ATo versus. a donkey donk

[Haupt_234]

UTG is 34/6/.6. BB is 20/9/2.4. SB is unknown.
Not much more to say about this hand, pretty standard?


Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is CO with T/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (8 SB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls, BB calls.

Turn: (7 BB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, SB calls, BB folds.

River: (9 BB) A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, SB calls.

Final Pot: 11 BB

Haupt_234

[ewile]

Nice raise on the flop!
Great hand!

[Buck_65]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice raise on the flop!
Great hand!

[/ QUOTE ]

Very enthusiastic about this one. Can't imagine any reason to play it otherwise.

[ewile]

I thought that this really illustrated the power of that raise. Got the free card and/or the option to showdown cheaply if he didn't improve on the River.

[oreogod]

Now if u didnt hit the river do u check or still bet? I can see SB calling u down with a few hands, but a K seems likely.

[hizo1]

Just reread the "betting for value" on the river chapter in SSHE, let me see if I got it right:

SB is unknown. If we knew he's tight, we'd check through. If he was loose, we'd bet.

Now, the part I'm unsure of is how the pot size comes into play. We want to bet more often when the pot is bigger. does this qualify as a "big pot" considering it was raised PF and called by 3? or is this still a small/mediumish pot given that we have only 3 to the turn and 2 to the river?

What do you guys think, big enought to bet if villain is tight(passive)?

[Haupt_234]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if u didnt hit the river do u check or still bet? I can see SB calling u down with a few hands, but a K seems likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

After the SB cold-called 2 bets on the flop, I figured him for either a king/decent kicker, king/strong kicker, or a straight draw. My first instinct was straight draw.

If I didn't improve with the ace on the river (or a ten), I was planning on checking through. Even though every straight draw hit my the river (89 and QJ), I still thought it was right to bet with the 2 pair incase he had a king. There are many more holdings that will contain the king rather than one of the straight draws.

Haupt_234

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now if u didnt hit the river do u check or still bet? I can see SB calling u down with a few hands, but a K seems likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

After the SB cold-called 2 bets on the flop, I figured him for either a king/decent kicker, king/strong kicker, or a straight draw. My first instinct was straight draw.

If I didn't improve with the ace on the river (or a ten), I was planning on checking through. Even though every straight draw hit my the river (89 and QJ), I still thought it was right to bet with the 2 pair incase he had a king. There are many more holdings that will contain the king rather than one of the straight draws.

Haupt_234

[/ QUOTE ]

The one thing that concerns me about this hand, and something that I think is very common is the following:

On the flop, you want to put him on the straight draw, so on the turn you can justify a bet instead of a free card, assuming he does not have the K, then on the river, the straight comes in, and you decide he had the king. So which is it?

It's akin to puting a preflop raiser on AQ when the flop comes K-rag-rag, and AK when the flop comes Q-rag-rag.

I think it's a dangerous habit to change your reads during a hand to justify your play without having a solid base of reason to change that read.

I hope that made sense.

[Haupt_234]

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop, you want to put him on the straight draw, so on the turn you can justify a bet instead of a free card, assuming he does not have the K, then on the river, the straight comes in, and you decide he had the king. So which is it?

It's akin to puting a preflop raiser on AQ when the flop comes K-rag-rag, and AK when the flop comes Q-rag-rag.

I think it's a dangerous habit to change your reads during a hand to justify your play without having a solid base of reason to change that read.

I hope that made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was thinking. And this is what I have trouble with. I did, in fact, switch my read as my hand got better here. But I just couldn't justify checking the river when I made 2-pair, right or wrong.

I still thought there was a good chance he held a king, though. I was checking the river UI since a king had me beat and a busted straight draw wouldn't be calling. Although QJ made the nut straight on the river, I wasn't willing to give the SB credit. I didn't have a read on him as a smart player, there are too many donks in 5/10, and there are more holdings containing a king rather than QJ.

I did switch my reads, but thought that the facts I outlined outweighed the read of what cards I was guessing he had.

Haupt_234

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On the flop, you want to put him on the straight draw, so on the turn you can justify a bet instead of a free card, assuming he does not have the K, then on the river, the straight comes in, and you decide he had the king. So which is it?

It's akin to puting a preflop raiser on AQ when the flop comes K-rag-rag, and AK when the flop comes Q-rag-rag.

I think it's a dangerous habit to change your reads during a hand to justify your play without having a solid base of reason to change that read.

I hope that made sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what I was thinking. And this is what I have trouble with. I did, in fact, switch my read as my hand got better here. But I just couldn't justify checking the river when I made 2-pair, right or wrong.

I still thought there was a good chance he held a king, though. I was checking the river UI since a king had me beat and a busted straight draw wouldn't be calling. Although QJ made the nut straight on the river, I wasn't willing to give the SB credit. I didn't have a read on him as a smart player, there are too many donks in 5/10, and there are more holdings containing a king rather than QJ.

I did switch my reads, but thought that the facts I outlined outweighed the read of what cards I was guessing he had.

Haupt_234

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I agree, I think this is a definite river bet. The one point regarding changeing reads I think is important in a broader sense, especially for small stakes players trying to learn....and it's something I have caught myself doing that I am trying to get away from....

[chief444]

Standard.

[chief444]

You don't have to change reads at any point to play it out this way. The turn is a good bet even if he thinks he may be against a K. His hand is worth showing down. He isn't getting checkraised very often at all. A K will bet the river if he checks anyway. He gains more when the opponent is in fact on some sort of draw or weaker made hand by betting the turn. There's no point in this hand (or most hands, for that matter) that he can feel with certainty that the opponent holds one certain hand. The opponent has a range of hands and this line is best against that range, IMO.

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to change reads at any point to play it out this way. The turn is a good bet even if he thinks he may be against a K. His hand is worth showing down. He isn't getting checkraised very often at all. A K will bet the river if he checks anyway. He gains more when the opponent is in fact on some sort of draw or weaker made hand by betting the turn. There's no point in this hand (or most hands, for that matter) that he can feel with certainty that the opponent holds one certain hand. The opponent has a range of hands and this line is best against that range, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never disagreed with this line. I just wanted to point out that I think many players make a mistake of puting players on a hand or range of hands, and change those reads sometimes for the wrong reason. I think many small stakes players change there reads based on what their wish list is instead likely hands for their opponent...

However, since you mentioned it, at some point, if you are pretty sure your opponent has a king, do you still think a turn bet is correct? I assume at some point it wouldn't be....it wouldn't be, no?

[jackdaniels]

I think the turn bet AND river bet are necessary here. Betting the turn allows for the cheap showdown, and if you check - opponent WILL bet out any non-threatening river card (now, do you call it because maybe he is bluffing a busted draw or do you fold to the potential King?). Also, the river bet is a must here with 2 pair when checked to. Opponent will not bet out a King high he has been calling down with the whole time, as soon as the Ace appears - but he will definetly bet out his str8 draw that hit once that A appears (putting you on a K or 2 pair given the action). Opponent has no reason to think you will bet this river if checked to unless you:

1. Have a str8 beat/tied
2. Missed your draw and are bluffing
3. Made AT LEAST 2 pair.

If he puts you on a big King (seeing how the action went), he needs to bet out this river when he makes his draw. The chances of you being afraid of the Ace and checking behind are too great.