Who's the bigger sucker?

[Ulysses]

6-12. Super loose-aggressive table. Pocket 7s in CO.

A couple of limpers to me. I limp in. SB raises (this means absolutely nothing) and it's surprisingly just called around to me. I call. 7 players in.

Flop is Qs,4s,4d.

SB bets (??). MP calls (worst player at the table, overplays most of his hands a lot). MP2 calls (100% certain he is on flush draw). I call. Button calls.

Turn is 7s,Qs,4s,4d. Beautiful. MP bets (which means he either has a 4 or a flush). MP2 calls with his made non-nut flush. I call. Others fold.

River is Kd,7s,Qs,4s,4d. MP bets. MP2 calls. I raise. MP 3-bets. I know he puts me on flush. SUCKER. MP2 mucks. I 4-bet. MP 5-bets. Crap. What now? Heads-up, no limit....

[Ulysses]

I ponder a while and then just call the 5th bet. I figure I either got suckered in by QQ/44 or rivered by KK. We both toss over our hands and my opponent starts to drag in the pot. Except that the dealer has to stop him because my 7s full of 4s beat his 4s full of Queens.

I really wanted to 6-bet, but I just couldn't put this guy on Q4/K4/47. My opponent said that he would never have stopped raising as he was sure I had the Ace-high flush.

Why no raise on the turn? I figure that if I raise the turn, I'm likely to get called down there, then check-called on the river. However, if I wait until the river, I'm more likely to get 3-bet by someone who thinks I'm making a play. Thoughts?

[Michael Davis]

Ulysses,

At some point, you have to consider the possibility that your lone opponent has 44. As you reasoned, that was pretty much the only hand he could have. Most of my opponents would raise preflop with QQ, which you included as a possibility, but maybe this player would not.

Why did you call the bet on the flop? By my count, you were getting 17-1 pot odds on your call. I guess your two sevens are pretty safe outs, but there is a pair on board and you do not close the action, and a raise from the rear would seriously cut down your implied odds. Also, how can you be 100% sure that a player has a flush draw? Couldn't he have shown up with 44 and just smooth called on the flop?

As to your question, if my opponent were a reasonable player, I would have stopped raising when you did and expected to be shown 44. But if K4s and Q4s are also on his playing list, a couple more bets might be warranted, if you also know that he will always raise preflop with QQ.

Mike

[Hat Trick]

I definitely would have raised on the turn but I agree with your stopping at 5 bets on the river, no point in keeping that going unless you have the mortal nuts and you were far from that.

[yct]

First of all, why not pop him plus the limper on the turn?

Secondly, since you've said he over plays his hand often, and is a bad player, with your fairly strong hand, I would've put in 5-6 big bets at the end. With board being KQ744 and no raise preflop, he's more likely to have K4 or Q4 than KK, QQ, or 44.

However, a different scenario that I see quite often is that if the board is KQQ74 or KKQ74 instead, then your full house 7 is not as good and often your opponent will have a better full house when they show strength on the expensive streets, because now K4 or Q4 is a higher full house than 7 full.

[Ulysses]

"Most of my opponents would raise preflop with QQ, which you included as a possibility, but maybe this player would not."

He probably would have as well. QQ was an unlikely holding, but when you get 5-bet you start thinking. As you deduced, I was more worried about 44, though.

"Why did you call the bet on the flop? By my count, you were getting 17-1 pot odds on your call."

Purely based on the game. Against a different lineup, it's a fold. Here, I had a good shot at having the best hand and knew I would get paid off big-time if I hit.

"Also, how can you be 100% sure that a player has a flush draw? Couldn't he have shown up with 44 and just smooth called on the flop?"

VERY slight possibility it's 44. But seriously, it's hard to describe how easy to read that guy is. A true gift to the game.

[Ulysses]

"First of all, why not pop him plus the limper on the turn?"

That was the toughest decision. At that point, I thought I was most likely against trip 4s and a non-nut flush, who would both call one raise and then only the flush would call one bet on the river. Based on those reads, I felt I could extract a couple more bets by waiting until the river to raise, where both are more likely to call - and maybe even three bet. Still, I'm not sure that was the right decision - which is why I brought it up in my post.

"Secondly, since you've said he over plays his hand often, and is a bad player, with your fairly strong hand, I would've put in 5-6 big bets at the end."

Well, I did put in 5, so I got close.

"With board being KQ744 and no raise preflop, he's more likely to have K4 or Q4 than KK, QQ, or 44."

While you're correct statistically speaking, the action on the river has to make you consider those holdings. It's just like having AA when the board is AJJ. Yes, it's unlikely that your opponent has JJ, but every once in a blue moon he actually does...

I was a bystander in a CRAZY hand the other day.

Player 1: AA
Player 2: AK
Player 3: JJ
Player 4: Qh10h

Flop: 10,Jh,Kh
Turn: As,10,J,K
River: K,A,10,J,K

Let's just say there was a lot of action.

And just two days ago, I got dealt these seven hands in a row: AA,JJ,AKo,KK,AQ,AKs,AA. First AA, AQ, and AKs lost, the other four won.

My point? It's important to know which hands are statistically likelier, but it's more important to listen to the action.

[Jimbo]

Ulysses said "My point? It's important to know which hands are statistically likelier, but it's more important to listen to the action." I tend to disagree with that summary of your post. Assume for a moment you watched a player who knew little or nothing about statistics (not TOO hard to imagine huh?). This player could only judge by the action, wouldn't he get bluffed (successfully) a great deal more often than yourself? That alone makes this knowledge at least as important if not more so than the action. I suppose one with out the other is just as useless so in conjunction they have a great deal of value, seperately, marginal value.

Jimbo

[Ulysses]

"I suppose one with out the other is just as useless so in conjunction they have a great deal of value, seperately, marginal value."

Good point.