Play a Hand With the Masters #2 Results and Panel Comments

[Lloyd]

This is Part Five of our second "Play a Hand with the Masters". If you haven't already contributed to the first four parts you should do so first (see the links in the sticky at the top).

The panel included <font color="blue">Gigabet</font>, <font color="green">MLG</font>, and <font color="purple">Che</font>. <font color="black">Comments by the panel are in their appropriate colors.

Setup
$100+9 Party Poker MTT
Blinds 50/100
Hero is Gigabet
No strong read on villain

Stacks

UTG: t5380
Hero: t2670
MP: t1270
MP+1: t1333
MP+2: 2395
CO: t1394
Button: t2917
SB: 2270
BB: 2915

Pre-Flop
Hero is dealt A/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

UTG folds. Hero raises to t275. All fold to the BB who calls.</font>

<font color="blue">Gigabet: When I limp with AK it is for stack protection reasons, never with the intentions of trapping another player. Alot of responses mentioned they limp with AK when there is a super aggro maniac behind them. I am never at the same table with those types of players long enough to set up a situation where limp trapping with AK will produce better results than standard raising with AK.

An example of a time when I would limp with AK would be at a table where the avg stack for the table is 100bb and the avg stack for the field is less than that. If another stack opens with a limp, and there are other limpers behind, quite often, I will choose to limp with AK. The value in raising off the limpers, IMO, is greatly reduced by the fact that you will usually win a small pot, or lose a big one. When I am in that position, I still raise frequently, but my hand selection moves to drawing hands, one or two gapped suited connectors and small pairs. </font>

<font color="green">MLG: The standard play here is obviously to raise to about 300. I would do that the vast majority of the time. However, given the stack sizes behind you, if the table dynamics are correct an argument could be made for limping AK here. Realistically if anybody behind you raises you will be getting it all-in preflop so by limping you increase the range of hands that you will be playing against to include more hands like AJ/KQ that would fold if you raised, but might raise if you limped. In order to consider limping here I would want at least a 75%ish chance that it will be raised behind me (either by LP, or one of the blinds taking a shot at the dead money of a limp fest).

<font color="purple">Che: I would make a standard open-raise to t300. I can't think of a reason to just limp at this stage of a Party MTT. If I'm re-raised, given no reads, I would call or re-raise against any single opponent. If there was a small re-raise and an overcall I would usually just call. I would always play against two short all-ins (MP, MP+1, CO), sometimes against 2 deeper all-ins, and almost never against 3 or more (exception: all opponents are short so odds are good and risk is limited).</font>

<font color="black">Flop
Pot: t600

Flop: J/images/graemlins/spade.gif A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif K/images/graemlins/club.gif

BB checks. Hero bets t300. BB raises to t600. Hero calls t300.</font>

<font color="blue">Gigabet: My bet on the flop was designed to get raised, I thought the villain may see that as a standard continuation bet and decide to play back at me. He thought for awhile, and finally minraised, I took that as a weak attempt to steal my bet, or set up a continuation on the turn to steal.

I was going to raise right here, but if my thinking is correct, there is no value in raising here, however, I might get him to bluff some more chips on the turn.

When I really like my hand(meaning I will go broke with it), I do not put my opponent on a range of hands. I know that I want everything to get in the middle, so I just need to figure out how to do that. It is difficult to get action from a player who missed, but not impossible. Usually, that is what the plan of action is, when you have something that fits well with the board. Try to get the villain to put more money in, when he had already given up. In this particular hand, the board is so coordinated, that it would be unlikely to get action from someone who had missed completely. </font>

<font color="green">MLG: Comments before the check-raise I would bet about 350 on this flop. Your opponent might have a wide range of hands, but most of them you aren't going to get much more money out of. Hands like suited connectors and small pairs are most likely going to give up. There are, however, a larger percentage of hands that you beat that will call a bet. Hands like AJ/KJ will get all-in with you, and hands like AQ/KQ/QJ/A10 are going to at least call a bet if not raise you. So im planning on betting the flop to give him a chance to put more in, and then follow that up with a smallish 1/2 pot bet on the turn. Unless the turn is a Q/10 in which case I will reevaluate.

Comments after the check-raise This is a very odd play from the BB. Very odd. The min raise from the BB here would be a very bad play with a hand like KQ/A10 because (from the BBs persepctive) we've given them odds to draw and a call would clearly be the right play. Also, it would seem to be a bad raise from weaker made hands than ours like KJ/AJ because it gives us great odds to draw (which we very well might be from the BBs perspective we could have AQ/A10/KQ)Of course when thinking along those lines we always run the danger of attributing more thought to an opponent then is warranted (opponents make bad/unthinking plays all the time). Still I'm more inclined to look at this raise as most likely being one of two types of hands.

1. A weakish A something like A6s that thinks he might be good and is raising to "find out where he's at."

2. A monster.

Given that read (and also including the smaller chance that its a bad raise with KQ/KJ/A10 or something) I'm inclined to call the flop bet with the intention of getting more money on the river. That is, if the BB checks the turn, I will check behind trying to get mroe money out of a weak A on the river. If the BB bets the turn, I'm calling. There's just no way I see being able to get away from AK here even if the BB does end up having Q10/JJ. </font>

<font color="purple">Che: Comments before the check-raise I would put the villain on any playable hand definitely including AKo-AJo, suited Aces, suited broadway, suited connectors down to 54, J9s, KQo. The range would frequently include KJo, QJo, QTo, JTo, smaller unsuited Aces, unsuited connectors, suited one or even two gappers. Occasionally it would include wacky stuff like suited Kings, 95s, and 75o. With only 27 BBs, I generally just focus on the first set since the opponents who play the larger ranges are offset by the opponents who fold some of the hands in my "definitely includes" set (e.g. A6s, 54s).

I would bet t450. I think the default play for the average Party player is to check this flop whether he hit hard, missed completely or is somewhere in between. I don’t want to give a free card to the small pocket pairs and T9’s of the world that will not put any more money in unless they improve. I also want to stack AJ and KJ while making AQ/AT/KQ-type hands pay to chase me. My normal continuation bet is 60-80% pot and I tend toward the lower end on a board with few big draws.

If he raises I would call. QT and JJ are the only hands that are likely to be beating me (only 1 AA and 1 KK plus he didn’t raise preflop), but he may check-raise any of the many two-pair hands or pair+gutshot hands. Add in the occasional Party check-raise bluff with 66 or whatever and it’s an easy call.

If the opponent calls and the turn is a 2-9, I would raise all-in if the villain bets. If he checks, I'd bet t850 and call if he check-raises. I'm still well ahead of opponent's range. A "7" may give him a set, but it could just as easily give him 2-pair so nothing has really changed. If the turn is a T-Q I reluctantly call if opponent leads or otherwise check behind. I call because I can't convince myself to fold top two against an unknown Party opponent with a 27 BB stack if I only have 30 seconds to think about it. If the turn is an A or K, I happily call if opponent leads, otherwise I would check behind. If the stacks were deeper I would bet to build a bigger pot so that I could stack my opponent on the river. However, the pot at this point is only slightly smaller than the effective stack sizes so I can check once to induce a bluff but still get all the chips in on the river if he actually has a hand.

Comments after the check-raise Even if we give the villain all 16 QT hands and the 3 JJ hands that are beating us, we are still ahead the vast majority of the time. AJ, KJ, AQ, ATs, KQ, QQ and TT are all candidates for a check-minraise for a total of 42 hands. Throw in some smaller suited aces and a few total bluffs and we are way ahead.

I would like to discount some of these hands as hands that the opponent should check-raise bigger or check-call, but a minraise of a less than half-pot sized bet doesn’t really tell me much unless it pot-commits the check-raiser.

So, I really dislike the bet of t300 in an online MTT. I can understand how a skilled B&amp;M player can make this bet work, but the limited amount of info available online makes betting a little bit more much better IMHO.

Given my range above, I clearly cannot fold. Another thing I dislike about the small cont bet is that I am now forced to flat call or commit my entire stack. I don’t really want to push, since I will only be called by AA/KK/JJ/QT/AJ/KJ and an occasional AQ. As on the flop, I don’t want to give hands like 99 a free card when they will not bet again unless they improve plus I want to overcharge the 6-outers so I probably raise to 1350 (750 more to the villain).

The money goes all-in on the turn regardless of what the opponent does or what the turn card is. Only exception is if the turn is an A or K, in which case I revert to my original turn play (i.e. check behind to induce a bluff on the river).</font>

<font color="black">Turn
Pot: t1800

Turn: 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB bets t800. Hero calls t800.</font>

<font color="blue">Gigabet: His turn bet surprised me a little bit, I expected him to bet 600, push or ck. He basically tells me that he is committing his stack, with the smallest bet necessary. Normally, I raise all in when someone tells me that, no matter how strong my hand is. I don't want something very scary to hit, and make them fold the rest of their chips on the river. Now, when I have a very strong hand, I rarely analyze the line and narrow the hand range of the villain , but I always do that when I am putting all of my chips in.

So before I push, I go through the line and I eventually decide that he has absolutely nothing, must be bluffing, there is no hand he can play this way(that read is always nothing, or the nuts....I forgot about the nuts.)

After deciding that he was running a bluff, I obviously "just" called. </font>

<font color="green">MLG: Well the turn card seems harmless enough. The bet of 800 pretty much committs the BB. There is very little chance he is folding for his last 1200 in this massive pot. I'm still convinced that I most likely have the best hand, and given that I fully expect a call now I'm gonna push. If he has JJ/Q10 so be it. </font>

<font color="purple">Che: Villain’s range obviously shifts slightly toward the stronger end as he puts more money in the pot, but there is no line he can take that will discount the 42 hands (that I was beating on the flop) enough to make me fold to the fear of the 16 hands (that were beating me on the flop) plus the 3 unlikely hands that villain picked up on the turn (77’s that he check-raise bluffed on the flop). The stacks are simply not deep enough to fold top 2 with this much dead money on this board.

I would raise all-in. My original plan was to bet 450 on the flop, call a non-pot-commiting raise, and then bet or raise a turn 7. The bet to 300 followed by the minraise led me to change to reraising the flop, but calling would have been my second choice. If I did bet 300 and then only call the minraise, I would revert to my initial plan.

While pushing the turn will certainly not fold any hands that are beating me, I will be called by hands I am beating (since villain is pot-committed unless he is bluffing with total air) and I want to charge the villain to draw to any new outs he has picked up on the turn (flush draw if he has Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or gutshot if he has T9 or something goofy like that). I might consider just calling the turn if the 7 was a /images/graemlins/heart.gif, but even then I would probably just push.

My plan on the river is to see where I am when the cards turnover and then scream for an Ace if I'm behind or scream for an Ace if I'm winning.</font>

<font color="black">River
Pot: t3400

River: J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB checks. Hero checks.</font>

<font color="blue">Gigabet: The river card didn't scare me, I knew that my money was already all in.

Just as I expect, he checks, and as I get ready to push, I stop myself and think about his range of hands for calling(I still didn't think I was beat.) I see the diamonds made it, the board was paired.

Now, I am not a passive player on the river, I try and get maximum value for every one of my hands that I see to the river, and expect to showdown a winner. I bet alot of hands for value, that I think some people just open muck. I go through the hands that he can call with, even with the standard loose calling requirements. I eventually decide that he cannot call me, unless he can beat me. Which, I had already decided that he can't. I usually bet there anyway, just to avoid a showdown, less information about my hand and play, and such.

But, since this was for all my chips, I very grudgingly checked. I was quite surprised to see the pot shipped the wrong direction. </font>

<font color="green">MLG: You're behind almost all hands that can call a river bet now. I'd check behind here. </font>

<font color="purple">Che: I would check the river. An additional 8 reasonable hands are beating us (AJ/KJ) plus several less likely hands (QJ/JT/diamond draws). Add in the QT/JJ hands that were already beating us and we have a clear check since many of the hands we were beating (KQ/QQ/TT/ATs and even AQ for some players) may escape despite the incredible pot odds. I think the bet is –EV since nothing that is beating us will fold, but a few hands we are beating will sometimes escape.</font>

<font color="black">Result
BB turns over Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif T/images/graemlins/spade.gif for a straight. Hero has two pair. BB wins the hand.

[Lloyd]

I understand that some of you have found this hand to be incredibly straightforward. I do agree that it didn't have quite the complexity of our last hand. However, it's very typical of online MTTs when you are easily playing for your entire stack on any single hand. I also think this hand is a good discussion on the concept of "Way Ahead / Way Behind" as from the flop on that was the case.

I personally found value in this hand right away. There were two situations I've played recently where I drew from this hand. The first, I induced a bluff from a smaller Ace. The second, I kep the pot small enough that I didn't lose as much as I could have. And had I thought about this hand a little more during a tournament today this post might not be up yet since I'd still be playing!

And let's not forget, this was submitted by Gigabet. Most would say he's at the very top of the MTT ladder. Perhaps, just perhaps, we'll be able to learn something that makes a small difference in our game. And it's those small differences that really separate the good from the great players.

Gigabet has submitted some of his thoughts already and I've asked him to contribute further to this thread. So hopefully everyone will have an opportunity to ask some questions and find out why he thought this was of the most interesting hands he has played.

[Firefly]

Street by street IMHO it's kind of a bland hand. But overall it's very interesting and i like the way Gig played it. Obviously he lost out on the ~T800 villan had left on the river if he was ahead but it's definately gooing to be curtains if we are behind.
So instead of looking street by street, holistically it is an interesting hand imho

[MLG]

I for one was thrilled that I agreed with giga on almost all streets. I'm not persuaded that checking the turn is right, but I can certainly see the argument for it more now than at the time I put my comments together.

[adanthar]

Do I win anything for the river? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I disagree about the turn bet though...I think AJ/KJ play the same way here occasionally, which warrants an immediate push.

[CardSharpCook]

nice work LLoyd, Che, MLG, Gigabet.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
An example of a time when I would limp with AK would be at a table where the avg stack for the table is 100bb and the avg stack for the field is less than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear to me why you'd choose to limp in those situations when the players at the table (or the ones involved at least, including yourself) have 100BBs+ with that type of hand. What's not clear is the importance that the rest of the field have stacks below this threshhold. Would you mind elaborating a little bit further?

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An example of a time when I would limp with AK would be at a table where the avg stack for the table is 100bb and the avg stack for the field is less than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear to me why you'd choose to limp in those situations when the players at the table (or the ones involved at least, including yourself) have 100BBs+ with that type of hand. What's not clear is the importance that the rest of the field have stacks below this threshhold. Would you mind elaborating a little bit further?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember who posted this but here's a near quote: [ QUOTE ]
The difference btwn being broke and having $1M is obvious. The diffence btwn $4M and $5M is still noticeable, but not nearly as important. When you have $100M - what's a couple mil btwn friends?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the stituation you would have here. You all have $100M and you're playing for a $1M. What's the point? You want to either take a very large portion of someone's stack or not even bother. Why? Because what does it matter if you now have $101M when the rest of the field averages $15M?

[Exitonly]

Awesome, the analysis after the hand was much better done this time compared to the last masters hand. Much better. And i think the line i'd have taken compares pretty nicely to the 'masters'.


Awesome job Lloyd, and thanks Che/MLG/Giga.

Good work, can't wait for the next one. Though I remember the last time you said who followed the panelists desicions the closest. Decided there was no reason for that this time?

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Good work, can't wait for the next one. Though I remember the last time you said who followed the panelists desicions the closest. Decided there was no reason for that this time?

[/ QUOTE ]
About an extra hour of work /images/graemlins/wink.gif

After that, I agree with flop call, but still get my money in on the turn. Good input from all of you, and thanks for the time put into this.

[Ryendal]

I want to say I finally found this hand very interesting.
I have some few questions to understand.
Because of my poor english, some questions could appear to be stupid, but I really want to undersand.

************************************************** **********
[ QUOTE ]
When I limp with AK it is for stack protection reasons [...]
An example of a time when I would limp with AK would be at a table where the avg stack for the table is 100bb and the avg stack for the field is less than that

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by field ?

************************************************** **********

[ QUOTE ]
one or two gapped suited connectors

[/ QUOTE ]

Here it's only a language problem, what are "gapped" suited connectors ?

************************************************** **********

[ QUOTE ]
He basically tells me that he is committing his stack

[/ QUOTE ] ( with a bet of 800 instead of 600 )

Does someone could remind me how we calculate when someone is commited please

[the shadow]

Thanks Lloyd, Giga, MLG, and Che!

OK, let's look at it from the villian's perspective.

P/F: He calls a standard-size raise from the BB with QTs. OK.

Flop: He flops a straight and decides to go for a C/R. OK again. I'm a little surprised by the size of the raise, but it looks like he wants to bleed hero and not risk scaring him off.

Turn: The 7d doesn't scare villian and probably won't scare hero, who clearly has some piece of the board. Villian bets a little less than 1/2 the pot. Still trying to bleed hero. Still OK.

River: This is the action that has me thinking. Villian certainly isn't thrilled to see a 3d diamond hit the board. He checks. My question is why? Is villian scared of hero filling a flush? Or is villian changing tactics and trying to trap? Given that villian's been trying to bleed hero, I doubt that it's the latter.

That in turn raises two questions for me. First, what would villian do if hero pushed, as many posters had argued? Sure he's pot-committed, but he just before he hit the call button, he might have 2d thoughts like Giga did. I voted to call the turn and check the river, but it seems to me that the full history leaves it an open question as to whether the hero should have pushed the river.

Second, should villian have pushed the river, despite the 3d diamond on the board? It seems to me that villian would have to put hero on Kd-Jd for him to stick around in the hand this long. Since the odds of hero having that hand are long, I woulda pushed the river if I were the villian.

The Shadow

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]

That is the stituation you would have here. You all have $100M and you're playing for a $1M. What's the point? You want to either take a very large portion of someone's stack or not even bother. Why? Because what does it matter if you now have $101M when the rest of the field averages $15M?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats.... actually a very good point. And I think that's what Giga felt like when he said "but it was for my whole stack, so I grudgingly checked."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good work, can't wait for the next one. Though I remember the last time you said who followed the panelists desicions the closest. Decided there was no reason for that this time?

[/ QUOTE ]
About an extra hour of work /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

understandable

[the shadow]

Field refers to the rest of the tournament at the other tables.

Examples might help on the suited connectors. JsTs is a suited connector. Js9s is a one-gapped suited connector. Js8s is a two-gapped suited connector.

The Shadow

[Ryendal]

Yes, Thank you Lloyd, Gigabet, MLG and CHE.

Thank you the shadow for your answers.

For my question related to " commiting the stack ", I was not sure, but now I guess it's with an intuitive point of view we can see it.
It's seems true for me that by betting 800 instead of 600 the villain is "commiting his stack". The 800 bet seems awkward for a bluff attempt.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
That is the stituation you would have here. You all have $100M and you're playing for a $1M. What's the point? You want to either take a very large portion of someone's stack or not even bother. Why? Because what does it matter if you now have $101M when the rest of the field averages $15M?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the concept of declining marginal utility and it entered my mind that was what he was talking about. However, his stated reason was: "The value in raising off the limpers, IMO, is greatly reduced by the fact that you will usually win a small pot, or lose a big one." This is a basic cash game concept and has to do with the 100BB stacks. You always want to try to avoid these situations, regardless of what the field's average stack is.

So my question was mainly what added significance did a lower field stack provide to the situation? It seemed to me that it had more to do with the value of the chips you lose than the ones you gain. However, your explanation seems to essentially be saying to turn down a +EV situation (just that your argument is its less EV than it may appear), which I don't think is what he meant.

[grandgnu]

So Gigabet, I advocated a push on the river. I figured Villian was scared of either the flush or boat possibilities. You could easily be on suited cards that hit the river, or the magical A/J.

I don't mind the check, leaving yourself the possibility of staying alive with a decent enough stack to mount a comeback.

But, do you believe there was any possibility of Villian folding? If so, how often do you believe he would fold to your push on that scary river?

[gergery]

Awesome, I love the "Hand with the Masters"

I'm curious -- opponent's T800 bet on the turn seems like a bet that obviously commits him. Weren't any of you more concerned that that screams out the nuts?

How would you have played some of the most likely hands you put him on here if you were in his shoes? (ie. if you had QT here in BB how do you play it? JJ? AJ/KJ?)

--Greg

[ QUOTE ]
So Gigabet, I advocated a push on the river. I figured Villian was scared of either the flush or boat possibilities. You could easily be on suited cards that hit the river, or the magical A/J.

I don't mind the check, leaving yourself the possibility of staying alive with a decent enough stack to mount a comeback.

But, do you believe there was any possibility of Villian folding? If so, how often do you believe he would fold to your push on that scary river?

[/ QUOTE ]

0% if he's beating us.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Gigabet, I advocated a push on the river. I figured Villian was scared of either the flush or boat possibilities. You could easily be on suited cards that hit the river, or the magical A/J.

I don't mind the check, leaving yourself the possibility of staying alive with a decent enough stack to mount a comeback.

But, do you believe there was any possibility of Villian folding? If so, how often do you believe he would fold to your push on that scary river?

[/ QUOTE ]

0% if he's beating us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think he folds the straight against the possible flush or boat, or the flush against the possible boat? Ever?

How often does a villain check a hand that beats us on the river? What hands in villain's range does he call us with on the river if we push?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Gigabet, I advocated a push on the river. I figured Villian was scared of either the flush or boat possibilities. You could easily be on suited cards that hit the river, or the magical A/J.

I don't mind the check, leaving yourself the possibility of staying alive with a decent enough stack to mount a comeback.

But, do you believe there was any possibility of Villian folding? If so, how often do you believe he would fold to your push on that scary river?

[/ QUOTE ]

0% if he's beating us.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think he folds the straight against the possible flush or boat, or the flush against the possible boat? Ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe like 2% or something, but either way insignificant. You really think someone's folding a straight here getting 4:1 to a possible back-door flush or boat?

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]

So you don't think he folds the straight against the possible flush or boat, or the flush against the possible boat? Ever?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


Maybe like 2% or something, but either way insignificant. You really think someone's folding a straight here getting 4:1 to a possible back-door flush or boat?

[/ QUOTE ]

If villian is afraid of the flush or the boat (reasonably obvious given his check after leading the whole way) then I believe it is possible he will fold to our push. Otherwise, why check? Does he expect us to check the flush or the boat? If he's going to check-call, he might as well push.

I don't know that he'll fold more than 1 times in 4, since we don't have any reads on our opponent. But I do know that he is scared of the river and we have an opportunity to take down a big pot (since our push represents enough of a bet that he'd be too short-stacked to mount a comeback, while if he does opt to fold to our push, he has enough chips to continue play)

But, I'm not adverse to checking and hoping we win, and keeping enough chips for ourselves to mount a comeback as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, why check?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because villain's a bad player, IMHO. He played this hand poorly and cost himself chips. Plenty of hands that he beats here call a river push getting 4:1, and many of them check behind. I think his check was very much not thought out.

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, why check?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because villain's a bad player, IMHO. He played this hand poorly and cost himself chips. Plenty of hands that he beats here call a river push getting 4:1, and many of them check behind. I think his check was very much not thought out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would've gone broke somewhere on the flop or turn anyway. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
If villian is afraid of the flush or the boat (reasonably obvious given his check after leading the whole way) then I believe it is possible he will fold to our push. Otherwise, why check? Does he expect us to check the flush or the boat? If he's going to check-call, he might as well push.



[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that if you are going to call a bet you might as well bet is wrong. There are situations where this is true. Like on the flop when you have a draw and you would be forced to call a push due to the odds it is laying you. In that situation you want to make the bet so that you have folding equity added to the equity you have from the times you hit your draw.

However, the opposite is true when you arrive at the river with a mediocre hand. In that case if you bet you will only get called by hands that beat you, but if you check intending to call, then while you will still lose to better hands you will sometimes tempt worse hands (that would have folded if you had bet) into bluffing.

Moral of the story, dont abide by universal platitudes like if you're going to call a bet its better to bet yourself. In poker, context is everything.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If villian is afraid of the flush or the boat (reasonably obvious given his check after leading the whole way) then I believe it is possible he will fold to our push. Otherwise, why check? Does he expect us to check the flush or the boat? If he's going to check-call, he might as well push.



[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that if you are going to call a bet you might as well bet is wrong. There are situations where this is true. Like on the flop when you have a draw and you would be forced to call a push due to the odds it is laying you. In that situation you want to make the bet so that you have folding equity added to the equity you have from the times you hit your draw.

However, the opposite is true when you arrive at the river with a mediocre hand. In that case if you bet you will only get called by hands that beat you, but if you check intending to call, then while you will still lose to better hands you will sometimes tempt worse hands (that would have folded if you had bet) into bluffing.

Moral of the story, dont abide by universal platitudes like if you're going to call a bet its better to bet yourself. In poker, context is everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think checking QT here is horrible. Do you disagree, or are you just annoyed by the cliche?

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So you don't think he folds the straight against the possible flush or boat, or the flush against the possible boat? Ever?

[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


Maybe like 2% or something, but either way insignificant. You really think someone's folding a straight here getting 4:1 to a possible back-door flush or boat?

[/ QUOTE ]

If villian is afraid of the flush or the boat (reasonably obvious given his check after leading the whole way) then I believe it is possible he will fold to our push. Otherwise, why check? Does he expect us to check the flush or the boat? If he's going to check-call, he might as well push.

I don't know that he'll fold more than 1 times in 4, since we don't have any reads on our opponent. But I do know that he is scared of the river and we have an opportunity to take down a big pot (since our push represents enough of a bet that he'd be too short-stacked to mount a comeback, while if he does opt to fold to our push, he has enough chips to continue play)

But, I'm not adverse to checking and hoping we win, and keeping enough chips for ourselves to mount a comeback as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I was shocked to see the nuts. Him checking his QT there is awful. Any hand that we have that beats QT is obviously pushing, but a lot of worse hands are checking behind. His check there looks a lot more like a bluff giving up or Ax than it does QT. Though I guess not everyone on party poker thinks like that eh?

Everett

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that if you are going to call a bet you might as well bet is wrong. There are situations where this is true. Like on the flop when you have a draw and you would be forced to call a push due to the odds it is laying you. In that situation you want to make the bet so that you have folding equity added to the equity you have from the times you hit your draw.

However, the opposite is true when you arrive at the river with a mediocre hand. In that case if you bet you will only get called by hands that beat you, but if you check intending to call, then while you will still lose to better hands you will sometimes tempt worse hands (that would have folded if you had bet) into bluffing.

Moral of the story, dont abide by universal platitudes like if you're going to call a bet its better to bet yourself. In poker, context is everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I just made Poo-Bah, how can my line be wrong? Didn't you know that we're always right? My status isn't even all built up through OOT forums either. I just can't be wrong!

*looks at himself in mirror..........then blows his brains out* /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[MLG]

Mostly im annoyed by the cliche. In this spot the pot is so big compared to the stacks that most hands that called this far are going to call the river. If there was some chance that a better hand might check behind then I might agree that checking is a possibility. Here though, every better hand is going to bet and you're going to have to call so you might as well bet and squeeze a last drop of value out if he has A10/AQ.

[TomHimself]

mlg, great post sir!

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I was shocked to see the nuts. Him checking his QT there is awful.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty bad, but not at all shocking. He got scared by the river card so he checked, but of course he's calling and of course, if you think you are WAWB on the turn and do not put him on a weaker ace, you're almost always WB to exactly that one hand on the river.

I'm also really surprised that people are talking about betting when putting him on a straight - has anyone at Party *ever* folded a straight to any bet on this kind of board?

[beenben]

I commented on the turn and river- I folded the turn and checked the river because I knew I was behind. Therefore, played the hand better than the masters. However, on the river, I narrowed the hands too far- didn't include a straight. But in any event, I knew I was behind.

[bennies]

[ QUOTE ]
I commented on the turn and river- I folded the turn and checked the river because I knew I was behind. Therefore, played the hand better than the masters. However, on the river, I narrowed the hands too far- didn't include a straight. But in any event, I knew I was behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to write this but I folded preflop. I win.

[kamrann]

The river diamond also happened to be a jack, pairing the one on the flop. I don't think its just the flush that villain is a little scared of here...
Still, I think he has to call if hero pushes. And I would say the chances of hero calling allin on the river with a hand worse than a straight are higher than the chances of him pushing on a bluff. So I would say villain should probably have pushed the river anyway, but given he didn't, hero is right to check.

[Cactus Jack]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also really surprised that people are talking about betting when putting him on a straight - has anyone at Party *ever* folded a straight to any bet on this kind of board?

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the number of times I've gone broke to set over set, uh, NO.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks have never lost a game.

CJ

Superb hand to replay, Lloyd. The criticism was totally unwarranted, but typical. Thanks to you. nh

Is there interest in "Play a Hand with the Masters backwards #2"? As in, setup:

Setup
$100+9 Party Poker MTT
Blinds 50/100
No strong read on villain

Stacks

UTG: t5380
Villain: t2670
MP: t1270
MP+1: t1333
MP+2: 2395
CO: t1394
Button: t2917
SB: 2270
BB/Hero: 2915

Pre-Flop

UTG folds. Villain raises to t275. All fold to the you in the BB with Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif.

What do you do and why?

Call, for 175 chips into a 425 chip pot. This hand is decent to be calling a raise with out of position, suited, connected, and high, but not the kind of dominated hand you hate calling a raise with. In this case, if you get top pair with the Q or T you may be able to get away from it. Hand isn't good enough to push him off preflop, but perhaps you can outflop him or outplay him after the flop. Pot odds are too good, hopefully he is tight and has AA/KK/AK and your cards are live.

Flop
Pot: t600

Flop: J /images/graemlins/spade.gif A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif

What do you do and why?

First, I'm happy to see I flopped the nuts. So what do I do. Well, I'll give credit to the raiser to have a good hand preflop - this hits all of them with either 2 pair or trips (AA/KK/JJ/AK/AJ/KJ) or a pair and a gutshot (AQ/KQ/QJ/JT/QQ/TT). I think this hit my opponent and I can stack him, so I'd probably bet out. I want to win a huge pot here. Let's take the lead away from the Villain so that the only way he can take the lead back is to make a bet that committs his whole stack. Bet out 2/3 the pot or 400.

Any thoughts? Different lines?

[ QUOTE ]
I commented on the turn and river- I folded the turn and checked the river because I knew I was behind. Therefore, played the hand better than the masters. However, on the river, I narrowed the hands too far- didn't include a straight. But in any event, I knew I was behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

You were lucky that Giga got unlucky.

Seeing the hand I feel somewhat vindicated for my postflop #1 recommendation against those who replied I was weak tight.

[Yuv]

Weren't we going broke on the majority of river cards there?
I mean, if one of the 3 J's doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose. If one of our 4 outs doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose.

Basically, I don't see much of a different between the way Giga played it and the way most of us would (pushing the flop or turn). We got "lucky" that basically one of the 3 scare card for him came.

It's VERY interesting to read Gig'as, MLG's and Che's review of the hand, but I still don't see how interesting this specific hand was. We would have gone broke even with that line the vast majority of times.

[ QUOTE ]
Weren't we going broke on the majority of river cards there?
I mean, if one of the 3 J's doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose. If one of our 4 outs doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose.

Basically, I don't see much of a different between the way Giga played it and the way most of us would (pushing the flop or turn). We got "lucky" that basically one of the 3 scare card for him came.

It's VERY interesting to read Gig'as, MLG's and Che's review of the hand, but I still don't see how interesting this specific hand was. We would have gone broke even with that line the vast majority of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all play hands like this frequently. Discussing them is very +EV.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weren't we going broke on the majority of river cards there?
I mean, if one of the 3 J's doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose. If one of our 4 outs doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose.

Basically, I don't see much of a different between the way Giga played it and the way most of us would (pushing the flop or turn). We got "lucky" that basically one of the 3 scare card for him came.

It's VERY interesting to read Gig'as, MLG's and Che's review of the hand, but I still don't see how interesting this specific hand was. We would have gone broke even with that line the vast majority of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all play hands like this frequently. Discussing them is very +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, "Hand with the masters" is a brilliant idea and is preformed extremely well by Lloyd and friends. I love it.

The only "problem" I have is that I don't see any difference between the possible lines here. We were "suppose" to go broke on pretty much every possible line suggested.

If you disregard the 4 aces and kings that would have won us the pot anyhow (either with all the money in on the flop/turn or on the river), there were 2 possible cards for villian to check the river (other two J's) and one near certain card (Jd). I don't think we can say that Giga's line was better, just because that one certain card dropped and saved us the reamining of our stack.

[bennies]

You are right that Hero got lucky, c'mon, of course flopped two pair should go broke against a straight.

The value of playing the Hand like Hero did becomes more clear if villain had been bluffing (like Gigabet thought he was). Had Hero reraised (pushed) the flop he would have won less.

I'm not saying Hero's line is better, just that the two lines are different.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weren't we going broke on the majority of river cards there?
I mean, if one of the 3 J's doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose. If one of our 4 outs doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose.

Basically, I don't see much of a different between the way Giga played it and the way most of us would (pushing the flop or turn). We got "lucky" that basically one of the 3 scare card for him came.

It's VERY interesting to read Gig'as, MLG's and Che's review of the hand, but I still don't see how interesting this specific hand was. We would have gone broke even with that line the vast majority of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all play hands like this frequently. Discussing them is very +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, "Hand with the masters" is a brilliant idea and is preformed extremely well by Lloyd and friends. I love it.

The only "problem" I have is that I don't see any difference between the possible lines here. We were "suppose" to go broke on pretty much every possible line suggested.

If you disregard the 4 aces and kings that would have won us the pot anyhow (either with all the money in on the flop/turn or on the river), there were 2 possible cards for villian to check the river (other two J's) and one near certain card (Jd). I don't think we can say that Giga's line was better, just because that one certain card dropped and saved us the reamining of our stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain doesn't always have QT here, in which case how you play the hand matters a lot. Reread Giga's comments on the flop and turn--it's important to learn how to extract money from someone on a bluff when you have a monster hand.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Weren't we going broke on the majority of river cards there?
I mean, if one of the 3 J's doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose. If one of our 4 outs doesn't hit, villian pushes, we call and lose.

Basically, I don't see much of a different between the way Giga played it and the way most of us would (pushing the flop or turn). We got "lucky" that basically one of the 3 scare card for him came.

It's VERY interesting to read Gig'as, MLG's and Che's review of the hand, but I still don't see how interesting this specific hand was. We would have gone broke even with that line the vast majority of times.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all play hands like this frequently. Discussing them is very +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, "Hand with the masters" is a brilliant idea and is preformed extremely well by Lloyd and friends. I love it.

The only "problem" I have is that I don't see any difference between the possible lines here. We were "suppose" to go broke on pretty much every possible line suggested.

If you disregard the 4 aces and kings that would have won us the pot anyhow (either with all the money in on the flop/turn or on the river), there were 2 possible cards for villian to check the river (other two J's) and one near certain card (Jd). I don't think we can say that Giga's line was better, just because that one certain card dropped and saved us the reamining of our stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain doesn't always have QT here, in which case how you play the hand matters a lot. Reread Giga's comments on the flop and turn--it's important to learn how to extract money from someone on a bluff when you have a monster hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, wouldn't it be more educational to post a similar hand that worked (i.e., giga got opponent to bluff away his stack with that line)? I'm not saying that specific line doesn't work and obviously every time Giga shares his train of thought is very valuable. This specific line on this specific hand is what I don't especially like.

The comments, obviously, are something we all need to read and try to understand.

And almost every discussion is +ev, nothing wrong in talking about our game.

[Lloyd]

Which also gets to Gigabet's initial flop bet which I don't recall has been discussed in this thread yet. How many of us would just go ahead and make a 2/3 to pot size bet to protect our hand on that kind of a board? Every decision made in this hand was to extract the maximum number of chips from a worse hand/bluff until the river when it shifted to the gambler's ruin concept - it was more valuable to leave with 900 chips if behind then win another 900 chips if ahead.

[Lloyd]

Things don't always turn out the way we expect. Very few people thought the villain had QT. Another lesson learned (at least for me) that complete bluffs are often played just like the nuts. Think back to some hands when you just *knew* you were way ahead only to see the pot go the wrong direction when your opponent had a monster.

Like I said originally, I don't think there is anything earth shattering here. I think there are a few subtle points that can help make the difference between a good and great player. And when people cannot recognize the lessons to be learned, it's usually because they have already become a great player or are not quite ready to do so.

[Yuv]

[ QUOTE ]
Things don't always turn out the way we expect. Very few people thought the villain had QT. Another lesson learned (at least for me) that complete bluffs are often played just like the nuts. Think back to some hands when you just *knew* you were way ahead only to see the pot go the wrong direction when your opponent had a monster.

Like I said originally, I don't think there is anything earth shattering here. I think there are a few subtle points that can help make the difference between a good and great player. And when people cannot recognize the lessons to be learned, it's usually because they have already become a great player or are not quite ready to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a bit patronizing, but so be it.

Most posters would have bet the same on the flop (unless you can prove that there's a serious difference between betting 2/3 pot or pot there). The only major difference between giga's point of view and ours (including Che and MLG), is the turn call.

I'll think about it, maybe i'm missing something subtle here, but to me there's little difference there.

Again, I love this concept and I love reading the experts and forum members thoughts. After the turn bet, I think every line takes us to the same point the vast majority of times (regardless of this specific hand), but as I said, i'll give it another thought.

[fnurt]

I think this was a valuable discussion in that we learned a good player doesn't always magically sense when his opponent has the nuts. Sometimes the other guy will have a hand much better than you expect, and that's just life. Any "name pro" goes broke here or does about the same as Giga, unless this was a live hand and they picked up a read somehow.

It does bother me that because the result was something surprising, the minority of posters who actually wanted to fold this hand are going to walk away thinking they played it right. That is results-oriented thinking, and it is no different from saying that we should have folded preflop because the other guy ended up flopping a straight.

One issue you can't get away from is the Quiz Factor, which is to say, people are going to think about a hand differently because it's a "Hand with the Masters." People start hunting for tiny little hints that the villain might have the nuts, they engage in super-elaborate thought processes, they look for a reason to go against the 2+2 consensus in hopes that they might distinguish themselves. In the real world, hands like this come up all the time, and you don't get a big warning sign that says "this is a Hand with the Masters, so something interesting is going to happen." The issue is not just whether we can think deep thoughts about a particular hand on the forums, but whether we have the discipline to apply the correct thought process to every hand we come across in a tournament.

[Lloyd]

Very well said and I couldn't agree with you more. I'm sure that Gigabet would say that at no time did he consider folding this hand and in fact got "lucky" to get away from it with a few chips left over.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
I for one was thrilled that I agreed with giga on almost all streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

yikes

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
One issue you can't get away from is the Quiz Factor, which is to say, people are going to think about a hand differently because it's a "Hand with the Masters." People start hunting for tiny little hints that the villain might have the nuts, they engage in super-elaborate thought processes, they look for a reason to go against the 2+2 consensus in hopes that they might distinguish themselves. In the real world, hands like this come up all the time, and you don't get a big warning sign that says "this is a Hand with the Masters, so something interesting is going to happen." The issue is not just whether we can think deep thoughts about a particular hand on the forums, but whether we have the discipline to apply the correct thought process to every hand we come across in a tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

bingo

[KneeCo]

Thanks to Lloyd and the 'masters' for the work they put in. I hope the series continues for a long while.

I still don't like the way the Hero played the hand, even though I would have gone bust while he still has chips, like I said on the river thread, I feel as though he failed to take control of the hand.

Happy to see the panel agrees about the check on the river at least.

Anyway, good work all.

As a small piece of advice to Lloyd, I think it might be best not to divulge the identity of the Hero in future Masters threads. Just putting "Hero is a very accomplished pro, who may or may not be recognized by the villain" until the results thread would have given everyone sufficient info to post responses and I think would have made the exercise more productive and slightly more honest.

[MLG]

oh please. there's nothing wrong with thinking about a hand and being encouraged that your opinion jives with other good players.

[CardSharpCook]

AJo is a poster that I'd ignore if I didn't derive some pleasure from reading the idiocy that spews from his keyboard.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong, "Hand with the masters" is a brilliant idea and is preformed extremely well by Lloyd and friends. I love it.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. thanks to all involved.

and now i'll be the ungrateful bastard who requests lloyd sink a little more time into it:

when you're posting the hand, would it be possible to post how many chips each player has (or at least the shorter stack)? i must've done the arithmetic in my head 10 times and i'm sure others did as well. i actually always wished bisonbison did this too...

but again, thanks.

[locutus2002]

Getting a little caustic today?
/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[ClaytonN]

[ QUOTE ]
AJo is a poster that I'd ignore if I didn't derive some pleasure from reading the idiocy that spews from his keyboard.

[/ QUOTE ]

tad harsh there chuck. like it or not, he's successful at higher limits than you. if anything, look past his crap spewing and find his occasional nuggets of wisdom /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
Getting a little caustic today?
/images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

HA! yeah I guess so. /images/graemlins/grin.gif AJo has always struck me as a jerk, and that BBP - well, I usually reply with more humor, don't I? Thanks for pointing it out.

edit: Clayton, I'll take that under advisement.

[mjm]

[ QUOTE ]
Every decision made in this hand was to extract the maximum number of chips from a worse hand/bluff until the river when it shifted to the gambler's ruin concept - it was more valuable to leave with 900 chips if behind then win another 900 chips if ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is also Villian's thinking on the river? I am finding it difficult to understand why Villian does not push on the river. It's also interesting to see that despite many claims that this hand was boring, virtually all the field recommended a line that would have busted them, at least hero still has a short stack to try to get back in the reckoning with! Thanks Lloyd and panel.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]

oh please. there's nothing wrong with thinking about a hand and being encouraged that your opinion jives with other good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

i just thought it was funny. when i am playing good i don't give a [censored] what "giga" thinks because i know i played it right. this should especially be true for a fairly elementary hand with shallow stacks.

not to mention the fact that your opinion didn't even match his? am i missing something, or didn't you recommend a different play on the turn?

[AJo Go All In]

yes i am a jerk, but i'm not an idiot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every decision made in this hand was to extract the maximum number of chips from a worse hand/bluff until the river when it shifted to the gambler's ruin concept - it was more valuable to leave with 900 chips if behind then win another 900 chips if ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is also Villian's thinking on the river? I am finding it difficult to understand why Villian does not push on the river. It's also interesting to see that despite many claims that this hand was boring, virtually all the field recommended a line that would have busted them, at least hero still has a short stack to try to get back in the reckoning with! Thanks Lloyd and panel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain played poorly.

[betgo]

The amazing thing about this hand is that Gigabet flopped top 2 pair against villain's straight and Gigabet didn't bust out. This probably indicates that villain played poorly and Gigabet played well, although this may be somewhat result oriented.

Villain's flop and turn bet both were strange and indicated either the nuts or a complete bluff. This is undoubtably why Gigabet flat called. The minicheckraise and the 45% of remaining chips bets are both classic nuts or pure bluff plays, particularly on a dangerous board. It was bad to play in a way that gave too much information about villain's hand, particularly against Gigabet.

I don't like villain's minicheckraise on the flop. I would lead into the raiser, as Brunson recommends.

The villain's check on the river may not be that bad. I don't think villain was stupid enough to check because he was afraid of the jack. If hero has trips or a boat, he is going to call a push and is going to push. In this case hero saved his chips by checking behind, but it is clear from the discussion that most $100 players would have pushed with AK. The check may induce more bluffs from weaker hands than a push would get additional calls.

[A_PLUS]

[ QUOTE ]

If villian is afraid of the flush or the boat (reasonably obvious given his check after leading the whole way) then I believe it is possible he will fold to our push. Otherwise, why check? Does he expect us to check the flush or the boat? If he's going to check-call, he might as well push.


[/ QUOTE ]

This thinking is commonly quoted and rarely correct.

You just advocated a line that would make check-calling with QT a perfect play, then asked why you would ever check-call.

[A_PLUS]

I dont think the check-call with QT is the right play here. But there are situations only slightly different than this where it is. If we both had a few more chips behind, the fact that the Jd completed draws, puts a lot of the villan's range into the "beats us" category, where it doesnt matter what we do, we are losing all of our chips. But it also puts quite a few hands now into the "fold to a push, but bet if he checks" category.

Lets say we had 1500ish behind, I think it is reasonable to think that someone with AT would fold to a push, but may bet the river. I am not saying a good player would do that, but you see these value bettish bluffs all time, when you show weakness after a scare card.

[ QUOTE ]

Villain's flop and turn bet both were strange and indicated either the nuts or a complete bluff. This is undoubtably why Gigabet flat called.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why did he flat call? Because he thought he was up against the nuts? or Because he thought it was a bluff? If he thought it was a bluff, wouldn't he put him all in?

[Exitonly]

[ QUOTE ]
Which also gets to Gigabet's initial flop bet which I don't recall has been discussed in this thread yet. How many of us would just go ahead and make a 2/3 to pot size bet to protect our hand on that kind of a board? Every decision made in this hand was to extract the maximum number of chips from a worse hand/bluff until the river when it shifted to the gambler's ruin concept - it was more valuable to leave with 900 chips if behind then win another 900 chips if ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]


I was happy to see Giga had the same size flop bet as me, and for the exact same reasons.

w00t.

---

And yea for those that saying we just got lucky here and were doomed to lose the hand... but QT was just part of his range, he very well could have been on a bluff or weak Ace here.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain's flop and turn bet both were strange and indicated either the nuts or a complete bluff. This is undoubtably why Gigabet flat called.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why did he flat call? Because he thought he was up against the nuts? or Because he thought it was a bluff? If he thought it was a bluff, wouldn't he put him all in?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is kind of elementary and I don't know if I should answer it. Gigabet thinks he is either up against the nuts or a pure bluff. In either case, raising would be a bad play. I am not clear what you gain by taking someone allin if you think they are bluffing.

[fnurt]

Which MTT guru was it that said "calling is the new raising"? This hand was a very good example.

[ QUOTE ]
I am not clear what you gain by taking someone allin if you think they are bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are right, you take all of their chips.

[Exitonly]

that would be the case if you were CALLING all in... but if you think they're bluffing, and you raise them... THEY'LL FOLD if you were right, and if you were wrong, you lost extra chips.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not clear what you gain by taking someone allin if you think they are bluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are right, you take all of their chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I bet into you as a bluff, and you raise all in, you think I'm going to call?

[jackaaron]

Not saying that I would fold the flop after his check raise...but, how many times have you seen these players check the nuts on the flop, and raise precisely double your bet? I've seen it enough times to at least highly consider that he has QT, and that I might be hoping for another A or K. Please don't flame me, all I'm saying is that we've seen players on Party and Stars do this so often it has become commonplace. It's a weakness by these players with the nuts on the flop because they seem to be afraid that if they bet anymore they won't be called, and they won't get to show their pretty nuts...lol.