I don't see many hands like this posted.

[BigEndian]

No notes on this player and they haven't stood out yet. So average 3/6 for all intents.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: BigEndian is MP1 with A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BigEndian raises</font>, <font color="#666666">6 folds</font>, UTG calls.

Flop: (5.33 SB) 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">BigEndian bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, BigEndian calls.

Turn: (4.66 BB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, BigEndian...

What would you do here? And why?

- Jim

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]

What would you do here?

[/ QUOTE ]

See a showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
And why?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of draws that will bluff this board.
You might have counterfeited a PP&lt;8

[mr pink]

it depends on what range of hands you put him on when he limps UTG.

he could have been trying to move you off your overs with a low pp, or semibluffing with JT or something of the like.

it's tough to see him limping with a hand that had has a 9 in it, and an 8 would probably slowplay in that spot. also the board double pairing means its more likely that he doesnt have a 9.

call down?

[BigEndian]

Here's my dilemna with this hand (and I have very little doubt I played it poorly):

1) The pot is small - especially relative to the effective odds.

2) I have no other draws other than my over cards and these have to be discounted heavily - if you want to count them at all.

3) Without a read on the player, I agree it's possible I was CRed with a PP &lt; 8 or a draw. But what % chance do you give it vs the 9, the 8 or TT, not just taking into account card counts.

So basically, to me, the hand came down to a question of whether he had it or didn't and I didn't want to pay 2BB to find out.

- Jim

[Willluck]

fold.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
1) The pot is small - especially relative to the effective odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not especially small for a heads up pot. I don't see how effective odds come into play here. I'm not raising on the end regardless of the card that comes off.

[ QUOTE ]
2) I have no other draws other than my over cards and these have to be discounted heavily - if you want to count them at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm calling down b/c I think I have the best hand, not because of any draws. I suppose occasionally he'll have something like TT and you'll river a pair on the river, but his most likely holdings are a boat, a draw, or three-pair.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Without a read on the player, I agree it's possible I was CRed with a PP &lt; 8 or a draw. But what % chance do you give it vs the 9, the 8 or TT, not just taking into account card counts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something like 35% of the time, just completely off-hand. This is definitely the sort of board where I'm thinking about calling down with ace-high right from the get-go. The turn card looks bad for you since it means you're drawing dead to a 9, but it's probably a good card for you since it counterfeits lower PP and makes it less likely that he holds a 9.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how effective odds come into play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I disagree with Nate, I can only assume that I am somehow wrong. But...

I thought in this situation, you would use effective odds on a call down. Assuming villian bets again on the river 100% of the time (cleary not the case), our odds on a call down are:

(4.66 + 2) : 1

= 3.3:1.

What aren't I seeing?

Note: This still brings us to the same conclusion as Nate (who estimated we're good 35% of the time), just that it used effective odds to justify it.

[BigEndian]

It's 6:2 to go the distance (effective odds). This means, for the call down to be correct, the combination of the times he is conterfeited/on-a-draw and his cards not coming on the river have to be equal to that. 35% you say, seems close enough to make the call down...but it was a tough call for me.

- Jim

[Entity]

I've started calling down with AK in this situation more and more, and it's been paying off for me so far.

Rob

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how effective odds come into play here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I disagree with Nate, I can only assume that I am somehow wrong. But...

I thought in this situation, you would use effective odds on a call down. Assuming villian bets again on the river 100% of the time (cleary not the case), our odds on a call down are:

(4.66 + 2) : 1

= 3.3:1.

What aren't I seeing?

Note: This still brings us to the same conclusion as Nate (who estimated we're good 35% of the time), just that it used effective odds to justify it.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you think you're good 35% of the time here, then calling down is clearly correct given 3.3:1 odds (though slightly smaller after the rake steals some more).

Other things to consider here. You're drawing dead vs. an 8 OR a 9. If villian also has an A you're choping unless you hit something. All of your outs are good against any villian hand not containing an 8 or 9 (except AA or KK). Your hand is already good against any hand not mentioned above (except TT, JJ, or QQ).

This would be a much easier decision if you had some sort of read (obviously). Assuming he is an unsophisticated player, his checkraise either indicates that he has a fairly big hand or a hand like AJ. I doubt he'd checkraise semi-bluff with a hand like JT here.

Calling down is probably correct.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
It's 6:2 to go the distance (effective odds). This means, for the call down to be correct, the combination of the times he is conterfeited/on-a-draw and his cards not coming on the river have to be equal to that. 35% you say, seems close enough to make the call down...but it was a tough call for me.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about this one some more at dinner and I'm even more convinced that it's a calldown. I suppose you could consider folding a to a truly awful river card like specifically the Q, J or T of /images/graemlins/diamond.gif.

But this flop is very draw-heavy, with the flush draw and the 98 combo that commonly-played hands like JT, QJ, QT will like. Combine that with the chance that he's turned three pair and I think it's an easy call.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt he'd checkraise semi-bluff with a hand like JT here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hell *wouldn't* he check-raise with JT on that flop? That's not a tremendously sophisticated check-raise and his hand is a favorite against AQ/AK without a flush redraw.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming villian bets again on the river 100% of the time (cleary not the case)

[/ QUOTE ]

He's going to bet this river close to 100% of the time. Most players aren't capable of giving up with a draw or three pair here and will file that last, lonely bullet. He might check with the intention of calling if he has TT or something if the river card is an A or a K, but then you're collecting the last bet from him anyway.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
He's going to bet this river close to 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree.

Follow up: though I'm not questioning your advice here, are there certain marginal (far more marginal than this) situations where you (and other) posters could perhaps give advise more suited to higher (more aggressive) games, that isn't properly adjusted for 2/4 or 3/6?

Even in this case, could the 35% number you came up with off the top of your head be a little high simply because of the differences in semi-bluffing frequency at different limits?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Follow up: though I'm not questioning your advice here, are there certain marginal (far more marginal than this) situations where you (and other) posters could perhaps give advise more suited to higher (more aggressive) games, that isn't properly adjusted for 2/4 or 3/6?

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. I'm certainly not suggesting that you should always be calling down with Ace-high. But this is a very good situation for doing so:

1) The board contains both a flush draw and a straight draw, and the straight draw will hit some common UTG limping hands.
2) The board on the flop is paired, which makes it less likely that your opponent has hit it, especially if he's usually going to slowplay with trips.
3) You counterfeit 22-77 on the turn, other common UTG limping hands that would often check-raise this flop.
4) The pot is heads up on the flop, which means less protection against a semibluff.
5) If his opponent knows the sort of player that Endian is, he'll know that he's capable of raising with a variety of overcard hands before the flop as well as making some folds after the flop, which will increase his propensity to semibluff.

[ QUOTE ]
Even in this case, could the 35% number you came up with off the top of your head be a little high simply because of the differences in semi-bluffing frequency at different limits?

[/ QUOTE ]

If anything I think it's about right for this limit and too low for a higher, more aggressive limit.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
I've started calling down with AK in this situation more and more, and it's been paying off for me so far.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's only right because the board is so coordinated and the cards are pretty high. there are only 2 8s and 2 9s left, and pocket pairs are drawing almost dead. if the board was 9229r, it's an easy fold IMO

[BigEndian]

3-betting this flop is right out as well I take it. You're an underdog to the semi-bluffing hands and you'll almost never fold a pair. So it looks like the only lines are call/fold.

I point this out because I am wont to hammer away with my AK from time to time. It's an indulgence I'm working on.

Thanks for the discussion fellas, it's been very helpful.

- Jim

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
3-betting this flop is right out as well I take it. You're an underdog to the semi-bluffing hands and you'll almost never fold a pair. So it looks like the only lines are call/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really do very little 3-betting nowadays in heads up pots with just overcards.

[sinfulslick18]

call down on the kid. see what he has got and maybe give out a good image on yourself as a player

-sinful

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've started calling down with AK in this situation more and more, and it's been paying off for me so far.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]


I think it's only right because the board is so coordinated and the cards are pretty high. there are only 2 8s and 2 9s left, and pocket pairs are drawing almost dead. if the board was 9229r, it's an easy fold IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that's what I meant when I said "in these situations." But I agree.

Rob