, another with J-T, and another with 8-7? How do you like your chances now?


I have addressed these points aleady. I'll reiterate my main point of rebuttal: How the heck can all these guys call so easily when you say it's so tough for me to make the bet in the first place? If as you say I have a tough initial bet, do they not have even tougher calls with all ofthse hands except the Ace of hearts draw?


But I'll tell you anything: They all have extremely easy decisions if I check the turn. They just say thank you, sir and one of them goes on to (probably) have the pot handed to them on a silver platter when the river cardis dealt. Let me ask you this: suppose I had Ad6d instead of Qd6d andthe turn card was the Ace of hearts making the board 9d9h4hAh. Do you say that I should bet the turn?

Let me count the ways you lose at the river. A guy has Ah-Jc, another guy has Kd-Qs, another guys has Js-Td, and another guy has 8h-7s. You have Qd-6d and the board is 9d-9h-4h-6h. If an ace comes you lose (3 ways). If a king comes you lose (3 ways). If a Q arrives, you lose to either a flush or queens over nines with a king kicker (3 ways). If a jack arrives you lose (2 ways). If a ten arrives you lose (3 ways). If an eight arrives you lose (3 ways). If a seven arrives you lose (3 ways). If a five arrives, you lose (4 ways). If the 3h arrives you lose(1 way). If the 2h arrives you lose (1 way). This adds up to 26 losers from 38 unknown cards (52-14 known cards) which means skp loses 68% of the time EVEN WHEN HE IS IN THE LEAD IN THIS PARTICULAR LAYOUT! Now I agree that there are other layouts where he will win a higher percentage of the time WHEN HE IS IN THE LEAD! The problem is that he will be trailing a significant percentage of the time. When he is chasing, he is chasing with virtually no outs.

"I would like someone with a singleton heart to fold, I don't mind if he calls."


But the point is that the 3-flush lowers the likelihood of you winning the pot outright by betting. It also means that you will lose a higher percentage of the time EVEN WHEN YOU ARE IN THE LEAD! This is part of the overall spectrum. When you are trailing, you are buried but when you are leading you can be easily overtaken.


"Do you really think a guy with a singleton Th will call?"


Depends upon his other card. Many players will call with T-8 that includes a heart. They figure they have a flush draw and a gutshot straight draw so they might win (I am not saying this is correct but it is the way many players think.) Even a guy with J-T that includes a heart may figure he has a flush draw with an overcard and that due to the lack of betting on flop, he may have enough outs to call (Again, this isn't correct but many players think this way).


"If it is incorrect to be my pair of sixes, why is it correct for a pair of sevens, straight draws, or someone with a medium heart draw to call?"


I am not saying it is correct for players to call with these hands BUT THEY DO ANYWAY! They might well be thinking the way you are thinking. ("My pair of sevens might be good - skp could be betting a flush draw - I am getting good pot odds - I might win this if I hang around - it is only one bet - I must protect my interest in the pot - no one bet the flop - a better hand might fold" and so forth).


"Wouldn't a pair of sevens bet the flop to see what gives?"


Not necessarily. It is a scary board with lots of players and it might depend upon their position. Not everyone plays good, aggressive poker.


"I mean your scenario has players sitting there doing nothing but meekly checking and bravely calling on the turn....."


I agree but this is precisely the way many players handle a situation like this in a large field and a tough board. It is human nature to call with more hands than you would bet with especially in these situations. For most players, calling is much easier than betting.


"7 guys checked twice...hand reading comes into play...why would someone with trip nines check the turn..?"


Hand reading is worth a lot in heads-up play and in short-handed play. It means less when you have a large field coupled with a horrifying board. Your read may be 70% accurate on any one player but the likelihood of you reading all 7 opponents correctly is miniscule. You have only to lose to one player to be a loser in this situation. A guy with trip nines might have been planning to check-raise the flop or bet the turn but the third heart now frightens him since he could be up against a made flush. Or he may be an aggressive type who is attempting a check-raise a second time with his trip nines - who knows?


"..But still, I gauged that I was ahead and could call. As it turned out there were 17 outs against me and one of them hit."


But again, this overlooks the distinct possibility that you could have been beaten and, when you are, you are playing with hardly any outs. In this case, "your operation happened to be a success but the patient died anyway." Part of the overall problem with betting the turn in the first place.


"How the heck can all these guys call so easily when you say it is so tough for me to make the bet in the first place."


Because it is easier to call than it is to bet. Guys see other guys calling and they become part of the herd. No one wants to stick their neck out by being the first to bet but they are more than willing to call along with the rest of the sheep waiting to see what will happen and hoping for the best.


"Suppose I had Ad-6d with the board of 9d-9h-4h-Ah. Should I bet the turn?"


This is better since you are not so vulnerable to overcards so the scenario of having the best hand and having it hold up has improved. But I still would not bet into 7 people.

But the point is that while KdQs, JsTd and 8h7s can call a check, they can't call a bet. If I check, they will be around to get the pot if they hit. If I bet, their cards are in the muck. If they call, that would be sheer lunacy. This then leaves only 14 bad cards as against the AhJc.


But even if everyone will call, that's still better than checking. 2 out of 3 times, my turn bet will cost me $20. 1 out of 3 times, my turn bet will make me $80 from the 4 callers. That's a $40 gain over three trials making each bet worth 13 bucks.


Let me try it this way:


What percentage of the time do you think that someone is slowplaying trip 9's or a flush?


I would say about 10%. But even if you take a wholy unrealistic figure such as 30%, you will see that the Ev of betting is better than the EV of checking. While there is a cost to betting when there is a 9 or a flush out, there is a bigger cost to checking when there is no 9 or flush out.

The reason why I put the Ad6d up is that in my view, it's less important to bet there than it is to bet the Qd6d. The only realistic way you lose when you check with the Ad6d is if a heart hits. With the Qd6d, there are countless ways you could lose if you check i.e. it's more vulnerable and needs protection.


Having said that, I would bet in both cases.


Anyway, we have gone around the bend on this issue. I am sorry to say that you have not convinced me one iota. But it's okay to disagree, Jim. The key thing is that I always enjoy these discussions with you.


If you don't mind, Jim, please ask Barry T or Daniel N. what they would do when you see them again in your Wednesday meetings.