Absolute worst "beat" possible in TD. (IMO)

my first hand history posting and its a nasty one:

Hand #8516772-10792 at Moncton ($1/$2 Triple Draw 2-7)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at xxxxxx

Villian is at seat 1 with $82.
InWithTheBest is at seat 3 with $66.25.
x is at seat 4 with $34.50.
y is at seat 5 with $52.25.
The button is at seat 4.

x posts the small blind of $.50.
Villain posts the big blind of $1.

v: -- -- -- -- --
InWithTheBest: Kc 3s 7d 2d 4s
x: -- -- -- -- --
y: -- -- -- -- --

First Round:

InWithTheBest raises to $2. y calls. x
calls. Villian calls.

y takes 2 cards. Villain takes 5 cards!!!!
InWithTheBest takes 1 card. x takes 2 cards.


Second Round:

Villain: -- -- -- -- --
InWithTheBest: 3s 7d 2d 4s 6c
x: -- -- -- -- --
y: -- -- -- -- --

y checks. Villain checks. InWithTheBest bets
$1. y calls. x calls. Villian
calls.

ytakes 1 card. Villian takes 3 cards.
InWithTheBest stands pat. x takes 2 cards.

Third Round:

Villain: -- -- -- -- --
InWithTheBest: 3s 7d 2d 4s 6c


y checks. villian checks. InWithTheBest bets
$2. x folds. y folds. Villian
raises to $4. InWithTheBest re-raises to $6. InWithTheBest
re-raises to $8. InWithTheBest calls.

Villian stands pat. InWithTheBest stands pat.

Villian: -- -- -- -- --
InWithTheBest: 3s 7d 2d 4s 6c

Final Round:

villian bets $2. InWithTheBest raises to $4. Villian
re-raises to $6. InWithTheBest calls.



Showdown:

Villian shows 7s 5h 4d 3h 2c.
Villian has 7 5 4 3 2.
InWithTheBest mucks cards.
(InWithTheBest has 7d 6c 4s 3s 2d.)


I did my own hand converting since but i hope you guys can follow alright. Clearly I should be happy that villian chose to draw 3 against my pat hand and obviously 99% of time I will be taking his money here.. This was still the most frusterating beat ive taken in this game. Anyone want to estimate the odds of 3 drawing to the nuts with a deck that must be fairly cold with 4 players drawing to hands. It feels like hitting a one outer on the river in holdem is going to happen much more often than what happend here but I clearly am not a math person.

-Matt

-I realize I misspelled Villain over and over but it really screwed up the HH when i tried to fix it.. sorry..

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone want to estimate the odds of 3 drawing to the nuts with a deck that must be fairly cold with 4 players drawing to hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm too lazy to work the math, so I'll just plug some cards into my draw-results tool...

Let's say that 76432K22348 are dead and villian has 27AQJ. Then Villian is 1.27% to get a wheel and .94% to tie your #2.

Killing a 5 instead of a 4 makes the probabilities 1.43% for each. Killing a 6 gives 1.92% and 0.94%.

Your typical Hold'em 1-outer is 1 in 44, or 2.3%. So it's close.

(Oops, I should have put in one or two more dead cards. But with the numbers so small, it really matters which ones you pick to be dead anyway.)

[dibbs]

This has happened to me v. 4 card draws but never 5, nice.

Gotta love this game huh?

[RoundTower]

It would have been a worse beat, and funnier, if he'd drawn 5 all 3 times, and you'd had #2 to start with.

Oh good...a bad beat post....

Sorry to of wasted your time Doran but after playing 20000 triple draw hands Ive never seen anything like that happen. Ive three drawn to a seven hand before as well but not with a cold deck and a pat #2 already out there. Thats the only reason i brought it up, not to whine about what happend. Thanks!

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh good...a bad beat post....

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing worse than having your first post in a forum be a bad beat post is having your first post in a forum be a complaint about a bad beat post.

What's with everybody crawling out of the woodwork today?

[Danielih]

you should reraise the river

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
you should reraise the river

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, putting in 7 big bets on the last two streets is plenty with #2. Capping both streets is just spewing; I think you will see #1 much more often after the turn cap and river 3-bet than #3, #4, or #5. Do you really think there is significant equity to the 8th bet here?

Assuming they're both rational, the reasoning might go something like this:

Hero bet: no content, autobetting when pat
Villian check/raise: I am ahead of 55%+ of your pat hands here, or am making a move (#24 or better, 96xxx)
Hero 3-bet: I don't have a 9 and I'm not breaking, perhaps you should. (I would only do this with an 86, say #9 or better, perhaps as low as #10, 87432 if I believed villian might make a move with a smooth 9.)
Villian cap: I can still beat you more than 50% of the time and am not going to try to freeze you on a worse hand. (#4-#5 or better.)
Villian bet next round: I'm not scared that you didn't break.
Hero raise: I can probably beat your 7. (#2 or better.)
Villian 3-bet: No, you can't. (#1, or complete idiot.)

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming they're both rational

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember villain called a raise and drew 5. I don't think this is safe.

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]

Hero raise: I can probably beat your 7. (#2 or better.)
Villian 3-bet: No, you can't. (#1, or complete idiot.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking a little bit lately about "idiot equity": raises that make sense only if you believe your opponent is an idiot (playing the wrong game, misreading the board or his hand, etc.)

The canonical example is raising a low hand's bet HU in Stud/8 with a strong and visible but beatable hand (low flush, even a full house.) If the low is made, your raise doesn't gain you anything. When Villian doesn't have a low but bets anyway, he can probably beat what you're representing. The raise only has equity against a complete idiot.

When playing triple draw against someone who's shown down high hands, there is a lot of idiot equity to be gained.

When the turn has been capped, you should be a little bit cautious on the river to ensure you're not the one giving idiot equity. If your opponent was uncertain about his hand, he probably wouldn't have 3-bet or capped the previous round. If your opponent was just making a move he's unlikely to follow through on the river, since you can't fold the huge pot.

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Assuming they're both rational

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember villain called a raise and drew 5. I don't think this is safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. But some people get very possessive of their blinds. Even the loosest blind-defenders tend to tighten up in future rounds.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I've been thinking a little bit lately about "idiot equity": raises that make sense only if you believe your opponent is an idiot (playing the wrong game, misreading the board or his hand, etc.)


[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of permutations of the idiot equity concept which are illustrated by playing triple draw at 24h. Idiot equity preservation (avoiding showdowns as long as possible against players who are clearly playing for high) is a big one.

Somebody either on 2+2 or LJ Poker referred to this as the fucktard quotient some months ago, and I've been thinking of it as FTQ ever since. I think idiot equity is better, though.

[Burdzthewurd]

That has to be Bastard on LJ