AAAmazing flop - 99 in CO

[StellarWind]

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

SB is a multitabling TAG. Very tight all around, fairly aggressive preflop, very aggressive postflop. We've played lots and I'm pretty certain he knows my style. UTG+2 is extremely loose and pretty aggressive. He doesn't raise so much postflop, but any loose pot and he's right there with a bet.

Preflop: Hero is CO with 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 9/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, UTG+2 calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+2 calls.

Flop: (7 SB) A/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, UTG+2 calls, Hero calls.

Turn: (5 BB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, UTG+2 calls, Hero calls.

River: (8 BB) 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, UTG+2 calls, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 11 BB
<font color="#009B00">Main Pot: 11 BB, between UTG+2, Hero and SB.</font>

[Evan]

I think there need to be a raise in there somewhere. I think the river is the spot for it. I'm also calling a raise.

[Alexthegreat]

I would raise the river, and maybe even the turn, just to see what's out there...I'm only worried about TT, as JJ-AA would have raised preflop...I'm not worried about an ace....so now that I think about it, not raising the river in this hand is a crime....

[chesspain]

I'm really curious with what SB called 1.5SB and then is betting into both of you down the line. I think I would raise the turn (and fold to a 3-bet) and take the free showdown--especially if I thought I could get SB to lay down a hand like TT/JJ, or get overcards to fold.

[colgin]

Stellar,

I like the way you played this. I don't think you can be certain enough that you are ahead to raise either the flop or the turn and you are clearly not laying this one down. If you had raised the flop or the turn then you give SB the chance to re-raise which might knock out UTG+2, who is padding the pot for you. Plus, I don't think you can safely fold to a re-raise from SB as he might do this with a smaller pocket pair. Basically, I think your line is likely to win the maximum when you are ahead but lose the least when you are behind.

Nice hand.

Colgin

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
JJ-AA would have raised preflop

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, if he has AA we are royally fuc[/i]ked.

Also, I don't really like a turn raise since a think you may get hands that are drawing very thin to fold. I think SB has a 77ish hand that may fold to a turn raise but will likely bet the river.

[Evan]

I don't understand how you're not putting SB on a smaller pair. What's your reasoning there?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not worried about an ace

[/ QUOTE ]
Because?

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't really like a turn raise since a think you may get hands that are drawing very thin to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

A hand with two Bdwy cards is drawing very live but could be persuaded to fold to a raise.

[Evan]

I think a smaller pair is way more likely here. This line just doesn't seem like a hand with big cards.

[MarkD]

Broadway cards were not getting correct odds to draw on the turn when / if they bet - so making them fold is not really a coup.

edit: Unless both opponents have overcards and then you want them to fold since they collectively are drawing against you and costing you money. But you can't even be sure that you are ahead in this hand (I think is very likely you are though).

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you're not putting SB on a smaller pair. What's your reasoning there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Reread the description of SB.

Would you coldcall preflop with 66 with only two players in? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't bet the turn either after getting flatcalled by a good player. That doesn't sound promising to put it mildly.

So yes it's possible he has a smaller pocket pair, but there are solid reasons for doubting.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a smaller pair is way more likely here. This line just doesn't seem like a hand with big cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

While SB probably would have re-raised with KK-JJ (he might have just called with TT), he may very well fold small pairs and might just call with hands like AQ, AJ or, possibly, AT. If you discount holdings like 22-55, and admit that a small percentage of the time he might just call with QQ or JJ, then the odds of Stellar being ahead here are not as great as it might seem at first glance. While it does appear that there could be many more underpairs that SB would be betting than overpairs given the pre-flop play, I think that while SW is likely ahead, the odds of him being ahead are not so great as to warrant raising in this hand, especially where his raise could cause UTG+2 to fold.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Broadway cards were not getting correct odds to draw on the turn when / if they bet - so making them fold is not really a coup.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are assuming SB is going to payoff on the river with Broadway cards. I strongly doubt that so knocking them out with a raise is pure profit.

Besides, if SB folds the free showdown is off. UTG+2 will be targeted on the river and I pick up an extra bet after all.

[Evan]

I doubt this guy is not raising TT, the fact that you suggest calling with QQ/JJ is pretty humorous. Also, I don't think calling with a small pair preflop would be a mistake at all when he's getting 3.7ish-1 (assuming the limper doesn't fold), do you?

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt this guy is not raising TT, the fact that you suggest calling with QQ/JJ is pretty humorous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evan,

That's not what I said. I did not suggest that SB should not re-raise with QQ or JJ, just that it is possible that some small percentage of the time he might. Regardless, I don't change my analysis even if I know he will always re-raise out of the blinds with those hands in this situation. But to the extent you think it is at all close, then it iseven closer if he might just call pre-flop with those hands even a small percentage of the time. Now I don't know this SB, but Stellar tells us that he is a TAG and knows Stellar's play. So, pre-flop he might decide to give up some pre-flop equity by not re-raising those hands if he thinks he can make more off SW post-flop by doing so. I am not saying that would be correct or even that he would ever do it. I think it is worth considering whether some small percentage of the time he will show you a hand that seems very unliley based on pre-flop play, especially in light of his post-flop actions which show a strong hand. As for TT, I tend to think he would raise that here, but I think it is much closer than KK-JJ and see that as a real possibility.

[ErrantNight]

i think SB cold-calls pretty clearly with smaller pairs, and although given there's only one left, an ace wouldn't be a horrendously unlikely holding before you see the flop. is any consideration given to how often the BB has been following along into raised pots for one bet when there's likely already 3 going to the flop?

you're fairly certain here, as i would be, that UTG+2 is padding the pot for you...

chesspain makes a strong argument for a turn raise, particularly if UTG+2 is drawing live going to the river.

assuming you would still play this hand the same until the river... is it worth a raise here? i think it would be worth a bet if you had been check/calling, but i think SB releases better hands to a river raise and hits you with a 3-bet when you're behind leaving the chance that UTG+2 calls you to make up the difference, and i'm pretty split.

i suppose this has already been covered by others... making this post a bit superfluous, huh?

[Evan]

I think that 88-66 are at least equally probably hands to TT. I put the possibility of JJ-KK very very near 0. Thoughts?

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
You are assuming SB is going to payoff on the river with Broadway cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I am - and that's probably a false assumption.

[ErrantNight]

it's probably the only worthwhile question i asked in my previous response to this post...

but what consideration is given to the BB in our TAG sb's play? if he's been coming along for one more bet a lot, does sb's lack of a preflop 3-bet decrease the likelihood of him having a pocket overpair? or slow-playing a JJ/QQ? likewise, does this increase the likelihood of him having a small pocket pair? if BB hasn't been coming along a lot, does this increase the likelihood of him having a piece of broadway?

or is this line of analysis getting really, really hyper-focused on an unknown that's liable to mess with other lines of thinking that have more to offer, here

[Evan]

UTG+whatever probably has 6/3 outs after the flop against SW. My guess is 3 just because people limp bad hands. Sometimes he'll be drawing dead after the flopp too because people limp very bad hands. I wouldn't give him too much consideration as long as he stays quiet as he's probably padding the pot w/o taking too much equity.

[ErrantNight]

i would agree. regardless of a thinking tag's analysis of Our Hero here... I don't think he wants to slip quietly into a 3-way, potentially 4-way flop like that. there would be better opportunities, methinks.

i think the range of hands sb is holding that are worse after this flop is slightly greater than the hands that are better... consisting essentially only of an A or TT.

i keep coming back to the fact that i like chess's reasoning for a turn raise... and then trying to justify a river raise instead... but it's hard considering i already know the river is a blank.

[ErrantNight]

i agree... but i wasn't asking about UTG...

i'm asking about the BB that folded...

i was basically wondering if a read on the BB (that, presumably, our thinking tag sb would also have) might have an impact on (i.e.: narrow) the range of hands we can put the sb on...

[Evan]

I think that's kinda irrelavent. If that BB is Johnny Chan or the village idiot i'm 3 betting TT and I'm calling w/ 66. What hands do you see any read affecting?

[ErrantNight]

the more I think about the hands that I was thinking about... the more I can't think of why I would play them any differently myself from that position...

AK, AQs or AJs, 88 or the other 99 might be marginal 3-bet situations? but i don't think i'd really change my play based on the BB at that point.

the more I criticize my line of thinking... the less I can justify it...

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a smaller pair is way more likely here. This line just doesn't seem like a hand with big cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evan, two points:

1) It isn't yet heads-up on the turn, meaning Hero has to deal with the third player, who could easily have overcards, even if SB is on a small pair.

2) Since SB-TAG is betting into both Stellar and the third player, have you stopped to consider on what range of hands the SB puts Stellar?

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It isn't yet heads-up on the turn, meaning Hero has to deal with the third player, who could easily have overcards, even if SB is on a small pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're suggesting a turn raise I think that's fine. I would prefer to raise the river but I would not call raising the turn a mistake by any means.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Since SB-TAG is betting into both Stellar and the third player, have you stopped to consider on what range of hands the SB puts Stellar?

[/ QUOTE ]
SW's hand is far less defined IMO.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how you're not putting SB on a smaller pair. What's your reasoning there?

[/ QUOTE ]

If SB has a small pair such as 77 or lower, or maybe 88 or lower, wouldn't we expect a TAG to go for a checkraise here to try and knock out UTG+1? Even though UTG+1 is loose, the odds of him having overcards to a small pair are still quite good and SB might view knocking him out at beneficial in this situation? If this is true, then I think it makes SB having a small pair somewhat less likely.

[Evan]

I think a small pair is too scared to check anywhere for fear of giving a free card and seeing overs fall, thus making his hand much harder to play out of position.

EDIT: I'm going to eat lunch, so if anyone asks me a question and I don't respond I will when I get back.

[ErrantNight]

i don't think he wants this flop checked through.

[ZootMurph]

I think you have to try to put these players on hands here.

SB - TAG, knows your playing style... calls your raise from CO with a limper in front of you. He has to have some type of hand, maybe a pocket pair, big ace, or maybe KQ. Hard to call with Broadway cards or suited Ace with such a small field, but smaller pockets may be worth it if he thinks it will be HU. I'd play a small pocket pair against agressive players, as you are still getting implied odds for set value. But, as a TAG he'd reraise with, say, TT-KK and probably AK/AQ, so we will count those out. That leaves stuff that you are ahead of. The only things I can realistically see him beating you with are possibly TT or AQ (I may not reraise with these in bad position preflop). Can't see a call with AJ, AT, or any Ace suited. Possible KQ or smaller pocket pair most likely. The fact that he continues betting on the river makes a small pocket pair or Ace most probable.

UTG+2 is just calling down. I can put him on a large variety of hands, but not an Ace. If I was him and had the ace, I'd not raise until the river. Since he didn't raise the river, he doesn't have the ace. Since he didn't raise preflop, he doesn't have a bigger pocket pair.

So, most likely you will see SB with a smaller pocket pair and UTG+2 with either a smaller pocket pair or a King high hand. SB may have an Ace, but the likelihood is very small.

I'd raise the river and call if SB three bets.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a small pair is too scared to check anywhere for fear of giving a free card and seeing overs fall, thus making his hand much harder to play out of position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think he would trust me to bet this flop if it checks to me. Isn't it pretty automatic for a TAG PFR on the button to demand this pot versus a limper and a coldcaller? The pot odds are there for a pure bluff.

Much more questionable is whether it is even possible to force this UTG+2 off a dangerous hand. Especially as UTG+2 may put the first bet in if SB checks.

[Luke]

Broadway cards were not getting correct odds to draw on the turn when / if they bet - so making them fold is not really a coup.

So Mark, are you saying you don't like a turn raise?

Personally, I'd raise the turn on this hand. At that point, UTG + 2 will be getting ~10-1 (assuming SB just calls) on the raise and that's enough odds for a 6-outer (~7-1) like KJ to call.

So you can give him a chance to make a mathematical mistake by folding or get some more money into the pot when you are most likely a solid favorite to win the hand.

A river raise is not a terrible alternative but I think smaller pairs are calling the turn, just as they are calling the river, but you can potentially get some extra money out broadway card type hands by raising the turn.

Luke

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Since SB-TAG is betting into both Stellar and the third player, have you stopped to consider on what range of hands the SB puts Stellar?

[/ QUOTE ]
SW's hand is far less defined IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have it on reputable authority that StellarWind's worst possible hand after the PFR and flop call is 88.

[J.R.]

You'd fold KQ?

[Joe Tall]

I think you have a smaller PP in the SBs hands, UTG has KQ or K-high and you have the best hand.

Raise the river.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[StellarWind]

Chesspain has made an interesting suggestion of raising the turn to force out SB's Broadway overcards, with the idea of folding to a 3-bet or taking the free showdown. The idea is that this costs no more than calling down and may save the pot from SB's six overcard outs. A nice deal if you can get it.

I have enormous difficulty believing SB even has this hand. He's very tight throughout the hand. The coldcall preflop is extremely doubtful and the postflop play with no hand and no appreciable draw is completely over the top.

The other problem is these players are not controllable. If UTG+2 makes a pair on the river he will probably bet. Now what do I do? Furthermore, nothing stops SB from bet-folding the river with a small pocket pair. Another tough decision as he might try the stop-n-go with an ace because a 3-bet is likely to take it down immediately and lose several BB.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
I have it on reputable authority that StellarWind's worst possible hand after the PFR and flop call is 88.


[/ QUOTE ]

The more I look at this hand, the more I think you played it just right. On the flop, if SB had a small pair, all he can hope you have that he beats is KQ, KJ, maybe QJs. Its very possible for you to have raised PF with maybe 77-AA here plus AK,AQ,AJ,AT, A9s, A8s. His bet on the turn I think signifies at minimum he has a pair 77 or so and maybe larger and possibly an ace. Now you also call on the turn, which should tell SB that you don't have any of the KQ,KJ,QJ stuff but rather some PP about 88 or larger, as you say, yet he still bets into you on the river when you could as easily have JJ-KK, AQ, AK, AJ, AT, etc as 88,99 at this point. For some reason I think this guy has some larger suited ace, maybe I'm wrong, or something like TT or JJ.

Also, as I previously mentioned, I think given you raised PF, SB would've gone for a c/r on the flop small pairs since a large majority of the time it checks to you and you auto-bet.

[Evan]

Joe Tall agrees with me. wooooooooooot!!!!!!!!

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Chesspain has made an interesting suggestion of raising the turn to force out SB's Broadway overcards, with the idea of folding to a 3-bet or taking the free showdown. The idea is that this costs no more than calling down and may save the pot from SB's six overcard outs. A nice deal if you can get it.

I have enormous difficulty believing SB even has this hand. He's very tight throughout the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, (and more in line with Joe Tall's thinking), I was assuming that the player in the middle was more likely to have overcards.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
Chesspain has made an interesting suggestion of raising the turn to force out SB's Broadway overcards, with the idea of folding to a 3-bet or taking the free showdown. The idea is that this costs no more than calling down and may save the pot from SB's six overcard outs. A nice deal if you can get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the SB will be folding in this pot for one bet on the turn, just as he won't think you have the Ace on the turn when he bet again. So raise the river.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd fold KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how I can possibly draw to KQ.

The best I can hope for is 9-1 pot odds to draw to seven outs. But there is a serious risk that someone has an ace (note UTG+2 would probably slowplay the flop) and all my outs are very vulnerable to chopping two or three ways.

[Joe Tall]

I don't see how I can possibly draw to KQ.

Why would KQ be drawing on a AAA flop?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, (and more in line with Joe Tall's thinking), I was assuming that the player in the middle was more likely to have overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]
UTG+2 won't fold that for one more bet. He'll probably even payoff the river with a king. Mostly you are collecting an extra bet versus lower overcard(s) that might not call the river.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would KQ be drawing on a AAA flop?

[/ QUOTE ]
What hand do I beat after a very tight player calls 1.5 cold and bets the flop? The odds that I'm behind are high enough that I cannot show my hand down unimproved. So I'm drawing.

[StellarWind]

Putting aside what SB actually would do preflop, let me ask what he should do.

Very loose and fairly aggressive UTG+2 limps and TAG CO raises. You are SB with 44. With no read on BB, what do you do here?

Is my preference for folding without a third opponent a minority opinion?

[Joe Tall]

Then here is the question:

Would he 3-bet TT there? JJ?

My point about KQ is that there is a chance it's the best hand, a decent one w/few opponents.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[JDErickson]

Why do I have the feeling SB had the other pair of 9's?

[CinnamonWind]

Welp, if it were me (and so take it with a grain of salt), I'd have been raising my ass off on every street until I met serious resistance. There is no reason not to think you have the best hand until you get reraised, and do you want to give a lone 10,J,Q, or K a free shot at you? I would at the VERY least be raising the river!

The reason I am not worried about an ace is because there is no way in hell he comes out firing on the flop with quads. You'd have to think 1010-KK reraises you here, so why wouldn't you think you're best all the way through?

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I am not worried about an ace is because there is no way in hell he comes out firing on the flop with quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think nearly every time I've flopped quads I almost always come out betting if I'm first to act. This case is even better for someone with quads because people are a lot less likely to put you on the case ace. Anyone with a reasonable PP is going to think they have the best hand, therefore if I were SB I would always bet out here if I had the ace.

[MortalNuts]

hey Stellar --

I'm not as big a fan of a river raise as everyone else seems to be.

Do you guys all really think that SB bets the river again with like 77 (or whatever) against Stellar? Do you think he pays off a call-call-raise line from a TAG opponent that screams either "I have an Ace" or "I have a pocket pair that's possibly best but might not be"? The presence of a third, loose/bad player changes things a fair bit, but I still think the odds that you are ahead of SB go down like, a lot, when he bets the river against a thinking player.

What does he think SW was calling with all this time? KQ? If so, SW isn't paying off a river bet. And why are we all discounting so much the possibility that SB has an Ace? SB should know that SW's range of raising hands is pretty big with only one limper to him in LP, and so his calling or 3-betting hands likewise are pretty broad.

It goes without saying that it's super super easy for SB to 3-bet your river raise, and it's imho pretty easy for him to fold when you raise the river in a protected pot if he has some tiny pair. Is the other player really so bad that he'll pay off not one but two bets on the river with K-high or something?

Ugh.

just my 2, apparently completely flawed, cents.

cheers,

mn

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I am not worried about an ace is because there is no way in hell he comes out firing on the flop with quads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think nearly every time I've flopped quads I almost always come out betting if I'm first to act. This case is even better for someone with quads because people are a lot less likely to put you on the case ace. Anyone with a reasonable PP is going to think they have the best hand, therefore if I were SB I would always bet out here if I had the ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really do think that would be silly. You check, hope a PP bets (in this case the PF raiser, who almost has to have a PP or big cards he thinks will be good), and let him bet to the river and then raise. Hope you get reraised and you're set.

In the unlikely event it is checked around, maybe the turn makes someone a hand, or maybe they think your bet is a bluff and play back at you.

Really, when you've flopped quads against two people, one of whom is a preflop raiser, to come out firing would be totally wrong, and totally antithetical to the way 99% of PP 2/4 players would think.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I am not worried about an ace is because there is no way in hell he comes out firing on the flop with quads.

[/ QUOTE ]
On the contrary, this is the crucial point of the whole deal.

There is no other good way to play an ace postflop. You need to push bets through the very loose fish toward the aggressive player on the button and hope he is more cooperative about raising than I was. Once you check the flop you will find that there is never a right time to take the initiative away from the button. Any checkraise confronts UTG+2 with two bets cold and risks both opponents immediately folding.

Note also that very aggressive postflop TAGs are generally not into slowplaying. Even if SB isn't fully up-to-speed on the last paragraph he is still likely to bet because that's the way he is.

Contrast this with a small pocket pair such as 66. If I started a new thread and offered it as a problem, I'm sure there would be a ton of votes for checkraising the flop and maybe some votes for checkcalling too. Betting the turn and river with the TAG PFR calling are plays that people often make in the heat of battle, but they are also bad plays and I would expect to see SB check at least some of the time.

Each successive postflop bet raises the probability that SB has an ace.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Really, when you've flopped quads against two people, one of whom is a preflop raiser, to come out firing would be totally wrong, and totally antithetical to the way 99% of PP 2/4 players would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

With a likely calling station between me and a PF raiser, I think that betting out is fine. It's not like the PF raiser is going to fold. In fact, there is a good chance that the PF raiser will raise.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
I really do think that would be silly. You check, hope a PP bets (in this case the PF raiser, who almost has to have a PP or big cards he thinks will be good), and let him bet to the river and then raise. Hope you get reraised and you're set.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can do the same thing on the river after betting out on the flop if I really think the PFR has a large pair. I could bet and call a raise on the flop then check-call the turn and c/r the river. Or I think what might work well if the PFR is agressive enough and we know may have a reasonable PP is to do a stop-n-go. Bet out and call a raise on the flop hoping to trap UTG+1, and then bet out again on the turn. If the aggressive player on the button has a large PP, your getting popped again on the turn trapping UTG+1 for two more.

[spamuell]

Cinammon, not sure if I've responded to you before so I'll say that I think your posts are generally good, but I also think you're wrong here:

[ QUOTE ]
to come out firing would be totally wrong, and totally antithetical to the way 99% of PP 2/4 players would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much a contradiction as the way the majority of PP 2/4 players play is wrong. I agree that many players at 2/4 would not just bet an ace on this flop, but they probably should be doing so for reasons your Stellar relation outlined.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Cinammon, not sure if I've responded to you before so I'll say that I think your posts are generally good, but I also think you're wrong here:

[ QUOTE ]
to come out firing would be totally wrong, and totally antithetical to the way 99% of PP 2/4 players would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty much a contradiction as the way the majority of PP 2/4 players play is wrong. I agree that many players at 2/4 would not just bet an ace on this flop, but they probably should be doing so for reasons your Stellar relation outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me explain. Just because most Party players would do it doesn't mean it's wrong. The reason it would be wrong for the SB to come out firing with an ace here is because of the preflop raise, primarily. If I am in the SB and I have just flopped quads, I would check to the raiser, and expect that person to bet. They're not on a big ace, and so they probably raised with a PP or high cards, which they would almost certainly think are good here. It's highly, highly likely they will bet.

If you come out firing, they may fold high cards, thinking you already have a pocket pair or even fearing the ace. And if it's a straight steal with junk, you want to give them the opportunity to keep up with the steal. A low pocket may fold, fearing a smooth call from a higher pocket.

Furthermore, you have one other player in the hand here. If you check to the raiser, who bets, you might get a call from the UTG+2 chasing. If you bet though, and the UTG+2 has to think about it possibly (and probably) being raised behind him, he's likely to fold.

The goal when you flop quads is to extract money. If I am in the SB, I would not bet out because there is a significant chance of 2 folds, and there is a much, much greater chance from extracting money from two players with a check.

I know that there is a thought out there that when you flop an unbeatable hand, people won't give you credit for it often so you might as well bet, but I really think that theory is wrong. It doesn't matter that the PF raiser doesn't give you credit for quads--he probably shouldn't. It matters that if he was aggro raising on Q-6s, he might just fold, whereas if you check he may bet to the river (with the UTG+2 possibly calling) and give you a chance to raise. Furthermore, checks behind you are not that bad, since the turn could give someone a big hand as well, like best boat on the board, and you may make many more bets.

The only way I would even consider betting from the SB here is I was in against a tricky LAG who would think I was making a "play" and raise it up to "catch" me.

Betting out with flopped quads in this spot would, imho, be wrong, and I would never do it. Now against 7 people ... well that'd be different maybe, but probably not. It's a perfect hand to slowplay, as someone might make a fantastic hand and really pay you off.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
It matters that if he was raising on Q-6s, he might just fold, whereas if you check he may bet to the river (with the BB possibly calling) and give you a chance to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to assume when I flop quads against a PF raiser that my opponent has a junk hand.

[J.R.]

There is some merit in Cinamon's argument, not in that the pfr has junk hand but that the pfr might fold if you bet. See stellar's response to my "you would fold KQ" question. I do think the pfr folding this flop is fairly anomolous though.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It matters that if he was raising on Q-6s, he might just fold, whereas if you check he may bet to the river (with the BB possibly calling) and give you a chance to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to assume when I flop quads against a PF raiser that my opponent has a junk hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to check to him. If he doesn't have junk, he'll bet your hand for you the whole way, possibly bringing in the other player who may not believe him. If he does have some junk that he was just getting fancy with, you let him keep up the ruse.

You can raise on the river, particularly if it's low cards, and he may think you just paired and think you're good. Maybe if he's on a high PP he reraises you then and you extract a lot of money.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
There is some merit in Cinamon's argument, not in that the pfr has junk hand but that the pfr might fold if you bet. See stellar's response to my "you would fold KQ" question. I do think the pfr folding this flop is fairly anomolous though.

[/ QUOTE ]

My initial, visceral, reaction was to Cinnamon's claim that it would "be totally wrong" to bet flopped quads against a PF raiser, which I believe was a foolish overgeneralization. In this hand, especially, there is little chance that the PF raiser is going to fold unless he has complete junk (which he may not bet aggressively anyway). Assuming that the PF raiser has a reasonable hand, I believe that flopped quads will probably get more action by just betting out.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is some merit in Cinamon's argument, not in that the pfr has junk hand but that the pfr might fold if you bet. See stellar's response to my "you would fold KQ" question. I do think the pfr folding this flop is fairly anomolous though.

[/ QUOTE ]

My initial, visceral, reaction was to Cinnamon's claim that it is always wrong to bet flopped quads against a PF raiser, which I believe was a foolish overgeneralization. In this hand, especially, there is little chance that the PF raiser is going to fold unless he has complete junk (which he may not bet aggressively anyway). Assuming that the PF raiser has a reasonable hand, I believe that flopped quads will probably get more action by just betting out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea how you think that follows. Not only will the bet possibly scare off UTG+2, but you're almost certainly not going to get a raise out of the PFR unless they hold something very large, like KK or QQ. Even then, many players will back off because of your bet, and almost certainly will if you just call a flop raise, thinking you may be hiding the ace.

The advantage of checking is that when something like an 8-high board appears later (minus the AAA of course), and you suddenly raise, the PFR with a bigger pocket may think you've paired and are betting that, and may raise you until he figures out you might have had the ace all along. When you bet out, most of the time the best you can hope for is a calldown or a single raise, and probably not from both players.

As for it being a "foolish overgeneralization", we may have to agree to disagree. I can't think of many situations where I would be betting out flopped quads on the flop. To me it just doesn't allow your opponents to make really large mistakes (like raising later or bluffing hard) and most importantly it extends to them the opportunity to make a correct fold.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Really, when you've flopped quads against two people, one of whom is a preflop raiser, to come out firing would be totally wrong, and totally antithetical to the way 99% of PP 2/4 players would think.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other day I flopped a boat against a preflop raise, and I led the flop. We capped the flop and turn, and went 3-bets on the river before he finally called.

He then told me I was a moron for betting out on the flop with my boat.

Huh?

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
The other day I flopped a boat against a preflop raise, and I led the flop. We capped the flop and turn, and went 3-bets on the river before he finally called.

He then told me I was a moron for betting out on the flop with my boat.

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]

And then there's this hand from last night:

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Opponent's PT stats suggested that he was loose-aggressive preflop, with average aggression post-flop.

Preflop: chesspain is Button with J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">6 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">chesspain raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, chesspain calls.

Flop: (7 SB) K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">chesspain bets</font>, SB calls.

Turn: (4.50 BB) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">chesspain bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">chesspain 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB caps</font>, chesspain calls.

River: (12.50 BB) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">chesspain raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">chesspain caps</font>, SB calls.

Final Pot: 20.50 BB
<font color="#009B00">Main Pot: 20.50 BB, between SB and chesspain.</font> &gt; <font color="#FFFFFF">Pot won by chesspain (20.50 BB).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
SB has Ad Ac (two pair, aces and jacks).
chesspain has Jh Jd (four of a kind, jacks).
Outcome: chesspain wins 20.50 BB. </font>

[CinnamonWind]

Yes, and the other night I got a set of aces capped on the turn by 88.

So what?

Just because it happens, doesn't mean it's good strategy. I have explained the theory of why I wouldn't bet out an ace if I was the SB here and had it, and you can agree or disagree. Posting a hand where someone played back at you a lot because they happened to already have a big hand doesn't really prove much.

[spamuell]

Chess, in that JJ hand, how many bets would you go if you hadn't quaded on the turn? KK is scary.

Cinammon:

When a strong player open-raises from the CO and the board comes three of one rank, I would pretty much not expect them to fold anything that they deemed worthy of open-raising. Even if they were just getting saucy with a light open-raise, I bet that they will often rationalise to themselves that you are trying to resteal on a scary flop and will often at least call and fold if you bet the turn or even raise in an attempt to take the initiative again with the intention of folding to a 3-bet.

So you're advocating a check-call on the flop from the SB with the case ace, right? You've pretty much thrown away any chance you might have of trapping the weak player in between you for multiple bets unless he has a particularly strong hand and elects to raise, in which case he wouldn't have gone anywhere anyway.

So what are you doing on the turn, check-calling again? Often it will get checked through if the CO has a hand like QJs, or often most big unpaired cards which are not KQ and he might even check this through. He might well call a bet with big cards, but more importantly you miss the bet from the bad player between you, who will often draw with any two cards hoping that to pair he will win.

And even if you get lucky enough that the CO does bet the turn, you certainly can't check-raise. You don't want to make the player between you face two cold and the CO is folding lots of hands to a c/r. If you bet and the middle player calls, the CO might raise and you can just call again and then bet the river again, and you net so much more than you otherwise would have.

Furthermore, it is possible that the CO does have a big pair or the bad player has a pair which he decides is the nuts and you get to go a ton of bets which more than make up for the odd occasion when they would have folded.

I think your suggestion that the CO might have a trash hand which they might fold is a pretty bad way of looking at it though, really. Do you usually put pre-flop raisers on Q6s?

I think the most surprising thing about this whole thread is that Stellar folds KQ if bet into here though on the flop. It just seems like too much of a hand to fold here.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the most surprising thing about this whole thread is that Stellar folds KQ if bet into here though on the flop. It just seems like too much of a hand to fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Only because you are used to fools who call PFRs with whatever is handy.

I have a big sample on this player and he is tighter than me. I'm pretty certain he has an ace or a pair based on preflop. Now he is betting into a PFR and an extremely loose player. KQ is not the best hand here. Certainly not often enough to put 2.5 BB in the pot for a peek at his hand. Since my draw is pathetic I really don't have many options.

[StellarWind]

UTG+2 had KJo.

SB coldcalled with AKo and HHIG. I know what most of you think of his preflop play and I thought the same thing.

I've reconsidered. The coldcall is excellent and a good example of the complexity and subtlety of hold'em.

In a 3-way pot out-of-position versus a PFR and a very loose player, he probably has a 40% chance of winning the pot. By not raising he is sacrificing immediate EV = 3SB * 40% - 1SB = 0.2 SB. You can quibble either way but that's a rough estimate. What's he get in return?

1. Freedom to checkraise the flop knowing that a bet will almost always come from the button.

2. The ability to get paid when he flops an ace (or three). If he had 3-bet preflop I would certainly have folded my nines on the flop. This is equally true with one or two aces on the flop. I can't expect my nines to be good against a sensible player's 3-bet. If he catches me with a worse ace I will undoubtedly at least call him down, but he will lose about 2 BB worth of action because I'll suspect the truth and apply the brakes early. The situation isn't as critical when he flops a king, but he can still expect to do better postflop by calling preflop. He is also likely to make more off UTG+2 postflop. This worthy is not going to fold preflop but two PFRs with an ace on the flop might sober him up.

Thanks to all for making it a very interesting thread.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
UTG+2 had KJo.

SB coldcalled with AKo and HHIG. I know what most of you think of his preflop play and I thought the same thing.

I've reconsidered. The coldcall is excellent and a good example of the complexity and subtlety of hold'em.

In a 3-way pot out-of-position versus a PFR and a very loose player, he probably has a 40% chance of winning the pot. By not raising he is sacrificing immediate EV = 3SB * 40% - 1SB = 0.2 SB. You can quibble either way but that's a rough estimate. What's he get in return?

1. Freedom to checkraise the flop knowing that a bet will almost always come from the button.

2. The ability to get paid when he flops an ace (or three). If he had 3-bet preflop I would certainly have folded my nines on the flop. This is equally true with one or two aces on the flop. I can't expect my nines to be good against a sensible player's 3-bet. If he catches me with a worse ace I will undoubtedly at least call him down, but he will lose about 2 BB worth of action because I'll suspect the truth and apply the brakes early. The situation isn't as critical when he flops a king, but he can still expect to do better postflop by calling preflop. He is also likely to make more off UTG+2 postflop. This worthy is not going to fold preflop but two PFRs with an ace on the flop might sober him up.

Thanks to all for making it a very interesting thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well crap, I guess I couldn't have been more wrong about the SB's holding.

Back to stinking at poker for me!

[Equal]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, I think your line is likely to win the maximum when you are ahead

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, I think he could raise the river to make more than your "maximum" when he's ahead.

Anyway, easy raise on the turn here. If he has the Ace I'm paying him off.

[J.R.]

I'm not trying to hate, but if your opponent was correct to only call with AK from the sb you don't raise often enough from LMP, the cuttoff and the button v. a loose limper. You should have a worse A a fair precentage of the time and lesser things than that, especially with a least one tight player in the blinds (maybe the rake is a bit too much a 2-4 to really expand your standards to the point where they would be optimal sans a rake but you should still be raising a decently wide range of hands here)

If "I can't expect my nines to be good against a sensible player's 3-bet" and you"can fold KQ for one bet on the flop" are true there is even more reason to raise (although the reliability of these reads/lines will be affected by your raising standards), as you won't be 3-bet that often and its easy to read a straightforward player's hand postflop.

BTW, if you are going to consider the postflop advantages of smoothcalling with AK here, you have to consider the postflop advatanges that arise as a result of 3-betting preflop as well (winning pots with sheer aggression). I suspect the postflop scenarios will be more profitable for AK than you seem to surmise, unless you play really squeaky clean postflop, but even then AK should do OK with a very loose limper even out of position.

[Michael Davis]

I raise the flop and hope that SB reraises with a smaller pair to push out the monkey in the middle. If I get threebet by SB right there and the monkey folds I'm definitely getting another raise in somewhere. I do this with 99 but not KK. If both just call I bet the turn and fold to a raise. If SB stop &amp; gos I call down unless the monkey gets involved.

Frankly, I'm just unwilling to accept that a player bets out with quads. I love playing it like that and probably so do some of you, but there aren't many of us in these games, thankfully. People don't bet when they flop quads.

-Michael

[ErrantNight]

i think when flopping quads whether you hold a pocket pair is of supreme importance... and into a large field a bet is almost always correct, as virtually no PP player will put you on quads, and a lot of 2/4 fish will immediately start overvaluing, and hence, overplaying, their hands against what they perceive to be unnecessary aggression.

in a smaller pot like this, i think cinwind's argument has some merit... you're more likely to get worse hands to fold, etc.

however, you're also essentially depending on your action coming from the PFR, and then asking the middle guy to overcall, and hoping that someone along the way spikes a pair (if they don't already have a very nice one). and when you wake up on a later street to start raising, i think you kill the action much more effectively than betting out.

there's a lot of hands that you could have BESIDES the A that would have you lead out on that flop... and cin wind i think you get into the exact line of thinking you're arguing against.

you argue against betting the flop because you aren't getting raised except MAYBE by KK and QQ, and maybe not even then because they fear an A. That's pretty rigid. Also, you're giving the fishy caller credit for noticing his bad position, and thinking about folding if he gets caught between two raisers... and ALSO assuming he doesn't already have something like a pocket pair, or two pieces of broadway he thinks might be good, or could improve to the best hand.

Then you go on to assume that on the turn, whatever falls, will induce more action. That you can bet out on whatever, because your opponents will think you just spiked your pair. Really? you were playing 89s and hit your 8's on the turn? Your opponents are gonna buy that? And if the PFR has a pocket pair and a high broadway falls, your action is almost certainly killed. Your thinking is circular... if the turn comes with a certain card that might "make" me a hand in my opponents eyes that's worse than his, i can bet and he'll raise! if the turn card comes with a certain card it might "make" him his hand and he'll, um, bet again! or raise me if i bet!

i think you have to give credit to UTG+2 for having a decent hand, the PFR for having a better one, and neither one buying that you have an ace.

i think if there's any situation to slowplay your quads, this is it... small pot with an tight, thinking, aggressive opponent. but even here, i think you're taking a gamble of making the least possible amount of money for a chance at taking home a couple extra bets when the right turn card comes and you can wake up without scaring anyone off.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, if you are going to consider the postflop advantages of smoothcalling with AK here, you have to consider the postflop advatanges that arise as a result of 3-betting preflop as well (winning pots with sheer aggression). I suspect the postflop scenarios will be more profitable for AK than you seem to surmise, unless you play really squeaky clean postflop, but even then AK should do OK with a very loose limper even out of position

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be interesting to know what would be more profitable, the disguising of our hand preflop to extract more against a TAG or the ability to use agression to obtain a few more pots after 3-betting.

It seems to me that the advantages illustrated by Stellar by coldcalling against a TAG preflop may outweigh the added value of a 3-bet. My thinking is, what are we going to get a TAG player to fold if we 3-bet here and miss our A or K? If he has AA-QQ, he's not folding at all, if he has JJ or TT and something like a Q or J (respectively) pops on the flop, he's probablly calling down. If he has AQ-AT, KQ-KJ, or worse, he's already behind our cold-called AK anyways, and having a TAG drawing to AQ-AT,KQ-KJ when we hold AK would be nice in this small pot situation, even if we lose a few more pots.

This thread was pretty interesting, even if it did develop into a discussion on how to play flopped quads for a while (pretty much my fault). Even if we open folded every time we flopped quads it probably wouldn't affect our winrate at all. But I think this illustrates situations where when playing against a TAG player HU or TAG+loosie, you can often gain a lot using a little deception. This is especially true, I believe, in situations where we hold a large pair AA/KK and are 3-bet by a TAG and the pot is going to be HU. I think smooth calling as opposed to capping here has some merit. Or in situations like this where we hold a nice PP/AK and its 3-way with a loosie and another TAG.

[J.R.]

Its chicken and egg thing, but my point was that if his opponent is only giving up .2 sb by not 3-betting preflop v. the raneg of hands stellar is raising with v one loose limper from LMP, the CO or the button (which is a decent estimate when stellar holds 99), stellar isn't raising enough preflop.

If he has AQ-AT, KQ-KJ, or worse, he's already behind our cold-called AK anyways, and having a TAG drawing to AQ-AT,KQ-KJ when we hold AK would be nice in this small pot situation, even if we lose a few more pots.

AK is giving up more then .2 sb against these hands, and I'd be raising a much wider range of hands from LMP, the CO and button. AK is also out of position, something that may allow the AK to be outplayed postflop (missing bets, free cards) and weighs more in favor of straightforward preflop play. And as I think about it, maybe I was overestimating the postflop benfits that come from 3-betting (you won't win too much with sheer aggression where you weren't ahead anyway, but then agin your opponents may make some marginally bad folds unless you really opens up the 3-betting standards, but you also are put in some diffciult spots with repect to calling down or folding unimproved and in properly reacting to steallar's postflop repsonses to your bets, i.e. what is stellar's range of hands if he raises a flop or turn).

I'm also still not convinced the right of a flop check-raise is that valuable, because you have to hit (only happens 1/3rd of the time) and the A or K will be obvious, but if stellar will really fold to a flop bet a bit when the flop comes A or K high and the sb 3-bettor leads, the right to check-raise is more valuable as it allows the sb to gain a postflop bet with a bigger advantage than he had preflop.

But I think this illustrates situations where when playing against a TAG player HU or TAG+loosie, you can often gain a lot using a little deception. This is especially true, I believe, in situations where we hold a large pair AA/KK and are 3-bet by a TAG and the pot is going to be HU

I think you give up too much 3+ way, but HU, in positon this is fine. Be careful out of positon unless your oppoent will predictably bet most of the time you check to him.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also still not convinced the right of a flop check-raise is that valuable, because you have to hit (only happens 1/3rd of the time) and the A or K will be obvious

[/ QUOTE ]
There will be promising opportunities to checkraise when you miss the flop. If you 3-bet preflop and bet the flop with an unimproved AK it is likely that no one will make any mistake except maybe not raising with the best hand. Calling preflop and checkraising the flop can be much more destructive precisely because no one has any idea what is happening. Consider J72r (4 players). What am I supposed to do with 99 after you checkraise me and bet the turn? I'm not sure which means I might screw it up. What about AQ? I've already made one mistake by betting and there may be some more to come because my outs look better than they are. How about BB with T9s--is he supposed to call because he actually has 10 outs?

Another advantage derives from this UTG+2 player. If you call preflop and check when you miss, he will usually put a bet in when he made a pair. Thanks for the warning.

General principle (strangely neglected around here): any time you give a decent player accurate and representative information about your hand, he is going to play better. Raising preflop with a typical raising hand costs you money postflop. It can't be any other way.

I'm not advocating a rash of AK calls in the blinds. Conditions need to be just right. My big picture message is twofold:

1. We have too many dogmatic rules around here about required PFRs. Poker is more complicated than that. Those who think for themselves will learn and improve in the long run.

2. Good players know the right way to play typical situations. Expert players know all the right ways to play typical situations. Recognizing that calling in this situation can be OK is the first step to varying your game without ruining your game. You learn to make the offbeat plays like coldcalling AK when conditions are most favorable for doing so. In the process you become an unpredictable player without doing -EV stuff.

[ErrantNight]

nice post.

[J.R.]

I don't disagree that with AK v 99 calling is better, most notably because the preflop edge lost is not that great and there will be greater bluffing equity for AK (ala the chekc-raise bluff you outlined above).

I don't deny there are benfits to being able to check-raise the flop, but I think there is a point where the benefits of being able check-raise select flops (a postflop consideration), along with the other postflop advantages that may come from smoothcalling (such as the the warning bet when the loose guy flops a pair)* are outweighed by:

1) the preflop equity that you sacrifice by not 3-betting AK and

2) the postflop advatages that flow from being the preflop aggressor, such as a) when you induce opponents to make the mistake of folding when they should call (how common this arises is debatable but it is a consideration) and b) the partially neutralizing effect your 3-bet will have on your positional disadvatage by retaining the intitiative. I do recognize there are position neutralizing effects to smoothcalling preflop, as in a "check to the pfr" game you will effectively be acting after the pfr without leaking any info about your hand. When you smoothcall, you tend to more neutralize an aggressive bettor's positional advatage, as you can check-raise a fair bit, but against a more passive player you obviously expose yourself to a greater risk of giving free cards by smoothcalling out of position, especially if you are thinking about check-raising the turn.

My point is broader, in that when I'm in the sb with AKo and someone raises in LMP, the CO or the button after one loose limper I don't know they have 99 but have to put them on a range of hands. The tighter that range of hands, the less preflop equity I sacrifice by smoothcalling. The wider that range of hands, the greater the equity I sacrifice by smooth calling preflop.

In the case of your preflop actions from LMP, the CO and the button after one loose limper with at least one tight player in the sb and an unkown BB), I would think there is a wide range of hands with which you could profitably raise. Therefore against your range of open-raising hands (such as suited aces, A9o, Kings with broadway kickers, etc.) and the loose player's range of open-limping hands, AKo has significant equity and gives up more by not raising than had you being raising more tightly. Pokerstove is helpful for this stuff, but I'm too tired to run sims on actual hand ranges, and even if we found the preflop edges the postflop edges can't be quantified specifically enough to "prove" a theory about when AK should limp or raise.

Your post is great, thanks for taking the time. I agree it isn't necessarily an auto raise with AKo in a similar spot, but fear the tone of your post (presuassiveness isn't a bad trait) may sway people to call more than they should in similar spots.


* I don't know how far the deception goes, however, as in your earlier posts in the thread you were fairly well able to narrow down your TAG opponenet's range of smoothcalling hands, so its not as if a TAG's flop smoothcall of your LP raise after one loose limper goes unnoticed.