10-20 Stud

Larry's question reminded me of a hand I played recently.


10-20 stud ($1 antes, 3 bring in) at Foxwoods, I am the bring in with the 3h (8h9h), it is called by a 7s in mid position and raised by the Jd in last position. I call the completion as does the MP. All hearts are live as are my pair cards, A J was folded, 2 spades dead, 1 diamond dead.


On 4th street, MP has 7sQd, LP has Jd2d, I have 3h9s (8h9h). The MP bets 10, the LP raises to 20 (his raise means a flush draw approx 90% of the time), I raise to 30 to drop the MP. The MP folds and the LP calls.


On 5th street, LP has Jd2d2c, I have 3h9s7d (8h9h). LP bets, I call.


On 6th street, LP has Jd2d2c7c, I have 3h9s7dKs. He bets, I call.


On 7th street, I have 3h9s7dKs (8h9h10h). He bets, I call and win the pot.

My thoughts, I think a call on 3rd street is automatic, I don't have any overcards so a reraise may get me heads up but so what, I'd rather have player 3 in at this point.


On 4th street, I am in a classic raise or fold situation. Because my read on the LP is good, I think a raise is definitely the right play. I am raising to drive out the best hand, the 3rd player who probably made queens and who is capable of throwing them away, to get it heads up with the flush draw.


On fifth street, he bets representing a better hand but I think this bet is automatic from him. He now has a pair with a draw. He has to represent stength and try to get me to throw away what he thinks is probably 2 pair.


On 6th street, if my read is correct he can't have 2 pair as I have the 7d. I still have the "best" hand but he obviously has plenty of draws. I just call because if I raise he is going to check the river whether or not he makes his flush. If I call, he is going to check 2 pair on the river or bluff his flush or bet his flush. If he checks the river I am going to check behind. The only exception is if I catch K's up, then I will bet. He will call if he made 2 pair.


7th street, he bets, I must call. He was a dog to make the flush at this point. Two other benefits to this play, if he shows a flush, I throw my hand away, if he says I missed, and I win with a measly pair of 9's, everyone at the table assumes I am a rube.


I'm not big on image, but this type of play will get you a lot of loose calls in later hands when you are the favorite and will stop others from bluffing you when they see you will call with 1 pair. It also lets you raise the more astute players on the river because they will bet 2 pair for value against you.


I think that the 4th street play would be absolutely incorrect if I didn't have a good read on my other opponents at the table. I think this is what Mason, et al, mean when they say "having control of your opponents or the table". Against almost all other opponents I would have thrown my hand away on 4th street.


Opinions welcome.

How do you like the 10-20 games at foxwoods? I have found foxwoods to be very profitable. You played the hand well, and nice call on the river.


Pat

I love the 10-20 at Foxwoods. The games are good and there is plenty of variety, usually 4-5 games on weekends and 3-4 games on weekdays.


I also play in the 15-30 games there. It is only a small step up but the games are significantly more aggressive and much tougher to play. You have to change the way you think and there is not nearly as many bad or soft players. One of the reasons is that the next level of game is 40-80. No 20-40 or 30-60, so you get some good/winning players who don't want to make the quantum leap up to 40-80 that make the 15-30 much more difficult to play.

Pat,


10-20 at Foxwoods ( and Mohegan ) are some GREAT games. I have had many profitable sessions at those limits in these two casinos.


Later,


CJ

THere isn't anything between 15/30 and 40/80 at foxwoods??? Seems odd.


I thought it was odd also that the 40/80 game has a 5$ ante. This makes it a "little stud game" eh?

Dear John,


I would like to compliment you on a well presented post. And I am happy, for you, that you won the pot.


But by my analysis, the hand had the potential to be more complex than might first appear.And there were a couple of considerations that you might have overlooked.


Let me play the Devil’s Advocate.


Here is how I would have analised the action if I had played your hand.


Third street :


“Pretty darned good bring in hand” I’ve got a totally live 3 flush, 3 totally live baby rank cards, and a 2 straight.(That means that 20% + 20% + 16%+16% or 72%)


So with this three dimentionel hand approximately 72% of the time I should get pair, straight ,flush or overcard improvement with this next card)


Like you I would have just payed the bring in, since it is so hard to get a hand heads up by raising out of the bring in, in a 10/20 game.


And since I don’t have any big cards, the main strength of the hand lies in its potential draw.


Like you I would have just called the raise by the Jack. Since my most likely improvement would be to a 4 flush, a “Whipsaw hand” 3 straight 3 flush, or combination 3 flush pair hand in which case I would just as soon maintain the increased implied odds of this multi-way hand..


BUT here is where I would differ from your read.


I would say:


“Doc you play approximetly 80 different middle limit stud players. Of those 80 players how many would raise with a 3 flush or 3 straight, out of a late position, with one non bring in caller, and a dead door card, and a dead flush card. Answer approx. 8 players.


Next, of those 8 players, how many would raise with a 3 flush or 3 straight But WOULD NOT ALSO RAISE WITH A BIG PAIR.


Answer only one player “Ming” (pseudonyme) Ming is the only 10/20 player that I know who would not also raise with a big pair.(and I am not positive of that)


And finally mathematicaly with one dead Jack, what are the chances that Jack’s starting hand includes a pair (14%)


What is the probability that he started with a 3 flush with one dead flush card (4%)


So the probability that he is starting with a pair is more than 3 times as likely as a 3 flush.


Fourth street :


Next you hit a baby pair to go with your 3 flush, Mp hits a Queen and “Ming” hits a suited duck.


Now I am saying “The strength of a pair with a 3 flush hand lies almost entirely in the strength of the pair, since the probability of making a flush has now dropped to 16%. (even though your 3 flush is still totally live) And how strong is my pair of nines with only baby card kickers ? (pretty grim)


Fourth street action:


The Queen seven suddenly comes out betting into Mings previously RAISING Jack even after MP CALLED Mings third street raise.


Now Ming comes RIGHT BACK AT HIM. And even with a partly dead Jack “Ming” re-raises MP’s over-card Queen.


And now you have to decide what to do. Your assumption was that this is a "classic" fold or raise situation. But I would no describe it as such for these reasons.


My questions are:


What does MP Queen Seven have. Well he called the third street raise, and then hit a non suited distant over-card.


Most likely he already has two pair Queens and Sevens. With Queens and a 3 straight or 3 flush coming in next. (pretty strong hands)


And what does Ming have? Pocket Aces?, Kings?,Jacks up, or a flush draw with 2 dead flush cards out.


And I would be remembering that when Ming did RAISE. with his suited Jack Duck, he did so out of mid position with one possible over-caller behind him. There by running the risk of decreasing the potential implied odds of his draw.


My problem is that here on fourth, you have two probably strong over cards betting in to your Baby pair 3 flush.


Not only are you potentialy decreasing the implied odds of your draw. You are also running a strong risk of running into a capped hand, with a hand that is very weak if you don't improve. (which is exactly what happened)


If you do get rank improvement. You don’t have any over-cards.


And if you get flush improvement I would just as soon have the increased implied odds of the multi-way pot.


That would be especialy true in this situation, since your flush draw would have been camoflaged by your unsuited fourth street card. This would have increased the potential implied odds of your hand even more.


And that is why I wouldn’t have classified it as a “classic” fold or raise situation.


My next question would be :


What percent of the 10/20 players that I have played against are going to drop a Big pair with out a single over-card showing on the board ? Especialy after they initiated the action by betting into a likely over pair?


Answer : Damn few.


And if I do hit my draw, I would now be glad that I have the increased implied odds of a multi-way pot.


You say that you had good control over your opponents, and that you had a good read on them as well. Which I believe.


It’s just that I feel that this hand is significantly more complex, than it might originaly appear.


I feel that you were lucky to get the betting Queen to drop. And that you had to really KNOW Jack “Ming” to have had the confidence to have made the play that you did.


In his book Championship No Limit Hold’em. T. J. Clothier describes a tournement hand in which he started preflop with Kings and made a modest raise, and an opponent made a modest re-raise. T.J. folded his Cowboys and his opponent showed him a pair of aces.


20 minutes later T.J. says that he had pre-flop Kings again, and once again the same senario occured against the same player. After T.J. mucked his second pair of Kings, the same opponent once again showed him a pair of Aces. Now that is KNOWING your opponent.


Thank you for sharing this interesting hand with us.

Most Sincerely,

Doc AZ

Hi Doc,

I appreciate your analysis. It is always better to have someone play the Devil's Advocate in order for you to look at other possible plays that are available to you and will frequently be plays that you haven't considered or haven't considered fully.


A couple of factors that are involved here. Th MP player who called the bring in is very unlikely to have (7,Q) 7. This is always a raising hand for him from mid position (I'm sure I use the term "always" too broadly) and as the first player in. He had a pair with an overcard to the highest upcard showing. His most likely starting hand was a pair of 7's with a weak kicker, a 3 straight or 3 flush. To him, the Jack looks like a steal raise from last position to try and drop the bring in and get heads up with him. When he catches the Q and bets out, I felt he may have had a 3 flush with a pair of Q's or was representing Q's or Q's up to take the pot now. He is also capable of betting so that the J2d will raise to force me to call 2 cold or force me to fold. With 2 pair I would have expected him to check rather than bet out and trap me, the bring in for 2 bets. When the J2d raises and I reraise, he has to think he is a much bigger dog than originally thought if he does have q's and a 3 flush. I agree that few players would be able to throw this type of hand away.


Now that I think about it, folding may have been a better play but I still think calling is a losing play by alot. If he does have 2 pair, which I deem to be the the least likely of his possible hands, he caps. If he has a 3 flush with Q's, he calls 2 cold, and the only time he folds is if he was just probing by leading with his represented Q's and trying to get the hand heads up. I don't get any additional information by calling.


Maybe this is not the time though to be putting 3 small bets into the pot trying to get additional information from the lead better. There are more mathematically sound ways to risk your money.


One thing that I absolutely agree with is that the hand is far more complex than I originally had thought because my reads on the cards being held by my opponents was rigid and not based on sound mathematical concepts. Although it worked in this case, it does not mean that it was the proper way to play the hand.


As always, thank you for your well thought out comments.


John

Dear John,


Good read on MP. You obviously (like me) spend a lot of time monitoring your opponent’s strategies.


It always amazes me, how few players do that? To me it is one of the keys in transforming your game from the good to excellent level.


One of the great joys in my life is playing stud hands against one or two other good players.


And as I play knowing that all three of us, are constantly making strategic alterations as the hand progresses in attempts to out play each other.


I can’t count the number of times that my friends Kirby, Wayne, Mugsie, et all have played complex hands, and when the hands were shown down, have the looser pat the table and sincerely say “Hand very well played”(and sincerely mean it)


Most Sincerely,

Doc AZ

God bless you if you can think of all that at the table!


Pat