Why you shouldn't slowplay...

[chesspain]

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed)

I've only been at the table for an orbit or two, but the CO seemed like a LAG. On my first hand at the table, he called a raise in the SB with 48o and then check-coldcalled a 335 flop. On the hand prior to the one below, he three-bet me when I openraised with AA, called my preflop cap, called a bet on a K-high single suit flop, and then folded to my turn bet after a brick fell.

Preflop: chesspain is UTG+1 with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="CC3333">chesspain raises</font>, <font color="666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="CC3333">CO 3-bets</font>, <font color="666666">3 folds</font>, chesspain calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
chesspain checks, CO checks.

Turn: (3.75 BB) K/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">chesspain bets</font>, CO calls.

River: (5.75 BB) K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">chesspain bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">chesspain 3-bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">CO caps</font>, chesspain calls.

Final Pot: 13.75 BB
<font color="green">Main Pot: 13.75 BB, between chesspain and CO.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by chesspain (13.75 BB).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
chesspain has Kh Qc (full house, kings full of sixes).
CO has 5c 6h (full house, sixes full of kings).
Outcome: chesspain wins 13.75 BB. </font>

[MoreWineII]

Maybe he was allergic to chips?

[Nate tha' Great]

If you were planning on folding on the flop for one bet then his slowplay was correct.

[busguy]

Sometimes . . . the Poker Gods smile down upon . . . .


Man I love when you get a chance to B I T C H slap fancy play guys like that.

Nice hand.

Turned the streak around ??


/images/graemlins/smile.gif busguy

[sthief09]

this has absolutely nothing to do with why you shouldn't slowplay. if he knew what you had, he'd be wrong to bet anyway, since you'd likely fold drawing to runner runner.

[J.R.]

This is an example of why its often wrong to go ape on the river with the idiot end of the full house on a double paired board v a turn aggressor when the top end came runner-runner.

[MoreWineII]

Just calling the turn is a slowplay in my book.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were planning on folding on the flop for one bet then his slowplay was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was definately not planning on folding the flop.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were planning on folding on the flop for one bet then his slowplay was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was definately not planning on folding the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


the guy is an idiot. that has nothing to do with his slowplay.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
this has absolutely nothing to do with why you shouldn't slowplay. if he knew what you had, he'd be wrong to bet anyway, since you'd likely fold drawing to runner runner.

[/ QUOTE ]

That only makes sense if he thought I could somehow know he had trips, which I couldn't put him on after he three-bet preflop. However, I guess it's all moot, because once the first K falls there is no way I'm folding, even if he raises me on the turn.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you were planning on folding on the flop for one bet then his slowplay was correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was definately not planning on folding the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


the guy is an idiot. that has nothing to do with his slowplay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the title sounded better than "Why you shouldn't be an idiot" /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[busguy]

[ QUOTE ]
this has absolutely nothing to do with why you shouldn't slowplay. if he knew what you had, he'd be wrong to bet anyway, since you'd likely fold drawing to runner runner.

[/ QUOTE ]

W H A T ??

If he knew what you had ?? When does this happen with certainty ??

If he (villian) bets or raises the flop and/or the turn he may win a small pot, by waiting until the river he loses a big one . . I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he would have preferred the former . . . and that for me is a VERY good reason why you shouldn't slow play this hand.

my 2 cents

busguy

Oh and what's with calling a guy an Idiot ??

[sthief09]

Fundamental Theorem of Poker

[sthief09]

Fundamental Theorem of Poker

[busguy]

[ QUOTE ]
Fundamental Theorem of Poker

[/ QUOTE ]

What is that ?? Everyone is an idiot until proven otherwise ??

/images/graemlins/grin.gif busguy

[MoreWineII]

When you raise PF and check the flop of undercards, your opponent has got to put you on overcards, likely AK, KQ, AQ.

When the K hits and you bet, he should be raising to the high heavens. Obviously, you're not folding here and, in actuality, are probably going to play back at him.

Instad, he got cute and got re-sucked on.

Regardless of the results of this particular hand, and regardless of whether or not villian technically "slowplayed", villian did play the turn terribly.

[Nate tha' Great]

The irony is that you can probably assign him a much higher probability of actually having trips once he checks behind on this innocuous-looking flop.

There is even an argument for check-calling both the turn and the river (obviously you need to make an exception when you fill up). I played a hand last night where I raised with KQ, was 3-bet, and the flop came Kxx. I checked and my opponent checked behind. I check called both the turn and the river when blanks fell. Sure enough, my opponent had a set of kings (and missed somewhere between .5 and 1.5 BB by playing it 'deceptively'). When an aggressive online opponent checks behind on the flop unexpectedly, it means a big hand a very high percentage of the time.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
The irony is that you can probably assign him a much higher probability of actually having trips once he checks behind on this innocuous-looking flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even when he three-bets PF and the flop is 663?

[david050173]

He got unlucky. Not betting the flop is the right move in my opinion. The chance of winning a big pot if you catch up is worth it. If there was a flush draw I would change my tune.
On the turn he has to be reraising you. You are still going to call so the end outcome will be the same but you will be paying him off all the times the flush (if that was your draw) or king don't come. If you were on the flush draw, you might not pay him off on the river so he has to get your money in the pot. On the river, he has to call and hope you either had AA or Axs. There are no other likely hands for you to have that he beats.

[sthief09]

I'd be thinking 33 since he's a LAG. you just can't put him on 65o though

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]

Even when he three-bets PF and the flop is 663?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's such a safe-looking flop that it shouldn't change the relative hand values at all and he should be more than willing to bet it if he was representing the best hand preflop. He's relying on exactly the thought that you've expressed here - he can't possibly have a 6, can he? Trips, treys up, or possibly AA are quite likely. Not so likely that you can check fold, but likely enough that you ought to treat this as a way ahead / way behind situation.

[jrobb83]

[ QUOTE ]
What is that ?? Everyone is an idiot until proven otherwise ??

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is the Fundamental Theorem of Party Poker.

[LikesToLose]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an example of why its often wrong to go ape on the river with the idiot end of the full house on a double paired board v a turn aggressor when the top end came runner-runner.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what my grandpa always used to tell me!!!

[Lawrence Ng]

Bet the flop next time, it's a value bet against a LAG crazy idiot who calls raises with anything. Even if it is with King high only. If anything, given the way the hand was played out - you missed earning a small bet.