Mirage 20-40: Have I been slowplayed?

[Dynasty]

This hand is for Jimbo.

An MP open limps. The cutoff, a very aggressive player, raises. A very loose player calls in the small blind. I'm in the big blind with Kd9d and call. MP calls. Four players see the flop.

The flop is: Jd,4d,2d

Small blind checks. I bet. MP folds. Cutoff calls. Small blind calls.

The turn is: Jd,4d,2d,7c

Small blind checks. I bet. Cutoff calls. Small blind calls.

The river is: Jd,4d,2d,7c,Qs

Small blind checks. I bet. Out of nowhere, the cutoff (pre-flop riaser) raises. Small blind folds leaving me heads-up with the cutoff.

Is my hand good or have I been slowplayed?

[Jeffage]

Yeesh. Not a pleasant situation in which to find yourself. I think that the cutoff is 50/50 on beating you or having a set. He may have rivered a set of Queens and popped it, believing you were betting a single diamond...or he may have flopped a set and been content to let you bet his hand for him (though you'd think an aggressive player would raise the turn in this spot). I would reraise and pay off a 4th bet. I think you will often show the winner here. I recall a similar hand where I had KQ, raised before the flop, only BB calls. Flop comes 9-Q-5r. Check, bet, call. Turn is a brick. I get checkraised. I call. River is a King, and I raise my two pair "for value." My opponent called and showed a set of 5s. I figured my raise is safe bc he could only reraise with the sttaight. We got into a little post war where you said this was wrong after the checkraise, and that you 3-bet in the opponents spot, not putting me on a nut holding. I think if you 3-bet that (as I've now come to agree with you on after some more experience), you 3-bet this aggressive opponent as well. Just my opinion.


Jeff

[MMMMMM]

Does it matter?

[Ulysses]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Is my hand good or have I been slowplayed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you've been slowplayed by a set of Jacks.

3-bet.

[Mike Gallo]

Dynasty,

Out of nowhere, the cutoff (pre-flop raiser) raises. Small blind folds leaving me heads-up with the cutoff.

When your opponent raised, did thoughts of Mikey and Clarkmeister go through your mind? They both have their ideas about the bet/raise from nowhere.

I question how good your opponent played. Perhaps he felt content having you bet his hand. Although flush over flush happens rarely the possibilty exists. He also could have raised with AQ preflop off suit, or QQ. What do you think he put you on.

Perhaps he didn't think you would bet out the flush, because you might have slowplayed it yourself.

I would make the crying call and hope my opponent had a set or Aq off.

Obviously I am more result oriented then detail oriened, so please post the results. I believe the results are relevant. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Zele]

There is some chance you've been slowplayed, but with an aggressive player like you described, you could easily be up against a bold (and strange) bluff on the end, as well as the sets of J's and Q's. His hand being QJ is a distinct possibility as well. Why would he wait until the river on his slowplay anyway? And if he's the kind of player that would make that kind of ill-advised play, who's to say he's not holding a hand like QdTd?

I 3-bet it, and call a 4-bet. I can think a lot of reasons to make it 5 depending on my foreknowledge of the player (specifically, what is the probability of a lower flush?) But from what you've written, I'd leave it at 4.

[Zele]

By all means. The chance of a slowplay dictates whether to 3-bet or not. Folding is surely out of the question, if that's what you mean.

[Diplomat]

In this position, I would three-bet almost 90% of the time, unless I had a dynamite read on the raiser. I would bank on a set of queens, maybe a set of jacks.

[Ginogino]

Dynasty:
Raise or call? How many AdXd would he raise with pre-flop (against a midposition limper?) AK through AT maybe? Four hands. Against that what other hands could he hold. QQ, JJ (QJs?). Twelve-plus hands.

Beyond that, not many players at low-limits (where I play) would hold a checkraise until the river. Perhaps this is more common in the game you are playing. I'd think that if you know this player well enough to characterize him as "wild aggressive" then maybe you would know if he will wait to the river on slowplayed hands?

IMO, I'd raise him. If he re-raises, then make a crying call.

[prd_mnky]

If I was the cutoff, I would put you on a J,x, hence why you are being aggressive from the flop on (that's what my thinking would indicate). He fears two pair as he, IMO, has pocket Queens. He hit is set or his A,Q on the river. 3-bet your flush.

[Vehn]

I think usually in this sort of situation you're looking at the nuts. Most people without the nuts will raise on 4th to charge the trump ace. A "very aggressive player" though could have QJ, a smaller flush, or a set - but unlikely. If the small blind was a "solider" player you could almost always put him on the Ad which makes a river 3-bet more appealing, but since he had god-knows-what and you lost the hand, I'm assuming you just called the raise to see Ad5d?

[Ed Miller]

While it's possible you were being slowplayed by the nut flush, I think that a very aggressive player would raise here with lots of hands that you can beat... slowplayed smaller flush... set... etc. Raise, and if you get 4-bet... sucks to be you.

[MMMMMM]

3-betting would be a poor play.

The opponent would almost surely have raised a non-nut flush earlier, so you are essentially laying 2-1 (since you intend to pay off) that he is raising on less than a flush. In my experience, even maniacs don't play that way very often on the river in this sort of spot.

[skp]

I think you can rule out JJ or QQ as with QQ, he would raise on the flop and with JJ, raise either on the flop or the turn. With a non-nut flush like QdTd, he would no doubt at least raise on the turn.

I put him on either the nut flush or perhaps an aggressively played AQ.

I would not 3 bet on the river.

Note: Had he just called on the flop and raised on the turn, I would no doubt 3 bet. River raises are of a different breed however.

[andyfox]

I agree with SKP. Just call. You're possibly sacrificing one bet if he's got the Qd, but you're definitely risking two if he has the nuts. I also agree that his most likely hands are either the nuts or Ax-Qd.

Reraise! IMO, it is unlikely that a very aggressive player with the nut flush not raise on the turn and not charge holders of sets and 2pair the max to draw a boat. It is probably yours but then if reraised, I would make a crying call. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif

[Mike Gallo]

Beyond that, not many players at low-limits (where I play) would hold a checkraise until the river

Dynasty did not get check raised. He bet and his opponent raised from the cutoff.

[Jim Brier]

Because there is a good chance you were getting slow-played, I think just calling is right rather than 3-betting. Of course, folding would be ridiculous. This is such a bizarre sequence, I suspect your opponent is a bad player. But the problem is that if you are up against the nut-flush, you will get 4-bet and be forced to make a crying call, so you have risked two bets to win one bet.

he waited till river to see if you hit your fourth flush card /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Ginogino]

MG:
Oops! You are correct, of course. Nevertheless, he held off raising his slowplay from the flop (when presumably he hit his nut flush -- if he has one) to the river, and that's unusual (though not a checkraise). That's what I meant to refer to, and did my usual capable job.
Ginogino

[Jimbo]

Thanks Dynasty /forums/images/icons/smile.gif ,

I do know you must be a solid player by your posts and responses. Glad to see you are not omnipotent.

Best regards,

Jimbo

[Mikey]

HOW in the hell can you put that guy on a small flush by just reading this post, that's bizarre.

[Dynasty]

Is my hand good or have I been slowplayed?

Answer: Both

I was sure this player wouldn't hesitate to raise the nuts, especially on the turn. So, I concluded my hand was good and 3-bet. He called and showed a slowplayed small flush with 9d8d.

I thought a smaller flush was possible but figured AQ with a diamond or QdQx were more likely hands.

[Dynasty]

And, it should matter to any player who is willing to 3-bet the river without the nuts.

[Dynasty]

Since I can think of many more hands than Adxd which he could raise the river with (JJ, QQ, AQ, QJ, smaller flush), 2:1 sounds like good odds to me.

[Dynasty]

This hand is for Jimbo.

I was sure you were going to read through this tell. Acting weak means strength. I'll post a loser soon. It's only 2 in a row.

[MMMMMM]

But given the way the hand was played we can pretty much rule out the smaller flush as he almost surely would have raised it earlier. That leaves 2 pair or a set...and again, he would have almost surely raised those before the river unless he hit it on the river. And given your shown strength throughout the hand on a 3-flush flop, I think most maniacs would just call you down on the river with those hands. So it is not just how many hand he COULD have raised the river with, but rather how many hands he WOULD have raised the river with (in this spot, and without having raised earlier on the flop or turn). This number is a LOT less. Now consider the fishiness of the way the hand was played...it certainly looks and feels like you are fairly likely to be looking at the nuts.

Also, most hold'em maniacs do their wild gambling early: preflop, and sometimes on the Flop. A few do it a little bit on the Turn as well. But very few maniacs are kamikazes on the River. They might call every time, or make a desperation raise, but raising into a pat board on the river without the nuts is not all that common even for them.

[JTG51]

You are a tell machine Dynasty.

I wonder if the responses would have been a little different if you hadn't said this hand was for Jimbo?

[MMMMMM]

Sorry-it just seemed fairly obvious to me that the best play would be to call your opponent down in this spot, and therefore whether he had the nuts or not wouldn't matter.

[MMMMMM]

But Dynasty, here you are using information we didn't have and you didn't provide us with when you posted the question. How did you know he wouldn't hesitate to raise the Turn with the nuts? Why not include whatever it is about this opponent in your description? Also, how can you be sure that he wouldn't hesitate to raise the nuts on the Turn, when in fact he failed to raise with a pretty strong hand on the Turn? This belies your otherwise unqualified description of him as very aggressive and throws off our analysis. So you didn't just throw us a curveball, you threw us a spitball;-)

[Dynasty]

But Dynasty, here you are using information we didn't have and you didn't provide us with when you posted the question. How did you know he wouldn't hesitate to raise the Turn with the nuts?

I called him a "very aggressive player" in my original post. That implies that he will bet and raise with strong hands. I 3-bet the river because I thought the Queen likely improved his hand (QQ, AQ, QJ).

I don't know why he didn't raise either the flop or turn with his flush but that doesn't change the fact that he plays very aggressively. He must have thought he was trapping me for multiple bets with his slowplay.

[Mikey]

How many decks were you guys playing with?

[Dynasty]

It must have been 8d7d (don't think it was 7d6d).

[MMMMMM]

Right, you said he was very aggressive and that was your entire brief description of him. But that doesn't give us a clue as to why you were so sure he would have raised on the Turn with the nut flush (when he didn't do so with a very strong hand). So you know more about this player than you are telling us, apparently, and were able to use this information on the spot to aid in your decision. Then you offered us the puzzle with incomplete information--that which you left out significantly impacts the correct analysis if indeed you are correct that you knew this player would surely have raised the nut-flush on the Turn. In fact, given merely your description of him as "very aggressive" it is very reasonable to assume he would have almost surely raised with a lesser flush or two-pair or trips on the Turn (which was my primary reason for almost ruling out these hands unless the 2-pair or trips were made on the River).

We can only analyze from afar based on the information you give us;-)