Am I an idiot?

[RDWallace]

So I'm playing 3-6pl on party, my stack is at $1040. Villain in the hand is MP2, has me covered narrowly. The game is pretty loose and passive, lots of limping into pots, calling raises and folding on the flop. Very little raising from flop on. I have zero starting hand requirements at this point--I've been winning a ton of pots without showdowns with nothing, and I've yet to be caught bluffing. The one hand i actually have showed down was AA against a shortstack where i limped in and value bet him down.
I'm dealt K4s in the cutoff, Villain makes it $15 to play and I put him squarely on AJ AQ or AK, although a mid pair is possible. I call and the BB calls with $340 behind. BB tends towards passive play, calling half pot bets relatively liberally.
The flop is Kh7s9h, BB checks and MP2 bets $15. AT this point I have no doubt he raised preflop with AJ or AQ, or possibly TT. I make a minimum raise, the BB thinks and calls, and MP2 calls as well.
The turn is the Ac, it's checked to me and I also check.
The river is the 5c. BB leads $126 (the pot) and i immediately figure him for a steal attempt. I expect MP2 to call his bet, which MP2 does immediately. I respond by raising the pot. Thoughts?

[freemoney]

yes. thats the answer to your question, simply yes.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I an idiot?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes
Clue number 1:
[ QUOTE ]
I have zero starting hand requirements at this point

[/ QUOTE ]
Clue number 2:
[ QUOTE ]
The flop is Kh7s9h...I make a minimum raise

[/ QUOTE ]
Clue number 3:
[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt he raised preflop with AJ or AQ, or possibly TT...The turn is the Ac, it's checked to me and I also check. The river...BB leads $126 (the pot) and i immediately figure him for a steal attempt. I expect MP2 to call his bet, which MP2 does immediately. I respond by raising the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Clues 1 and 2 are straightforward. Bad hands aren't bad because they're hard to bluff with-they're bad because if you hit you're still behind and feel like you have to put money in.
As for the river, if he has 1010 there's no value in raising and if he has AQ or AJ he's going to call-which is more obviously going to pop into MP2's head? That your min-raise of an underbet on the flop in a 3-way pot is a sign of a set, AK or two-pair or that you've seen two players check the turn and one player just call a river bet and you're pouncing on the weakness you smell? The latter's much more likely and I'd call here with AQ or AJ barring BB participation. With the exception of the turn, I'd say you screwed up every street. Unless there's some dynamic between you and MP2 that you're not telling us about this seems like a terrible line.

[RDWallace]

On the river I no longer thought TT was a likely holding for MP2, so this raise was definitely not for value. Even though the BB seemed likely to be bluffing MP2 could not have called in this spot without the top pair on the board as long as I remained to act behind him. Basically I was hoping that coming over the top of two players on the river after a minraise on the flop would look a lot like top or middle set, or possibly AK. In retrospect I realize it probably just looked like a bluff, because with a set I would have been forced to bet the turn with the possible draws on board. The bb in fact threw his hand away, MP2 thought for awhile and called me with AQ. I think my biggest mistake in the hand was misjudging MP2...I'd figured that he would not get married to his top pair and would be willing to back down in the face of a big river bet. The minraise on the flop was to find out where I was at with the hand.

[bobby rooney]

My guess at the results is that you are in dead last by the river and that your raise gets called in at least one spot. If they both folded, then my had goes off to you because at least one of them likely folded a better K.

[Jason Strasser]

The thing about bluffing that is sometimes forgot is that good bluffs represent hands. You are representing 68? Uhhh huhm. When I get confused I tend to force my opponents to show me a hand and I think many players on party take this to an extreme even. You dont represent a hand. Aggression is good but this is just spewing.

Dont they teach you anything at Stanford?
-Jason

[zaxx19]

On the river I no longer thought TT was a likely holding for MP2, so this raise was definitely not for value. Even though the BB seemed likely to be bluffing MP2 could not have called in this spot without the top pair on the board as long as I remained to act behind him. Basically I was hoping that coming over the top of two players on the river after a minraise on the flop would look a lot like top or middle set, or possibly AK. In retrospect I realize it probably just looked like a bluff, because with a set I would have been forced to bet the turn with the possible draws on board. The bb in fact threw his hand away, MP2 thought for awhile and called me with AQ. I think my biggest mistake in the hand was misjudging MP2...I'd figured that he would not get married to his top pair and would be willing to back down in the face of a big river bet. The minraise on the flop was to find out where I was at with the hand.


Would...Could...Basically...


Im not a high limit player but usually when players use these words MULTIPLE times in a hand synopsis it usually means the player already knows they reached a little too far. Remember if A B C and D have to be true for you to win a pot thats like multiplying fractions...

I have another ? If the table was so passive and you were doing so well, why make an out and out play for so much on the end here? Why not just fold continue to win small and moderate sized pots without showing then get paid when you hit a flop hard?

[J_V]

Dude, you stink.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you stink.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
Dude, you stink.



Word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fo' sheaze.

[quix0tic]

Trying to move the average player off of top pair is very -ev. The only exceptions that come to mind are when you are using an obvious scare card or it is reasonably apparent (for some other reason) that you hold a better hand, and have played it in a manner consistent with such. Since neither of these exceptions apply here, I'm going to revert back to the original rule. To summarize, he is playing his tptk slowly, inducing a bluff; you realize this and bluff despite that.

[Blackjack]

This reminds me of the stupid plays you see at Foxwoods 1/2 NL.. Especially the other testosterone overflowing college kids - pulling Mini Gus Hansen moves trying to push me off a solid hand with 72o. If the stacks are short enough, of course I'm going to look them up (and I have a decent holding).

Online, it's even easier for someone to call you because they don't have to deal with the embarassment of losing like you do in live games. Bad play. No g00t!

[Kronon]

Lets see what we got here:
- 3 players in the pot
- The board shows both an A and an K
- You raise a raiser and a caller with a K4 after river!

What can they possible have that you can beat? Even if you know the first player is bluffing, and you know that the second player knows that, you can't call. An easier fold is hard to find (you should have folded before the flop, before the turn and before the river, but thats another matter).

This is not even newbie play, this is the type of play you see when newbies thinks to much, and manages to make an even worse play then when they dont think. Horrible play, from the start to the end.

Sorry for being a bit blunt!

[mmcd]

The correct answer is yes and it's not even close.

[RDWallace]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of the stupid plays you see at Foxwoods 1/2 NL.. Especially the other testosterone overflowing college kids - pulling Mini Gus Hansen moves trying to push me off a solid hand with 72o. If the stacks are short enough, of course I'm going to look them up (and I have a decent holding).

Online, it's even easier for someone to call you because they don't have to deal with the embarassment of losing like you do in live games. Bad play. No g00t!

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I would never have made a move like this heads up. I've found that squeeze plays at relatively tight/passive NL games can work extremely well, simply because its seen relatively infrequently--very few have the balls to come over the top of multiple players with no hand. Jason's post was the most helpful--I realize now that I wasn't even thinking about representing a hand. I just didn't respect the two other players in the pot and figured they would not jeopardize their stacks with a one pair hand on the river. I think I made an additional error in making a pot sized raise on the river, a more appropriate raise might have been $300 or so, maybe even a simple minraise.

So basically, you're all a bunch of haters, but you're right: my play was stupid. And hey Duke I'm still laughing about the last $500 SNG we played together (which I won), why didn't you ever post that hand..."QK vs KK, fold or push???"

[diddle]

I thought party frowned on chip dumping

[ObnxNole]

Where did you learn such impressive hand reading abilties? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Yes you are an idiot. /images/graemlins/cool.gif