Hand to Talk About

[Mason Malmuth]

Here's a hand I played a couple of nights ago in a $40-$80 stud game with a $10 ante at The Mirage.

The game was full and I was dealt KdTdKh with the Kh up. My hand was completely live. The first three players passed, I raised (to $40), the next couple of players folded, I was then reraised by a player with the As up and I consider this player to be too loose and aggressive, the remaining players folded, and I called.

On fourth street my opponent caught the Qc and I caught the Jh (which is a straight flush card to my doorcard). He bet, I raised, and he called.

On fifth street my opponent caught another queen and I paired my doorcard giving me three kings. I bet, my opponent raised, I reraised, and he called.

On sixth street we each caught blanks. I bet and he called.

On the river I caught another blank. I bet, my opponent called and my three kings beat his aces-up. However, my opponent had the remaining king in his hand as a down card. So there is a good chance that he started with a pair of aces and a king kicker.

All comment welcome.

[MD_]

What is there to talk about? You started out behind, caught up, and raised appropriately. Just sounds like an ordinary, straight-forward, good catch.

-MD

well it shows that even when you read a player as too loose and aggresive that doesnt mean that he cant have a real hand. we always make decisions based on things liek 'he is a loose player" and assume that we have him beat with a pair of kings. but an ace is a dangerous card.

here is something for you to think about: how did mason's opponent play when faced with masons board? also, it is not certain that mason was behind, or at least that is what masons opponent believed. so how do yourate mason's play in that respect?

Pat

Seems like a "knowing you, knowing me" type of hand that frequently occurs. You know he's aggressive, so you bet your kings into his ace on third, then do it again on fourth when you catch a "scare" card in hopes of setting him up for a laydown later if he doesn't have the aces he's representing. But he may know that you know he bluffs too much, and are consequently more likely to play back at him. So when you pair your doorcard, the fact he has a king in the hole makes him think you may be semi-bluffing with a sf draw and pair of kings. Hence his reraise. Why not reraise again on 6th? He's a big dog to fill, and you can fill your kings to beat one of his full houses. Or did you feel if you did this, he'd check fold the river rather than check call?

[ChrisConstantine]

2+2=3?

Why no reraise from you on 3rd?

Why didn't he reraise you on 4th IF he had aces?

WHY did he raise on 5th!? To see if you REALLY had three kings? If you don't reraise he takes over the betting? He takes it over anyway if you check your kings on 6th.

Your opponent seems irrational and reactionary, betting and raising on whim as much as reason.

I don't think he started with aces. I believe he was trying to resteal it from you and then his hand kept improving. Finally he believed you might have three kings, probably after you inadvertly smiled for the first time that night. Or some such tell that reactionary players unconsiously tune in to. Like the reraise.

[Mason Malmuth]

Why no reraise from you on 3rd?

First, there's a chance he had aces. Second, it does no good to reraise. In stud, you need to think about winning the pot and just making it bigger will just encourage both of you to go to the river.

Why didn't he reraise you on 4th IF he had aces?

Fourth street is the most interesting part of this hand. I happen to catch a straight flush card. Given that's what I caught, he probably shouldn't bet. Furthermore, when I catch a card like this, if I don't fold, I'm frequently inclined to reraise whether it truly helps me or not. There is now value in representing a different hand (which might easily be a favorite over aces).

WHY did he raise on 5th!? To see if you REALLY had three kings? If you don't reraise he takes over the betting? He takes it over anyway if you check your kings on 6th.

I assumed during the play of the hand that my fourth street raise threw him off a correct read and he assumed that I did not have kings. Thus his aces-up would be a favorite and thus his raise. If I make it three bets on fifth and then check on sixth, there is a good chance he doesn't bet.

Your opponent seems irrational and reactionary, betting and raising on whim as much as reason.

Well, isn't that what you want. I like to think that my raise on fourth street when I caught the straight flus card had something to do with it. But the reality is that he may have started with aces and a king kicker and refused to believe I had made a set of kings.

I don't think he started with aces. I believe he was trying to resteal it from you and then his hand kept improving. Finally he believed you might have three kings, probably after you inadvertly smiled for the first time that night. Or some such tell that reactionary players unconsiously tune in to. Like the reraise.

You might be right, but I think he did probably start with the pair of aces. My making it three bets on fifth street is a fairly strong tell that I actually do have three kings.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason:

You simply outdrew him. Neither one of you was going to fold. He started with a superior hand and with the King, he had more info about your possibilities than you had about his.

You got lucky and outdrew him. Both of you were going to stay in unless some major event changed the course of the hand. He had the best starting hand and with the king he also had more information about your hand than you had about his.

I like Malmuth’s play on this hand. I’m almost embarrassed to admit it, but I probably would have passively, and wrongly, called on fourth-street, giving my opponent credit for probably having Aces, and giving me no clue of what I was going to do on fifth-street. As the hand played out, Malmuth may have hit his one out with the case King, but because of his raise on fourth-street, the hand paid off nicely.

But that’s not all. I think Malmuth’s play would have been better even if he had never hit the King. If both players hit blanks on fifth-street, what do the Aces, who have to act first, do? It’s a good thing when your opponent is in a quandary.

By just calling on fourth-street, the Aces have no reason not to bet the hand to the river, and I would have been the one scratching his head. The bottom line, I think, is that the raise on fourth-street was defensively as well as offensively superior to just calling fourth-street.

Tom D