QTs -- Good play or misplay?

[El Dukie]

I'm sitting in an 8-16 game waiting for a 15-30 seat. My cards have sucked so far. I've played only the blinds for the first 4 orbits, with the sole exception of limping on the button in a multiway pot with 87s. In my BB, then, I'm pleased to pick up Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif T /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Best hand I've seen so far. (Actually, I got QJs suited earlier, but I refused to cold-call an EP raise with it.) There are two limpers, an aggressive MP raises, button cold-calls, SB calls, I call, as do the two limpers. Six to the flop for 12 sb.

Flop is J /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, giving me the flush draw and a single overcard. SB checks, I check, limpers check, PFR bets, Button & SB call, as do I and one of the two limpers. 5 players, 17sb = 8.5 (actually 8.25 after rake)BB.

Turn is J /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Oooh. I really don't think PFR has a Jack. I think this would be a good spot for a semi-bluff CR. I check, limper checks, PFR bets, button & SB fold (perfect!), I checkraise.

Now, here's where I f-ed up. I hadn't noticed that the EP limper was nearly all-in. He only had two chips left. So I wasn't going to push him off his hand, if he had any semblance of a hand at all. So I checkraise, making it 16 chips back to him, and he only has to call 2 chips to have a shot at the 8bb main pot. He calls. PFR folds, so I at least get the (small) side pot.

River (not that it's relevant to how well I did or did not play the hand) is 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, so my screw-up is rewarded when the all-in player can't beat a flush. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I think the turn card pairing the Jack set up a great spot for a CR bluff from the blind, but I was paying too much attention to see if CO and SB would fold to notice that the limper had a simple call. I guess I would have salvaged at least a bit of money off the side pot, but I may have shut out a potential payoff on the river. Thoughts?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
My cards have sucked so far. I've played only the blinds for the first 4 orbits, with the sole exception of limping on the button in a multiway pot with 87s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a +EV play when the EP limper isn't nearly all in due to the quote above -- assuming you aren't playing with players familiar with your style.

Based on your limited table image thus far you have certainly appeared weak tight, so it is very plausible for your opponent to consider that you would play a jack like this on the flop (as opposed to say leading out or c/r the flop). Your table image gives the play enough credibility I think so that you'll succeed more than 1 out of 4.75 times...Which doesn't yet take into account that some times you're going to get called and still river the best hand, or the occasional times you get 3-bet, though still serves as a decent estimation of how often you need to succeed.

[na4bart]

Great that you made your hand, nice pot, BUT remember the criteria for a semi-bluff to be correct? 1.) You may win the pot uncontested ( the bluff worked) or 2.) You may improve to the best hand. Your semi-bluff did not qualify on #1 above. So, IMHO your c/r semi-bluff was incorrect in this situation.

If you had A /images/graemlins/heart.gifT /images/graemlins/heart.gif then I feel it would have been a much closer decision. Get rid of the PFR and maybe your ace-high would be enough to win whereas the PFR might have had a bigger ace.

[rory]

Your flop play is not consistent with a Jack so no thinking player should give you credit for the trips on the turn. A Jack would have been trying to force people out on that flop-- you did not.

Bet out on the flop or check raise the flop. You are doing it for two reasons. The first is for value and the second is to misrepresent your hand. Playing your flush draw aggressively on the flop gives you the ability to represent the jack on later streets which would have worked out nicely for you here.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
Your flop play is not consistent with a Jack so no thinking player should give you credit for the trips on the turn. A Jack would have been trying to force people out on that flop-- you did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

A thinking player might not be crediting Dukie for being a TAG being that thus far at the table Dukie has done nothing but fold or make a button limp. Unless the thinking player has played with Dukie before he's going to think Dukie's line is consistent with a jack from a weak tight playing person.

It doesn't matter if we know he'd actually play a jack differently.

[rory]

Good point!

[dsw1977]

I agree this is a better play if EP isn't down to two chips, but in the mid-limit SoCal games, this laydown by PFR for one more on the turn is *extremely* rare when EP is all in. Had PFR called, I assume you'd come out betting the river regardless of whether the heart (or a Q/10) hit, and typically get called down by A high or any piece of the flop.

Had you just called the turn and led the river, it seems unlikely that PFR had a hand that he would have laid down for one additional bet on the turn, but now called with on the river, especially when the heart hit. I don't think you lost anything with the c/r here.

[JPolin]

Given the chip situation, I think that a flop bet is mandatory for your semi-bluff to have any chance of working. It is highly likely that your flop bet and turn bet would win the hand without a showdown.

[andyfox]

While your play up until the check-raise is not consistent with a jack, the fact that EP had only 2 chips left may have influenced the pre-flop raiser to fold, reasoning that you wouldn't be bluffing or even semi-bluffing with a player almost all-in. I can recall two hands where I wasn't sure if a raiser knew that the person he raised was almost all in, so I asked the almost all-in "are you all in?" and tried to gauge the raiser's reaction.

But all too often, like you, I fail to take note of the chip count of my opponents. We tend to think of chip counts as important only in no-limit or pot-limit games, or in tournaments, but it does come into play often enough in limit games, especially in the wildish games our here in La-la land, where opponents are frequently close to being down to the felt.

[El Dukie]

You're right in that for the most part my flop play was not consistent with the way I would usually play a Jack on that flop. But what if I called from the BB with something like J8s or J9s? If I put the PFR on a real hand (meaning a big pair or big overcards), I might (occasionally, not as a default play) wait until the turn to pop it. Especially if I improve on the turn. And since I didn't recognize this particular player, I think it's safe to say that he didn't recognize me, either. So he might very well put me on a Jack, under the assumption that I'm weak-tight. My point is that it's not that unreasonable for him to think I've just made trips. But yeah, I got lucky and should have noticed that EP was almost all-in. I think the play was sound, but the situation (with an all-in player) wasn't quite right for it.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your flop play is not consistent with a Jack so no thinking player should give you credit for the trips on the turn. A Jack would have been trying to force people out on that flop-- you did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

A thinking player might not be crediting Dukie for being a TAG being that thus far at the table Dukie has done nothing but fold or make a button limp. Unless the thinking player has played with Dukie before he's going to think Dukie's line is consistent with a jack from a weak tight playing person.

It doesn't matter if we know he'd actually play a jack differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well if he had a rock-like table image that should also have made him more inclined to play it aggressively on the flop since he'll have more folding equity. So there, Fran Tarkenton.