Barron's "On the Edge" article

[blackaces13]

Does anyone else think that the flop is a clear fold knowing that you're up against a guy with AA/KK, the flop is likely to be capped, and all you have is a phantom flush draw?

I understand all the specific reads and information he has to go on but there is no guarantee that Mike will fold AA on the river. He has him read as both a bit of a calling station post flop and as a player who can lay down a hand if an obvious draw hits. I know players like this, hell I'm similar to that myself and I don't think its anywhere near a certainty that players like that are folding AA in a 3-way pot that's HUGE because the flushdraw hit. Sometimes I'll lay down a hand like aces on the river to a raise when a draw comes in, and other times I wont. In the bigger pots I almost never do and I suspect that there are a lot of players who play the same way.

He also assumes he is against pairs from both players which further limits his diamond "outs" since neither of these players are folding a set on the river.

I just don't see how all the info provided leads to the conclusion that the hand should be played as though Hero has a flushdraw. I'd take the same information and be thankful that I was able to fold the flop with a clear conscience before it got capped.

[BarronVangorToth]

I'll be interested to hear other opinions on this as well as it was a razor thin edge move in my book, 100% dependent that I knew my opposition perfectly.

Even so, if I didn't know my opposition, I couldn't've been as certain as to the holdings and then throwing away the overpair really goes out the window as well, no?

Regardless, sounds like you weren't thrilled with part 4, hopefully you enjoy parts 5-9 appearing in the next five months.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[nolanfan34]

I thought it was a really interesting hand. There wasn't a guarantee that the flop would be capped when he made the first call, only that he was sure the button was going to raise.

I think the whole hand is completely opponent dependant. Between his plan for the river, the 2 Q outs, and even the turn bluffing possibility if the flush hit then, I can see how he made the decision to do some floating.

Certainly debatable, but I thought it was a lot of fun to read.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Even so, if I didn't know my opposition, I couldn't've been as certain as to the holdings and then throwing away the overpair really goes out the window as well, no?

Regardless, sounds like you weren't thrilled with part 4, hopefully you enjoy parts 5-9 appearing in the next five months.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even with 100% reliable information about what your opponents were holding I would use the information to fold the flop in that spot.

Its not that I didn't like the article at all. It was interesting and presented a situation and a play that I've never really seen written or talked about which is good. I simply came to a different conclusion as to what to do with all the information that you presented. Maybe I'm wrong and your plan is +EV, it just doesn't seem like it could be to me. I would also like to hear what some others would do in the same situation and why they think the odds are or are not favorable for such a play.

[MtDon]

I thought the article was good. Not sure about the play of the hand.

But the basic premise is good. I read it just a few days after I'd made my first bluff raise, which was based on the knowledge of how my opponents played. We were playing 2 - 6 spread limit holdem with a single $2 blind. A good player who often raises in early position with almost any hand (AA - 27o), at least early in a game, raised $6. I called with QJs. I felt that it might be the better hand and if not, it had outs. The blind also called. The flop was KTx, rainbow. The raiser bet, I called and the blind called. The turn was a blank. The raiser bet, I called, the blind called. The river was a K. The blind checked, the raiser bet, I raised. The blind folded, saying his two pair wasn't any good. Then the raiser asked if I wanted him to call or fold. I told him "It depends what you have," which is pretty much my standard response if I don't have the nuts. He thought about it and folded. I won. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My read was that the blind would have bet if he had a K or a full house; and would fold to a raise better than 90% of the time. I figured it was a near certainty. /images/graemlins/smile.gif The raiser had folded to raises on the river before. I figured that the fact that there was another person in the pot would make my raise even more believable to him. Anyway, I've played poker with the raiser for about 2 years, and the blind several months and know how they play pretty well.

Note: The raiser's stategy of raising with a lot of hands in early position often works great in the game. Last night he was up between 3 and 4 hundred dollars - a lot of it due to other players folding on the river to his bets. A lot due to players calling when he had good hands.

[flub]

I don't like this play at all either. By the river card he paid 3 BB's to win a 12.75 BB pot. A diamond comes 1/5 of the time on the river. Then you have to put in 2 more BB's hoping the guy you know is beating you folds and the other guy can't beat one measly pair.

The first guy could easily have a hand beating you. The first guy could check the river.

If the flush comes on the turn the guy with AA or KK likely has a redraw to the 4 flush and will call 2 on the turn and make a crying call on the river since it's only 1 bet now.

If flush comes on turn and you wait till the river to raise this looks a lot more suspicious and he's more likely to call.

The first guy could even have flopped a pair and a flush draw.

The guy with position could have raised the turn or the first guy could have folded, making this play even worse.

I'm guessing the author would have made a crying call on the river if the flush didn't come but had this river raise in the back of his mind. Are preflop reads ever really THIS good? Maybe the guy just read a book and has AdKd.

-flub

[The Dude]

If I knew the player on my left had AA or KK in the situation Barron was in, I'd fold and be glad to save the bets. The concept he's talking about it a very good one, and one I use when playing with opponents that are easy to read and capable of laying down a good hand, but without having done the math, my huch is it's best to fold in this specific situation.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
By the river card he paid 3 BB's to win a 12.75 BB pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The final pot was +7BB more that that: 19.75 BB.

That being the case - and given the read involved due to playing with these guys far too much - would you still not make this play?

Sometimes you're in situations with people who act very specifically all the time and when you know how they play and you know precisely how they think you play, you can make a move like this and I do believe it is +EV.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[flub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By the river card he paid 3 BB's to win a 12.75 BB pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The final pot was +7BB more that that: 19.75 BB.

Barron Vangor Toth


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but before the river action the pot was 15.75 BB and you had put in 3 of those. At the end you paid 5 BB after the flop to net win 14.75 BB.

If I were on the river I think raising here is an excellent play given what you know and the action. I certainly wouldn't set out on the flop to make this play if I knew I was losing and drawing to 2 outs. If the first guy just checked the river the whole thing would have been toast.

I would nearly always go to the river on a hand like this, but I've never been willing to put someone on a hand with that much certainty let alone two people, so I don't dislike the entire sequence.

The upside is you can expect this guy to call your raises when you do hit your flush for quite a while.

-f

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly wouldn't set out on the flop to make this play if I knew I was losing and drawing to 2 outs. If the first guy just checked the river the whole thing would have been toast.

[/ QUOTE ]


2 outs PLUS all of the flush outs. And the player in question is as likely to check any river as I am to ever fulfill my dream of being a horse jockey. I've logged enough hours with him to know how he plays and if he's betting, he's not stopping the firing.

[ QUOTE ]


The upside is you can expect this guy to call your raises when you do hit your flush for quite a while.



[/ QUOTE ]


Amusing aside, I wrote this article many months ago (as a point of reference, my OtE #9 for November was accepted over a month ago, as the 2+2 magazine is apparently getting a ton of quality content so Mason was able to fill up the year very quickly) and I've played with both of the guys quite a few times (alone and together) and suffice it to say that the hand in question has come up a few times...

... and neither was too happy that I immortalized it in a 2+2 article.

It's an interesting by-product of a play - and I'm still contending that I believe with the bets in pre-flop AND my read of the players that this was overall a +EV play in the immediate present - but when you are playing with people you play with a lot, there is the EV beyond the present, and, as you said, I've gotten far more action now than I deserve as now the person in question refuses to ever let me push him off anything.

Image plays are seldom worthwhile as a vast majority of your competition - especially at the lower limits - are not paying any attention whatsoever and even if they are, how often do you play with Guy X or Guy Y? BUT, if they are somewhat attentive AND if you play with people on lots of occasions, there is even a call to make moves for longterm EV beyond the immediate today.

This, however, I still made (and would make) because I believed it to be the right move at the time. It has likewise reaped longterm benefits in the past months since it happened.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)