Bellagio 8/16 hand against a young table coach (long).

[Oblivious]

Cross posted from the general holdem forum. At Bellagio 8/16 later in the night a table coach sat down 3 to my right (young guy, maybe a 2+2er). I could immediately profile him as an experienced tight aggressive limit player. These types of players have a different posture in their seats and their eyes are constantly directed between the pot, the flop, and thier opponents hands during betting. New players have more tention in their face (as if theyre trying hard to concentrate), and their eyes are much more busy, since theyre not quite sure what to look at. Theyll look at the dealers face, their opponents faces, their own chip stacks. Im the type of player who is immediatly pegged as tough, since when I play a pot (rarely) im comming in for a raise. I also checkraise on occation and sometimes get caught bluffing. I know it sounds strange in a two plus two thread, but players like this are actually rare in live low limit games. The point is, I knew the Coach at the table knew what type of player he was against when he was in a hand with me.

The hand:
Im in the BB with 99. Two limpers and Coach raises in the cutoff. Folded to me and I call as do the limpers (4 players, 8.5 SB). Flop is J 7 5. We check to Coach, and I checkraise to isolate him. The limpers fold as planned and Coach just calls. At this point Im putting coach on AK, AQ, AT, or AA-TT but not JJ. The turn is (J 7 5) Q. Now, Coach knows what sort of player hes playing against. There was nothing tricky about my checkraise from the big blind... I was a good player making an obvious textbook expert play WITH EITHER A WEAK HAND OR NOTHING AT ALL. Coach knows I would do this with a hand like JT or if I planned on isolating him and just outright bluffing, but he knows Im not going to do this with a strong hand like AJ, two pair or a set. I bet out on the turn and he raises. I call getting 9:1. So maybe he has AQ, or maybe hes just trying to resteal with AK. AA-QQ are rare possibilities. The river is (J 7 5 Q) 9. Excellent, I was making a crying call down and got lucky. The only hand Im worried about now is QQ. What Im more worried about is him checking behind me for a free showdown. I decide to bet out, and call a raise so I only pay 2 bets to see QQ rather than 3 if I attempt to checkraise. I also protect myself from a free showdown. I show my set of nines and coach mucks.

He then goes on and on to a friend near the table, saying "I dont know why everytime I raise people put me on AK. AK is the only hand he beats with that desperation call on the turn." I ask, why was it a desperation call? How did I know you had a pair of nines beat? I say that AK was one of the hands I put him on, and was actually more likely becuase one of the Q's was on the board (this is only trivially correct, but more designed to be a needle for our table expert). He says, "Ohh its more likely that I have AK than AQ even after I raise the turn? Im pretty sure i had a pair of nines beat if i raised the turn! I have a much different style than you, only I read hands much better than you do." Here's where our estimation of one another as players comes in. If that raise came from an unimaginative player, who had no idea i was up to something fishy, I would have folded. But my weakness was apparent to coach, and he could have made that turn raise with nearly any two cards (just like I could have). What was really funny, was his critisism that I couldnt read hands. He wondered why I bet out and didnt try to checkraise on the end... while stating that the play didnt make any sense. I explained to him that i didnt want him to check behind me with his crap hand or missed draw, and I also didnt want to pay 3 bets to see QQ. He had a perplexed look on his face for a bit, and I say to him "OHHH, so it makes sense now? Maybe I do know what Im doing." He replys: "No... what youre saying is you really didnt have a read at all." I reply, I dont have to put you on one hand, and one hand only to have a read do I? If i do, I guess I didnt have a read then. It ended there.

To me his argument was that youre only reading hands if you decide youre beat and fold, or decide youre winning and raising. Later on he checked in first position with 88 to a LAG in LP who bet on a board of KK8. He checkraises, and a weak tight player in MP reraises. LAG folds and Coach calls. He hits a set on the turn and checkraises and makes one more bet on the end. Weak tight player of course had a K. I say, "thats kind of a desperation call on the flop there dont you think?" He replies "No!, it was only 8 more dollars." I said, "You think you have odds to draw to two outs there?!" He says he has implied odds, cuz hes going to get paid off if he hits, unlike me who bets out on the end when I hit. It seemed like a pretty similar play to me, but he thinks mine was worse, because he had better odds. I think mine was better because I was up against a decent player who knew what I was up to and was likely enough to have a weaker hand than mine. He was up against a bad player who was almost garunteed to have a better hand than him. If my play was bad, his was god aweful.

[sthief09]

his line of call the flop raise, then raise the turn is clearly a sign that he has you beat. I don't think he's thinking as deeply as you're giving him credit for. it's the straightforwardly tricky, but you shouldn't be fooled. either that or he caught a Q. so you should muck to the turn raise. you shouldn't have ruled out JJ. ironically, if he 3-bet the flop, you could've ruled out JJ

also, on the river he doesn't have QQ or JJ that often because it's mathematically not that common, so your goal shouldn't be minimizing losses, it should be maximizing a win.

and now that I've read the dialogue, I don't know why you're posting this. he's right about the hand reading thing. he obviously beats a pair of 9s on the turn. you're overthinkign there. he's not expecting you to lay down TPTK or something. he's raising because he wants your money. pretty much no one lays down top pair. also, you argued strategy at the table with someone else which is TERRIBLE. then you post here as if to show us how bad you owned him. well, I hate to break it to you, but you should've laid down on the turn.

[flair1239]

SOunds like the table coach got under your skin. So much so that you felt the need to let everyone at the table know just what a solid thinking player that you are.

Listening to table coach=annoying. Arguing with table coach=nonproductive.

[bisonbison]

I was a good player making an obvious textbook expert play...

When I make a play like this, I just announce it, cause I get so pissed when people miss out:

"HAY GUYS, I AM MAKING A TEXTBOOK EXPERT PLAY. SEE IF YOU CAN GUESS THE SUITS ON MY PAIR OF NINES."

Thanks for the crosspost.

[Fat Nicky]

You should have laid down your hand on the turn as to me, it is obvious you are beat.

[Oblivious]

Sure I shouldnt have debated with him bison, I grant that, and im better prepared not to next time... What do you think of my play though?

I need someone to back me up. I'd make this turn raise everytime while holding AK. I grant the call was probably boarderline, but its nowhere near a huge mistake when compared with folding. Given my understanding of how good players will play, he's bluffing often enough for a call to be profiable i think. I cant just fold everything worse than top pair to good players everytime they decide to raise me on the turn.

[MoreWineII]

I'm with the rest of the gang. You were beat on the turn and you got lucky.

In my experience, you usually don't need to waste your level 15 thinking on the table coach. They're usually pretty ABC. Save your advanced strategies for thinking TAG's.

[bisonbison]

I need someone to back me up. I'd make this turn raise everytime while holding AK.

Why? How often does a flop checkraiser fold a better hand here?

Anyway, back to the actual setup: you have an underpair to 2 board cards against a preflop raiser who bets the flop and raises the turn:

Let's assume he has 2+2 type raising standards. If he would do this with every single hand he raised preflop, given card distributions, what is the likelihood that you are ahead?

What is the average number of outs you have to improve when you are behind?

What odds is the pot laying you on the turn call?

[Fat Nicky]

[ QUOTE ]
I need someone to back me up. I'd make this turn raise everytime while holding AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are severely overplaying AK. I'm not saying it's never correct to do this, but everytime? You need to pick your spots carefully when making a play like this.

[ QUOTE ]
Given my understanding of how good players will play, he's bluffing often enough for a call to be profiable i think. I cant just fold everything worse than top pair to good players everytime they decide to raise me on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop overthinking straightforward situations, you'll make the right play more often.

[IndieMatty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd make this turn raise everytime while holding AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO That would be another example of poor play.

I don't necesarily 100% hate your call on the turn though, you've put a lot of money into the pot, you were going to check fold the river unimproved no?

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
You should have laid down your hand on the turn as to me, it is obvious you are beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

[EnderW27]

"I explained to him that i didnt want him to check behind me with his crap hand or missed draw, and I also didnt want to pay 3 bets to see QQ. He had a perplexed look on his face for a bit"

I would have a perplexed look too! These two sentences tell a lot about how you think, even after the hand is over.
You didn't want to check the river for fear he'd check down his miss? Tell me, what two cards to a busted draw could he possibly have that would CALL your river bet?

[Oblivious]

I was going to check call the river, only because i figured he put me on a weak hand.

Im not trying to show off how bad I owned him or anything like that, I just honestly want opinions on how others would play this hand. This was ~level 15 thinking, and I believe I was using it on a TAG player.

If this is really a negative ev call, then I'll make a point of not doing it... even against TAG players. But who honestly makes this laydown to an aggressive player? If you do make this laydown against a TAG, you would surely call against a maniac right?

Does anyone think his 88 against a loose passive player is worse?

[Oblivious]

AK only, good point.

[Fat Nicky]

You need to get off the fact that AK is a likely holding for someone that raises pre-flop, then raises the turn w/no A or K on the board. Is it possible? Anything's possible. But not at the frequency where plays like the one you made is +EV.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
You should have laid down your hand on the turn as to me, it is obvious you are beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Count me in on this one.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
Later on he checked in first position with 88 to a LAG in LP who bet on a board of KK8. He checkraises, and a weak tight player in MP reraises. LAG folds and Coach calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that the board was KK3 or KK6. If it was, this is a far more standard move with that holding on that flop. You described the opponent as a LAG, who would bet with a lot more than a K on that board. Obviously when the coach gets 3-bet, he knows he is behind, but calling one more SB in that spot is fine to see if he gets lucky on the turn. If he didn't, I'm sure he would have check-folded the turn unimproved.

Do you see the difference in his play and yours?

[SirFWALGMan]

Can someone answear a really newbie -- passive player (working on it) -- question for me: Why not fold 99 on the flop? Is it because AA,QQ,JJ, AJ are so rare with 4 people in that if you can make the overcards or 10-J fold by the checkraise it is a good move? I am trying to work on aggression, and this seems like a situation I see alot: I have a smallish pair and a few people are in, I miss the flop, there are some overcards, so why would I add 2-bets? Is this only a higher level 6/12 move and is totally wasted on 3/6 or 5/10? Just wondering.

[Oblivious]

yes... i meant the board was KK5... thanks

[ErrantNight]

it seems like it's all been pretty much covered here...

but to join the chorus:

your read on the turn/river is pretty awful. you're behind on the turn, except to a bluff of which you're putting your opponent on EXACTLY AK (which has 10 outs against you), not even seriously considering that you're PROBABLY way behind with only 2 outs... get off your thinking that he's got you read and is playing against that. He actually has cards, and is probably playing them. People at my home game do this all the time, make a read on me, or make a read on my read of them, and play that, ignoring the lay of the board, their cards, and my actual holdings. Fortunately, we're mainly drinking, cards are just the activity to encourage alcohol.

anyway, you make it to the river, and since you've made your miracle draw, you switch from him having an unlikely worse hand to him poassibly having an even MORE unlikely monster...

just bad thinking all around.

and in the hand you're comparing it to... checking in first position w/ 88 is not terrible, he's already committed 2 sb's and is getting something like 1:10.5 on his money in a situation where you should almost ALWAYS make a loose call, even with slightly worse odds (assuming they weren't better) planning to fold the turn unimproved... which it seems pretty clear he was.

more than letting a table coach get under your skin and arguing with him (bad idea, but you know this), you need to work on being fluid with your thinking, but consistent, and maintain perspective on what's likely, not what you'd like or could see. you're clearly a thinking player, and you know a lot of the right plays... but as ABC as your table coach played, it sounds like his game was better than yours, and particularly better suited for the table... aside from the table coaching.

cheers.

[sthief09]

you are extremely arrogant, and I genuinely hope it doesn't lead to your demise, because I remember you making some good posts in the past. no offense, but this post really makes you look bad

[Oblivious]

I agree that I misplayed it. I found it to be an interesting hand, and Im glad you all helped me to analyse it... I really appreciate it. I really dont want to come off sounding arrogant or anything.

Coach: if youre listening, nice hand. You were certainly right in our little argument, no hard feelings... just dont tap the glass too much.

[Derek in NYC]

Since nobody has answered your question, I'll take a shot at why playing it this way is reasonable.

1. There is some chance your hand is the best, maybe it is 40%. It is possible that nobody has a J, and the villain was raising with big unpaired cards like AK, AQ, or KQ. (Of course while the single overcard is there, you're also afraid of overpairs to your 99, namely AA-TT, or that the raiser had AJs.)

2. There is a good chance that if #1 is true, it will still be true on 4th street, meaning an overcard to your 99 won't fall and you wont be outdrawn. This is somewhat of a marginal claim, but it is technically true, since 9 is in the top 50% of card ranks. You would be much less justified playing the same way if you held pocket 66 a flop of J24.

3. The board is fairly uncoordinated with the flop of J75. A small str8 draw is possible, but most likely the best draw somebody has here is a gutshot, which isn't going to be worth playing for 2 bets. Although the original poster didn't mention it, I'm assuming the board was rainbow. A monotone, or even a two-tone flop would make the play more questionable. This is important because in order for the check-raise isolation move to work, you need to have some chance of winning the hand right there, or at worst, getting heads up against the aggressive raiser who you put on big cards, and who will fold when you lead on 4th street. A highly coordinated board makes it unlikely that you will either (a) win immediately, or (b) get heads up so you can lead and win on 4th street.

4. The 7 and 5 are not in what Ciaffone calls "the playing zone", meaning preflop people aren't likely to be playing hands that contain a 7 or a 5. (Of course somebody might play a suited connector early, or a suited ace-rag, but hopefully not.) The point here is that it is even less likely that somebody has connected with the flop. And even if they did connect, your 2 bets makes it right for them to fold. Also, it bears mentioning that both the texture of the board, and the EP checkers, mean that it is unlikely sombody flopped two pair.

5. The board is unpaired. This factor cuts both ways. On an unpaired board, there are 9 cards that connect with the board. On a paired board, there are only 5 cards that connect. So the chances that nobody connected is better on a paired board. On the other hand, it matters what the pair is. If the flop is K22, you can feel confident that nobody holds a 2 (though be careful if the big blind got a free play, and to a lesser extent, if the SB is in the hand). On the other hand, if the flop is KK2, you should immediately be concerned that somebody holds a K and you are drawing dead.

Hope this helps.

[James282]

Hi sthief - for the most part you are dead on here. On this board I would usually say hero is either behind now or he will be behind enough on the river that a fold is prudent here. Be careful though, as you move up through the limits you will see a lot more turn raises from good players with marginal holdings. I played a hand fairly similar to this last night in the 30 60 on party. One limp from a mediocre to poor player, and a tough player raises from late position. I had 67s in the BB and called as did the limper. The flop came 973. I check-raised and the limper folded, good player called. Turn was a jack, I bet, he raised, I called. River was a 4. I checked, he checked behind and MHWG. Good players do make these sorts of plays at the higher limits when they know the other player is reasonable(or weak) also.
-James

[SirFWALGMan]

Thanks for your reply. It is well written and gives me alot to think about. Does it effect your decision if the flop card is a A,K,Q? I would assume there would be a higher percentage of chance that someone stayed in with an A than a J? Or is it all the same?

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is some chance your hand is the best, maybe it is 40%.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there was a 40% chance his hand was good, he would have an easy call.

[Derek in NYC]

Middle pairs are hard to play after the flop if you miss your set. (Small pairs are easy... you chuck em). Middle pairs can still be good, but the line you take often depends on the texture of the flop and the size of the field.

In this example, the original poster decided to go with the isolation check raise rather than betting because of: (1) his position, which was lousy; (2) the size of the field namely 4 people, meaning its hard to win the hand or even narrow the field by leading on the flop; and (3) the pre-flop aggressor was to his immediate right, so he had confidence the checkraise would work. With a different field or position, he'd play it differently.

With a middle pair, I tend to treat all Broadway cards as about the same, with the exception of the ace, since so many people like to play ace-rag or suited-ace. Meaning it's a fair bet that somebody is playing a broadway card in a 4 person field. If an ace flops, I get squirrely even faster.

Again, to go back to the present case, in addition to the reasons I gave, the observed action on the flop also made the checkraise here makes sense because the EP players didn't lead out, thus making it slightly less likely that they held a Jack.

The original check on the flop also makes sense to me, so you have the advantage of observing the action. Certainly, if an EP player had bet and been raised, it is a clear fold. If only the pre-flop raiser raises, you have a legitimate checkraise.

The real problem with the flop check is if somebody in EP bets, and 1-2 more players (including the preflop raiser)overcall. That is a hard position to play. Now you have very little information about people's hands (except that everybody liked the flop enough to call). In this case, the size of the field is the deciding factor, and I would fold if there were 4 overcallers, maybe call if there were 3 with the intention of betting 4th street assuming a blank but folding to a 4th street raise.

Reading boards is a tough skill. Although he is not popular around here, I do like Ciaffone's middle limit poker book. It gives you a good sense for the thought process for board reading in tight games.

You can't take Ciaffone's concepts and apply them in a Party 3/6 game, or you will be running for the hills at the first sign of aggression. But it is probably at least as good as Ed Miller's book in terms of "how to think on later streets".