$200 SNG - I got reamed for this river bet - was it that bad?

[UMTerp]

I'm doing this from memory, so numbers may not be exactly right, but the gist of the hand is.

$210+$15 Turbo SNG on Stars. 25-50 level, 8 players left. One player is around ~3000, the rest (including myself and my opponent in this hand) are about ~1500.

I'm on the button with TT (suits not important). Two limpers, I raise to 200, blinds fold, first limper folds, second limper (Hassan) calls.

Flop (525 in pot) K53r. Hassan bets 200, I call.

Turn (925 in pot, both of our stacks ~1100) 6. Check-check.

River K. He bets 50, I raise to 300.

He called, tabled 99, and told me for about 5 minutes how dumb the river bet was. FWIW, if he had checked, I'd have checked behind. I thought his blocking bet screamed that he wanted a cheap showdown though, and I was fairly certain I was ahead given his bet. That bet told be he had showdown potential, but wanted to see it for free (50 chips). I thought I could get a little more value out of the hand too. Obviously, I don't want to be reraised here, but I think I'd have called an all-in reraise on the river.

Was is that bad? Should I have just taken the cheap showdown? I think most players would just call the 50 without thinking. The only hands I really could imagine him having that would call the 300 that I'd lose to are JJ and KQs. On the other hand, 77-99 seemed very plausible, or even something like 56s, 67s, etc.

Genius play /images/graemlins/wink.gif or too reckless?

[pooh74]

u already know the answer to this one...good play...he is just being a baby and has a big mouth...

BTW, does he have a daarth vader avatar? Think ive played w/ before

[UMTerp]

Yeah, that's the one.

And I don't think it's that clear-cut. The river play is pretty debatable IMO.

[UMTerp]

Also, anyone see a better line from start to finish? I think I'd have lost him with a turn bet. Agree?

[alexbrew]

I think he's carried away by "never bet the river if you're only going to be called by a better hand". -- But he called!

I think you played it well. You made a read, and you trusted your read to be correct. By trusting a correct read you executed "The Theory of Poker". "... Every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose."

That's what you did. He lost chips. He was mad over it.

[raptor517]

a questionable thing could happen with a river raise that small. he could come all in over the top. then what do you do? however, i do like the play of the hand, as i think u extracted a good amount from him. he played the hand very poorly, but i think u did a good job. i DO like the river raise, but if he comes over the top all in u have to fold, which is sometimes reason enough to just call.

[UMTerp]

How should he have played his hand (ignoring preflop which is debtable, but OK)? I don't think his line was terrible either. If he'd have bet 150 or 200 on the river, he'd have probably lost a few less chips. I think check-fold is a pretty weak line on the flop for 99 here too.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
a questionable thing could happen with a river raise that small. he could come all in over the top. then what do you do? however, i do like the play of the hand, as i think u extracted a good amount from him. he played the hand very poorly, but i think u did a good job. i DO like the river raise, but if he comes over the top all in u have to fold, which is sometimes reason enough to just call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's obviously the debatable part about the bet, but I think I'd have begrudgingly called an all-in reraise on the river. Players in the $200 are very capable of making that move with a hand worse than TT there.

[pooh74]

I personally, being a weak river player, (NO Notes TERp!!!! I know where you hang out too!!) wouldve cold called...you, however, IMO made a good play because as was pointed out, you had a read and stuck to it...he's mad because he tried to rep a bigger hand by throwing out the minimum to show he was "strong" by appearing "weak"....reverse reverse psychology. It didnt work on you, he felt that his play was so clever that it was lost on you and that's why he lost more chips and hence his frustration. FWIW, he crtiques play CONSTANTLY at the table...I was watching a 1000+50 SNG on stars and he wouldnt shutup...

anyhoo, dont be so hard on yourself...

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
a questionable thing could happen with a river raise that small. he could come all in over the top. then what do you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think thats mostly what the guy was upset about, or, i mean, not really upset, but giving hero a lecture about...

Exactly waht you said man, if he comes back over at you (and being a $200+15, i can give him credit for being able to outplay anybody on a given hand), well, you are now going to put all your stack in? give up the hand?

I like the play of how this hand went, on all streets except river. Personally, i would be happy just calling his "block-bet" (good term btw, never heard that before), simply to avoid giving him the opportunity to come back at me, legit or bluff.

In hindsight, of course, we know he didnt have trip kings, so he likely feared that hero had them, but that wasnt info known at the time of the decision.

Anywho....i generally liked this hand....good hand, i just would have not tried to charge him a big price on the river. Of course, i dont play 200's either, so perhaps i dont comprehend the value of some of the "tricks" you big boys play.

Oh, one other thing:

You had TT. He had 99.....ok, you played "smart"
You have TT. He had JJ....now, you kick yourself. You could have got a showsown for 50 bucks.

There is no way to know, if you both have mid/high PP, if you are in the lead. If you can discern the RANK of a mid-PP based on an opponents p/f action.....well, good on you, cause i cant.


Edit: Of course, in the 5 minutes it takes to type this up, several other posts come in, saying everything i did.

[pooh74]

Nice post limpin...

I think Terp, if there is something to said concisely about your play on the river it is this....Most of the time (perhaps not this time) you will have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by that sort of play...iow, if youre beat youll lose (in addition to the pot already at play) your raise and maybe a reraise...if youre ahead, villain will fold to your raise. Thats why, if it at all, its a questionable play...the fact the HE questioned it is the funny part.

[Big Limpin']

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'd have lost him with a turn bet. Agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have trouble grasping his thoughts on calling your river bet. What does he beat? You raised p/f. At 25-50. He cant put you on lower pair (pocket <88 or 2nd/3rd button on board). But, he seemed to put a reasonable value on his hand. So, i doubt we can say with any certainty what he would do if you bet turn.

A turn bet, the board would only have ONE king, so a pair seems more likely, you know? Yeah, i think you could have got him to drop on the turn.

He called 250 raise on river. I think the turn bet would have to be that size or bigger to make him drop it. IMO.

But heres a question: You bet half-pot (or so) on turn, which he calls. River is the same 2nd king. Whether he checks or bets his little 50 bet, are you pulling the river raise again here? Or just shut it down?

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
But heres a question: You bet half-pot (or so) on turn, which he calls. River is the same 2nd king. Whether he checks or bets his little 50 bet, are you pulling the river raise again here? Or just shut it down?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's almost no chance it'd have come to that if I bet half the pot on the turn. He'd have either check-raised me all-in or (more likely) folded. He's not dumb enough too call off what would presumably be his whole stack with 99 in that spot. I'd have laid down to a turn check-raise all-in, which was why I didn't bet that street. And I'd have definitely checked behind on the river on the off-chance it played out like that. The river king was actually one of the better cards (psychologically) in the deck for me.

[alexbrew]

While everyone agrees this isn't a "standard" play, and shouldn't be done regularly, there's two more reasons I think it's ok on occasion.

1) It keeps another player from controlling you at the table. If you're going to call when they want a call, and check when they want a check, you're going to fight an uphill battle to get their chips.

2) It's a good long term "this guy's a loose fish at the table," if people take notes on this one play and ignore the 98% of the time you call down the iffy play and raise the monsters. PS $225 is a small enough pool to believe this might have value.

[SpeakEasy]

First, I wouldn't play "turbo". What, normal single-table SNG too slow? In my opinion, the "turbo" game injects too much luck, significantly reduces strategy, and is a transparent way to churn the rake for SNGs. But that's just me, and irrelevant to the hand.

I would have raised on the flop to define the hand. This probably would have shut things down there -- likely he would either re-raise or fold.

As played, in the river I just call, not raise. Generally, I think this raise is a bad move. I would completely ignore his rant. He's trying to condition you for future play. Just turn the chat off.

[UMTerp]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I wouldn't play "turbo". What, normal single-table SNG too slow? In my opinion, the "turbo" game injects too much luck, significantly reduces strategy, and is a transparent way to churn the rake for SNGs. But that's just me, and irrelevant to the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree about the Turbos, particularly at the lower levels. You may have a point once you get to $100 and above buy-ins, since the vast majority of the players at those levels are very competent, and it often does turn into a crapshoot. At the $50/$55 and below level, I without a doubt prefer the Turbos though, for a number of reasons (this could probably be it's own thread too):

First of all, the rake is lower, though I understand the point you were trying to make. It's 50% lower for the "10's" ($15's), 25% lower for the $20's, and 10% lower for the $50's.

I think my ROI could be slight ly higher if I played the "regular" SNGs instead of the Turbos, but as far as hourly rate, I don't think it's even close. A Turbo generally takes about 60%-70% as long as a normal one, so unless you think you could increase your ROI by 50%+ playing the regular ones, Turbo has the edge there.

And now the two main reasons:

1. I genereally 8-table the Turbo SNGs, which causes me to play a little more mechanical than optimally. Again, my ROI could be higher if I played less tables, but I'm more concerned about hourly. I can pound out 8 Turbos in about 45 minutes from start of the first one to end of the 8th one. Longer levels would force me to "play poker" a little more at the early levels, which although I'm fully capable of, it's not the highest EV for me. I'd rather just survive the first few levels of these, playing premium hands only, and letting 2 or 3 people knock themselves out in the first 15 minutes, which happens almost every tournament. Which brings me to my second (and more important IMO) consideration for playing the Turbos:

2. I believe I'm a little more mathematically-inclined than the majority of the players playing these, even at the higher levels, and once the blinds get high enough, it really is a math game. Push or fold. Players at the lower levels tend to fold way too often, and it's also not uncommon to have several players at the table limp in and fold to a raise even when the blinds are at 150-300 or 200-400. This is TERRIBLE play, and play that can easily be exploited for profit without much thinking on my part. To take a term from a thread Sklansky started a few weeks ago, I "shoot my free throws" better than the vast majority of the players in these things. And in the Turbos, I reach the point where I can use this skill to my advantage more quickly than in the regular SNGs.

I could see where a player with different strengths might prefer the longer SNGs with more play at lower blinds, but that's not for me, at least not while I'm running 8 games.

[PE101]

You're much more patient than I am:
[ QUOTE ]
He called, tabled 99, and told me for about 5 minutes how dumb the river bet was.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have diabled his chat long before that.

Nice play.

[B00T]

Nice post on your reasoning of Turbos. I always preferred them as well but couldnt really think or explain why. That summed it up well for me and gives me some reinforcement. Thanks for that post.

[The once and future king]

Hassan just has a massively inflated opinion of his own abilty and likes to play table captain and give lectures, especaily after he loses a hand.

[Graham]

Pretty clear Hassan has a medium pair here. He shoulda followed up on the turn for a few hundred imo. Risking chips but you've not shown heat on teh flop.

I'da just called his river bet.

Hassan likes to think you don't play well unless you play/think like him. He does a lot of hand chatting at teh tables.

[SpeakEasy]

Interesting analysis of the Turbo games. I might check into this, with the strategies that you mention. But there is no way I could 8-table anything, ever. Again, that's just me.

Not exactly a thread hijacking, but close...