KQo versus limp-reraise

[Nate tha' Great]

Party 15/30.

I have K /images/graemlins/heart.gif Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif UTG+1 and raise an unknown UTG limper. My table image is tightish. All fold back to UTG who 3-bets, I call.

Flop Q /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif. He checks, I check.

Turn 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. He bets, I call.

River Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif. He bets, I call.

[TStoneMBD]

well played

[theBruiser500]

I think just based on hand combinations out of the hands he will limp reraise with there, he will have AK a lot and will call a river raise. Plus you can safely fold to a 3 bet.

[TStoneMBD]

bruiser i think nate took this line because AK cannot check this flop and risk a free card. AK is also not a hand strong enough to checkraise on this flop. the pfr has nothing to gain by checking, and therefore is either slowplaying a set, has KK or TT. thats why i agree with nates line. i dont know how often opponents will pay off a river raise with KK or TT, but not enough of the time to make it profitable. i also dont think you can fold to a 3bet on the river comfortably.

[bicyclekick]

I don't think there is any other way to play this hand. I don't like a river raise at all.

[sthief09]

I agree that the flop check is a blatant check-raise attempt, but you said to me once, and I think of this everytime I'm putting someone on a set, "sets just don't happen that much in hold'em." can we put him on aces full with that much certainty? can he have AK some of the time? I suppose AQ and JJ are possibilities too though. I'm tempted to raise the river, but AK really is your only hope (or a bluff taht won't pay off).

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
bruiser i think nate took this line because AK cannot check this flop and risk a free card. AK is also not a hand strong enough to checkraise on this flop. the pfr has nothing to gain by checking, and therefore is either slowplaying a set, or missed. thats why i agree with nates line

[/ QUOTE ]


if nate was playing against you, I'd agree. but he's not. he's likely playing against a somewhat tricky player, most likely a LAG, who is very capable of check-raising AK on the flop. I think the fact that AQ and JJ also beat him probably makes calling better.

[theBruiser500]

k, you convinced me MBD

[Chris Daddy Cool]

hi nate, i know you'd never fold to a limpreraise, i wouldn't online against an unknown, but i would live in this spot.

flop: good job.

turn: what do you put him on at this point?

river: i agree with not raising, but what would you have done unimproved? i hope the answer is fold.

[Joe Tall]

Hey Nate,

Nice hand.

Go Pats!
Joe Tall

[Irishboy]

why in the hell would he fold an unimproved river? so the guy can take down a pot with TT?

[Nate tha' Great]

Chris,

I was going to call him down without knowing anything about him at all.

[Stork]

Nate, did you think he had you beat on the turn?

[Chris Daddy Cool]

fair enough.

though my first question, what did you put him on at the turn? or the fact the he's unknown makes this unanswerable, hence the calldown?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate, did you think he had you beat on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably.

[Paluka]

I think this hand is well played. Most limp re-raises on partypoker from unknowns are not aces, but they could be. I would have called the river unimproved.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
fair enough.

though my first question, what did you put him on at the turn? or the fact the he's unknown makes this unanswerable, hence the calldown?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's either very strong or very weak as of the turn. Absent the clean gutshot out, I probably would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But once I've gotten to the river, I'm going to look him up for one more bet.

[Luke]

Well played Nate. The river is the only debatable play but I think a call is right.

I also hope/assume you were going to call down even if you didn't hit another queen.

Luke

[fyodor]

[ QUOTE ]
he's likely playing against a somewhat tricky player, most likely a LAG, who is very capable of check-raising AK on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You got all that from this?:

[ QUOTE ]
unknown UTG limper

[/ QUOTE ]

[ggbman]

I would like to put forth what i feel is a good analysis of this hand although it seems to go against the grain of what people are saying. Thats a scary flop and checking is the obvious move. Now when he bets the turn you have to consider your options. If you feel has any set you are drawinf to four outs and need to fold. I you think he has AK or is tricky enough to make this move with a hand like TT, QQ, and you may be ahead, then calling is ok here. But if you call here, you need to be think that you are are either ahead or drawing to 6 outs, if you think you have only 4 you must fold the turn. What this boils down to is if your hand is good enough to call the turn, it;s good enough to raise the river. I'm sure someone can come up with an argument to this which i am happy to consider, it's just my opinion.

[slavic]

What this boils down to is if your hand is good enough to call the turn, it;s good enough to raise the river.

River play and hand play are independent dependencies. (Try saying that 4 times) On the turn you need to assess your hand versus the other player’s range of hands, figure outs work in the pot odds and evaluate implied odds. From this we can choose to fold, call or raise.

The river does not contain all of these complexities. It does however present some new ones. Again we need to evaluate our hand strength versus the raisers and evaluate if calling is worthwhile. If the pot offers us a fair price for the call then we should do so. The next thing we should do is evaluate a raise, if we put in more money (over a call) on the river it needs to do one of two things for us. One it needs to be of value in that we expect to make more money than we put in over time. (This is over simplified a bit see TOP: “River Play”) Two, it significantly increases our chances of winning the pot more than if we just call. So if we are 3 handed on the river the pot is decently large, and you are bet into, it may be correct to raise to prevent an overcall even though we expect to lose money on that bet overall. By preventing the overcall we increase our chances of winning the pot enough to make up for the extra bet.

In this case the caller evaluated that his hand had enough of a chance as a call on the turn given the range of hands. On the river his hand improves but so does the range of hands that may have him beat, such that his relative hand strength really hasn’t improved much. His hand strength, lack of knowledge of the opponent and the size of the pot dictate a call for him, but he feels there would be little expectation on an additional bet.

There is also one benefit that we get going forward from playing this hand in this fashion. We see a showdown to help develop our view of the UTG opponent.

[girgy44]

Raise the river, IMO.

[TStoneMBD]

i dont understand what youre talking about here slavic, youre thread confuses me. i think youre saying you should raise the turn or that you have to raise the river simply because you called the turn. if thats what youre saying thats ridiculous. firstly, you have a gutshot draw to go with your Q on the turn which is a huge reason to call. you are ahead here a portion of the time as well. raising the turn, folding to a 3bet and checking the river is a terrible play if that is what you are advising. you have outs, and you dont want to be forced to fold them.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
Party 15/30

[/ QUOTE ]

from my short forays into the mid high forum, he probably got it from this.

[ggbman]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand what youre talking about here slavic, youre thread confuses me. i think youre saying you should raise the turn or that you have to raise the river simply because you called the turn. if thats what youre saying thats ridiculous. firstly, you have a gutshot draw to go with your Q on the turn which is a huge reason to call. you are ahead here a portion of the time as well. raising the turn, folding to a 3bet and checking the river is a terrible play if that is what you are advising. you have outs, and you dont want to be forced to fold them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if he doesn't think the Queen is an out, should he even be calling the turn?

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]


But if he doesn't think the Queen is an out, should he even be calling the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]


He thinks a queen *might* be an out. He also thinks he may already be winning. Your comment shows a complete lack of understanding concerning the risk/reward of a river raise.

[slavic]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand what youre talking about here slavic, youre thread confuses me. i think youre saying you should raise the turn or that you have to raise the river simply because you called the turn. if thats what youre saying thats ridiculous. firstly, you have a gutshot draw to go with your Q on the turn which is a huge reason to call. you are ahead here a portion of the time as well. raising the turn, folding to a 3bet and checking the river is a terrible play if that is what you are advising. you have outs, and you dont want to be forced to fold them.

[/ QUOTE ]

TStoneMBD - I was replying to the statement highlighted in my answer. I gave no advice for the play of this hand, just that the statement has a logical flaw that can be quite costly.

The reason I gave no advice for the hand is I think several people have already summed it up quite nicely.

Thanks,
slavic

[slavic]

But if he doesn't think the Queen is an out, should he even be calling the turn?

The hero only has to think he is ahead 25% of the time to call this down. This numbers floats a bit lower since he has outs to the nuts and some dubious outs to add in.

Now to raise the river he has to feel that he is ahead around 55% of the time. So you can see that even if the Hero hits a dubious out it can put him in a range were he can call but he can not raise.