Hand to Talk About

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Here's an interesting hand I played earlier this evening. The game was $30-$60.

Three players limped in including a very good player in the middle. I called from late position with K/forums/images/icons/spade.gifQ/forums/images/icons/club.gif. Both blinds played so six of us saw the flop for one bet each.

The flop was K/forums/images/icons/diamond.gifQ/forums/images/icons/heart.gif7/forums/images/icons/spade.gif. It was checked to me and only the good player called.

The turn was the 3/forums/images/icons/heart.gif. We both checked.

The river was the 8/forums/images/icons/spade.gif. My opponent checked, I bet, and he called.

All comments welcome.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ALL1N]

I think it's quite a fine play.

Given that the opponent is a very good player, I think the only hands you can figure him for are AJ, AT, and A7.

There are 4 BB's in the pot on the turn, and he is going to fold each of those hands when you bet.

By giving a free card, you are going to lose the pot plus a river bet about 10% of the time (AJ, AT: 4 outs; A7: 5 outs). However, for nearly every other river card that could fall, your opponent may well figure you for a bluff and call you down with his A-high or pair of sevens. Or, better still (but less likely) he could bluff into you.

If you win an extra bet on the river more than 50% of the time then the play is better than taking the pot on the turn. I think this is likely, as the weakness you showed on the turn will induce many river calls.

ALL1N

[flopdanutz]

What could your opponent have to make a call on the flop and check call play on the river?

I dont play any high limit but a check call on the river with AT or AJ seems a bit loose passive, (maybe not the style a good high limit player?)

I would have to say maybe a middle pp and chose not to raise it preflop, maybe 99,TT? Maybe he flopped second pair, QJ? QT and was looking to hit a queen or kicker card for a cheap flop bet? I doubt he would check a king with a decent kicker unless he knows he is behind.

mason's check on the turn bet to induce a call? seems profitable if you can successfully put your opponent on a hand and suspect he will fold to a turn bet. The river bet seems safe because there is a strong possiblity that the good player will bet out his hand on the river if he hit.

I suspect mason's turn check was a represenation of a flop steal -> chicken out on the turn -> desperately tried to buy it on the river. that might have triggered a river call with an pocket pair or a weak pair. Also if the good player was calling with middle pair (queen) and was hoping to hit a jack or ten kicker then mason would make a more if he hit and bet agressively.
those are my thoughts....any comments?

MASON, did u get to see what the guy had?

[DKNY]

Hi Mason,

Pre-flop would you raise with that hand sometimes to vary your play or to drive out the blinds?

His call on the flop was interesting and suspicious. If he had something like JT he would probably play back at you. And why would he call with only middle or bottom pair? AQ or A7s could be a possibility. You had to suspect he might've flopped bottom set.

He hasn't showed much strength so far, prehaps a bet on the turn would've lost him, and there's the possibility of a check-raise from him because he flopped a set. So your check on the turn accomplished the following: It will let you know where you are by the river since you have position on him, you avoid getting check-raised or you got your opponent to think your bet on the flop was a position bet or semi-bluff.

Your opponent would've bet on the river if he did flop a set, since he checked, your 2 pairs were good and you were successful in inducing a call from him.

Hope you can tell us what he was holding and your thinking on every round.

D

[bernie]

youre putting him on a set way too fast here. he only called a flop bet. no way you can be scared of a set from this. many other hands he could hold. there's only 1 set he could really hold and thats 7s. he'd have raised preflop with KK or QQ.

b

[Dynasty]

The turn check is a mistake for several reasons, the most noteworthy of which may be that the K/forums/images/icons/heart.gif is unaccounted for.

[Dynasty]

youre putting him on a set way too fast here. he only called a flop bet. no way you can be scared of a set from this

He's not worried about a set. Mason thinks his opponent has either middle pair and is drawing dead or has bottom pair and is drawing to two outs. I'm sure Mason thought this opponent would check-fold either of those two hands on the turn but would make a crying call on the river, especially with a Queen.

If the board wasn't so draw heavy, the play would be a reasonable option. But the gut shot straight draws and the unaccounted for K/forums/images/icons/heart.gif make the play a mistake.

[bernie]

what does it matter about the Kh? the good player doesnt have a K. he'd have bet out or shown some strength. if it comes on the river, mason gets a FH.

i do agree about the gutshot though as being a possibility.

unless mason had an inkling that this player would fold the turn, meaning he was drawing very slim, id have bet the turn

b

[elysium]

hi mason
it looks like your opponent has kicker problems. the turn check......hmmm.

yesterday mason i would have put this opponent on JTs, and been wrong. or i would have him on KJs or so, and again been wrong, because those reads would have come from a book, and not from the gut. so, i'm going to take the advice from tommy, major, mike and sucker to put down the book, and read from the gut instead. and i don't know how i know this, but i know what your opponent is holding, exactly AhQd. yes, the book says KJs, but not the gut. so at a gut level, i like the turn check-down. he's an 18-1 or so dog, and when you consider the number of times your hand will improve and increase your implied odds, which will not happen if your opponent's hand improves because he MUST bet out on the river when he makes 2 pair, but must call your raise when he makes trips, meaning that your implied odds increase when your hand improves, but his doesn't; when you factor that in against the advantage of betting to pick up the pot on the turn, seeing the river has positive ev., and it appears as though the way that top two pair on a hi, hi, rag, rag board cuts down your opponents effective odds makes seeing the river for implied value correct. if, for example, you had only two pair here, i'm sure you would bet the turn because now trips wins over your two pair. but it's that gut read that does it. and you thought you were going to get me on this one. well, thankfully i listen and learn; here, just in the nick of time. gut level hand-reading.....mason just yesterday i would have had this post exactly wrong.

[leon]

Mason, I don't like the turn check for several reasons. You almost certainly have the best hand and there are draws which can call the flop and will call the turn bet. Two examples would be 10J and a backdoor heart draw which caught on the turn. You advocate "check behinds" a lot more than many and often your rationale makes a great deal of sense. Here, I think a check is a mistake.

The good player's river call now suggests he had a hand which he might not have called a turn bet with, say QJ, but your turn check has now sown enough doubt in his mind that he looks you up. That said, I still think overall this turn check is a mistake. Clearly, with his simple call on the river your hand is good.

I'll give him QJ suited.

Leon

[Clarkmeister]

I don't know why everyone thinks this "good player" in MP is folding a queen to a turn bet when all Mason did was bet when checked to in presumably last position.

[Lee Jones]

Dynasty, I'm disinclined to worry about the K/forums/images/icons/heart.gif since the opponent didn't make a move on the flop. Would he quietly call with any hand that flopped top pair and a three flush? And remember, he's a good player - I don't think he was in the pot with K/forums/images/icons/heart.gif 2/forums/images/icons/heart.gif

The thing that terrified me about the check on the turn was that Mason's opponent acted exactly like he had JT. He limped in the middle, and then on the flop, meekly called. He's a good player, so he doesn't do a lot of meek calling. Conclusion - he's got a draw and wants company.

Presumably he didn't have JT as he wouldn't have called the river (so the AJ or AT option looks a lot better). But with the second heart out there, and the chance that he did, indeed, have JT, there'd be no way I'd check the turn.

But Mason knows the game and the players 1000% better than I do, so I'm eager to hear his reasoning.

Regards, Lee

[mikelow]

I would have bet the turn at the table. Were you going for a check-raise?

[Philuva]

I agree with Clarkmeister here. There are a lot of hands that MP would call a turn bet, including KTs, QJ, maybe KJs. He would probably call a river bet as well.

Plus there are drawing hands that he may ONLY call a turn bet, but not a river bet including TJ or AJ.

I think these are all reasonable hands for him to limp in MP in what may be a passive game based on the action of this hand.

I think a bet was missed.

[DanZ]

Exactly who is supposed to have the king of hearts? The good player who checked kings with 1 player left to act in an unraised, 6 way pot with KQ on board?

In fact, this is more reason to check, since the Kh makes a great river card.

[DanZ]

It is, of course, worth risking a gut shot to win a call from an AJ on the river, or to get such a hand to bluff. THis is bcause you are risking 5 big bets (the pot + 1) on a 10:1 shot, with a good (call it 2/3) chance to win a bet on the river. Occaisionally, you will be able to win more than this if you fill and he is helped also.

Dan Z.

[Vehn]

Do you really think a good player in a 6 handed unraised pot is not going to bet the flop here when checked to 2nd to last to act with JT? There's no way he has JT. I like every street to be honest. Do a little hand reading here guys. What would a good player check on the flop and call one bet when everyone else folds to Mason's bet. Basically only J9 or a hand like A7, 87, or 76. AJ or AT would probably have raised preflop. A king or queen would usually bet the flop. Almost certainly all of those hands will fold to the big turn bet, but will call or bluff at the river if the turn is checked through. Since most of those are drawing very slim why not give them a free card and try to get a bet on the river? I just don't see Mason's opponent paying off the whole way. If Mason bets the turn his opponent folds almost everything. My only real problem is very good players rarely check and call on the flop and check and fold on the turn.

[ACBob]

Mason,

OK, you have me going. Why would you check the turn when only a set could beat you?

Is your strategy against the Very Good Player to try to extract an extra big bet by checking the turn and betting the river?

Bob Lewis

[DanZ]

well, there are a few things wrong with this read. Perhaps we should go back to the drawing board and abandon this "gut" idea. Which is ironic considering what Mason'
s opponent has....

1) I am not sure what book tells you to check kings from 5th of 6th position with 2 broadway cards out. But I would donate it to Goodwill immediately and get it out of your house. Better yet, burn it in the back yard. People shopping at Goodwill need help, not poison.
2) Since we aren't checking kings, we aren't checking AQ, either. We're also raising preflop with it.
3) His hand is almost certainly AJo, so it can't be any of these things.

Dan Z.

[skp]

I assume that there were no players in the hand between the good player and you. So, his call closed the action.

It also means that he was second last to act on the flop and everyone had checked to him and only you were left to act behind him.

In his late position, I would think that he would bet a Pair of Kings, a pair of queens, a set of 7's and probably even an openended draw like JT.

His most likely hands are therefore AJ or AT.

Some considerations for you based on this read:

1. What will he do on the river on those occasions when a blank comes (which will be the majority of the time) i.e. will he bluff, will he checkcall with his Ace high.

2. If I bet the turn, is there a chance that he might make a play at me on the assumption that I am simply betting on the strength of position.

3. If my hand gets shown down, how will my checking top two in this spot on the turn affect future hands when I bet the turn in a similar spot when I am holding a much weaker hand i.e. will he (or some other observant player at the table) then correctly read my bet as a hope on my part not to be called. Will that person then use that info to my detriment?

Overall, I think that when this hand is viewed in isolation, checking the turn may be slightly positive EV. But IMO, a metagame approach dictates betting. When a flop bet clears the field and leaves you headsup, you will often be betting again on the the turn even with middle pair, a draw etc. Therefore, also betting the turn when you hold a monster avoids information leakage.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mason,

You wrote: "Three players limped in including a very good player in the middle. I called from late position with KQ. Both blinds played so six of us saw the flop for one bet each."

IMO with a hand such as this you should tend to raise a bit more from the cutoff or one off the cutoff and tend to limp with the button. But I wouldn't go so far as to call limping a mistake (it would be with KQ suited).

"The flop was KQ7. It was checked to me and only the good player called."

I't appears the good player is no more than two active seats to your right so when he calls he is either closing the action or almost closing the action. When he calls he is getting 7 to 1 pot odds. At this point he most likely has:

1) an inside draw such as AT or AJ that is probably suited to one card on board. Against a typical opponent he has at least a thin call here given he figures to pick one or maybe two big bets on the turn and/or river combined with the fact that his ace may be a marginal out. However, in this spot he can count on Mason checking behing on the turn often enough to give him two shots to catch inside. This gives him LOTS of extra equity and makes it a clear call.

2) an open ended draw such as JT that he chose not to semi-bluff bet given the texture of the board.

3) a set of sevens that he decided to slowplay. This is less likely given the fact that with only one or two opponents behind and a good draw on board, he would tend to bet the set.

Less likely are hands with a king (which would tend to bet the flop) or hands such as AQ or QJ that would tend to lead bet at the pot with only one or two players yet to act behind.

"The turn was the 3. We both checked."

Given the fact my read (so far) was that my opponent most likely had a draw I'd strongly favor a bet here.

"The river was the 8. My opponent checked, I bet, and he called"

Obvious river bet.

Well, I still like my read had I been at the table. It is possible that he called you down with an AJ or AT given the turn check. It is also possible you got a queen that was drawing near dead or dead to call. But I still prefer the turn bet by a lot :-).

I'm looking forward to hearing your reasoning on this one.

Regards,

Rick

[andyfox]

If the good player has J-T, checking the turn might induce him to bluff the river. If he has a weak portion of the flop, say Q-Ts or A-7s or somesuch, checking the turn might induce him to call on the river. If he has A-J, checking the turn might yield him a losing one pair hand on the river or induce him to call if a blank falls on the river.

Weigh this against the fact that he merely called Mason's flop bet and didn't bet the turn. This indicates he isn't too strong. If he had a king, which, given he is a very good player, would be a strong king, he sure hasn't shown much evidence of it. He might even have bet the flop or shown some kind of strength somewhere with a Queen.

I think his most likely hand is A-J and he called you down figuring you might well have raised pre-flop with a hand with a King in it. At first I agreed with the others that a turn bet was missed, but the more I think about it, the more I like the check.

[cepstrum]

it looks to me like your very good opponent has exactly ajo. at first glance, it would seem that he would bet a draw on the flop. but since free cards can't hurt him, it is completely reasonable to let a card slide off. when you bet the flop, you could be betting jt, a queen, a king, 88, 99, tt, or even aj yourself. now, on the turn, when you do not bet, you induce an incorrect read. your opponent has eliminated hands containing a q, k, or pocket pair, and put you on the draw. calling the river means he has to have aj; if he has any other ace, he has no call even though he "knows" you are bluffing with a busted draw. he could have a call with a7s, but he would need to bet the flop (and probably the river) with such a hand.

your play traded four outs for a bet that you may not have gotten had you bet the turn. had you bet the turn, and gotten lucky enough to get the call, you would not have gotten a bet on the river unless you were beaten. so you are getting the same (or more) when you win, and saving a bet when you lose. a fine trade in such a small pot.

good luck

cepstrum

[SoBeDude]

I continually browse through both TOP and HPFAP so I can't remember which one it is in. (And yes, the covers are actually falling off!)

But in one of those books it talks about occasionally checking your good hands on the turn, for several reasons.

It may induce a bluff on the river.

It may induce a river call where a turn bet would have folded.

And another great reason is it may get you a free card out of position in a later hand, by making an opponent afraid to bet in to you with a marginal, but better than your, hand.

Heads up, where is hand is relatively the safest against a draw, is a great place to make this play.

I say textbook play. NH

-Scott

[Philuva]

Why would you want to give TJ a free draw to the nuts for a CHANCE he might bluff-bet the river?

[DanZ]

As far as info leak, I am sure Mason is usually beeting top 2 heads up. Yuo probably leak more info by always betting it than you do by not betting it in this exact situation. Also, Mason's oppoent is a "very good" player, so he will not be altering his opinion of Mason or his strategies with him based on this hand alone.

I also think Mason knows he has AJo from the pre-flop and flop action, and that this player likely suspects Mason puts him on this hand.

Dan Z.

[andyfox]

It's only one of a few possible hands he has. Since he's a good player, it's an unlikely hand.

[andyfox]

I think especially so here given that his opponent a) didn't bet the flop; b) didn't check-raise the flop; and c) didn't bet the turn. These mitigate against him having a hand he'd call with on both the turn and the river.

[elysium]

hi clark
clark i think the problem here is that after the scary check-call by his opponent on the flop, mason is choosing the better battle ground of the river over the turn.

notice a couple things here; mason has better implied odds on the river than on the turn because his hand can improve. also, on the turn, mason is either way ahead or way behind. notice also that his opponent is coming off a scary check-fold in the flop. so, no matter what mason's opponent does after mason bets the turn, whether mason's opponent calls, folds, or check-raises, nothing is as good for mason as his opponent checking the turn and having mason check behind.

mason has a monopoly on the top two pair giving him tremendous implied value when both mason and his opponent improve. also, no matter what mason's opponent does on the turn, his action doesn't provide any real clarity because he is coming off a flop check-call. for ex; if the turn action is check, bet......can you get a feel for who will bring down the pot? no. why? because having check-called the flop, the opponent's check on the turn clarifys nothing. no one has any indication whatsoever about the likelihood of that check further increasing mason's apparent lead. before betting into a possible check-raise that will cost 3 big bets, mason asks,'what would a check mean on the river?'. so let's leave the turn alone, and look at the river and assume the action is check, bet.....now can you see more clearly who takes down the pot? and the reason for this clarity is that instead of checking after check-calling, mason has skillfully manipulated this opponent into checking after MASON checked it down. now that check means something. if mason's opponent bets, mason is far better off calling a bet made because of the previous round's weakness shown, than he would be if his opponent called on the turn after mason bet into him inspite of the scary flop check-call. this opponent calling mason's daring bet on the turn is more dangerous to mason than mason's call when his opponent bets out on the river, BECAUSE THAT BET OUT ON THE RIVER COMES ON THE HEELS OF WEAKNESS. so, no matter what mason does on the turn, nothing is as good for mason as his opponent checking and then having that check checked down. on the river, if his opponent checks, mason wins. on the river if his opponent bets out, the previous action on the turn provides the correct back-drop for mason to correctly call. and it's the turn action of check, check-down that creates this back-drop that gives mason's call better value that other half of the time when mason's opponent doesn't check the river but rather bets it. mason's river call plummets in value if his call is made on the heels of a turn check-call by his opponent, or worse of course, a turn check-raise.

add to that mason's monopoly on the top two pair giving him excellent implied value the times his opponent makes trips, but also, on the other hand, doesn't give his opponent any extra value those times mason's opponent takes the lead because now, if mason's opponent takes the lead, and mason doesn't river a full-house, mason will only call. now granted, a check-raise on the river those times mason doesn't improve and bets when his opponent checks are not desireable. but again look! that's impossible. mason forces his opponent to bet if he has a betting hand of any kind or a check-raising hand of any kind. no matter what card comes off on the river, mason's opponent must bet if his hand is strong enough to check-raise. so here, mason gets that river bet in without risking a check-raise. but, if mason's opponent nevertheless check-raises the river, mason is good to call because if this opponent had a hand strong enough to check-raise, he would have bet out on the river. and in any event, it doesn't cost mason a penny more.

lastly, if mason's opponent folds on the river, he likely would have folded on the turn since mason's bet on the turn represents a stronger hand than his bet on the river. there is no circumstance possible in which betting on the turn is better than checking it down. in every case, it is better to check it down. and the signal for when this play is correct is the top two pair monopoly on the hi,hi,rag, rag board, and the flop check-call heads-up in last position.

and one final, final note; those times our gut read is wrong, and his opponent has a straight or flush draw, and mason's check-down gives his opponent a free-card, nothing mason does on the turn could have then gotten the fold. and this is important because mason's hand can also improve those times our gut read is off and his opponent has a set. but the main point is that mason cannot fold out the draw anyway, so betting the turn is correct only if mason's opponent will release a draw with positive ev., virtually never.

[Diplomat]

Hey SoBeDude,

When I first read Mason's post, and saw the replies stacking up, I wondered what the heck was going on. I agree with you here, this is more or less textbook. Against a weaker player, a bet on the turn is correct, but not against a strong player.

I think a lot of people are busy trying to put the strong player on a hand, but not many people are trying to put the strong player on a read on Mason. What does the strong player put Mason on here? If I were the strong player and had any pair or AJ, I might be thinking something like:

(Check/bet) Ok, he bet the flop. That means he has position on the field and a hand of some sort...maybe. (Call)

(Check/check) He checked the turn. Is that weakness or a slowplay? Let's look at the river.

Well no draw got there. I've got a pretty weak hand, but that's a good sized pot. Let's see if he bluffs at it with a hand like JT. (Check/bet/call)

There is very little chance that the strong player has a draw, as he failed to bet the flop. I'd almost eliminate ace-high, as I think a strong player might raise a couple weaker limpers with AJ, and maybe muck a weaker ace (obviously this is debatable). I'll vote for a pocket pair or 78s.

-Diplomat

[skp]

Huh?

Okay, who hid the map that goes with this post?

[Philuva]

I hate the whole way ahead or way behind analysis for this situation. I think the MP player is thinking the same thing with his top or middle pair, "I am either way ahead or way behind so I will just check call Mason down and collect some extra bets if he is bluffing and save bets if I am behind."

In this case he is behind and I think Mason cost himself a bet. Plus if by chance he is drawing, which is a strong possibility with this board, Mason fails to collect any bets by checking the river, and could cost himself the pot.

What does everyone put the other guy on given the river call? I think AJ, KJ or QJ, maybe KT or QT. With a lot of these hands, I think the player would have called a turn and river bet from Mason, using the old, "I am either way ahead or way behind" strategy.

[Diplomat]

Hey Philuva,

I think you can eliminate any queen from the strong player's hand if they are somewhat agressive, and definitely eliminate any king. I think most strong players would bet the flop with a queen or king and one player to act behind them, whether or not it's MM.

Most strong players would also bet a credible draw from this position.

-Diplomat

[Clarkmeister]

"on the turn, mason is either way ahead or way behind"

He's way ahead. There is no way behind to consider here.

[elysium]

hi clark
you're looking at this from the vantage point of the river, or at least it's somehow influencing your perception because, granted, mason has top two pair, but his opponent makes a suspicious check call. mason also says that this is a good player. the pot isn't short-handed. there is nothing to ally the suspicious flop check-call, nothing. mason is unfortunately forced to consider the possibility of a check-raise with very little info. if, on the next round, he can gain enough info to safely avoid a check-raise and still get the bet in, with a srtong hand that can improve, and he doesn't want his opponent to fold on the turn, why in the world would he bet? a bet on the turn is, i'll admit it, something i would do and something you would do, but nevertheless we would be wrong, and categorically wrong at that. that's why we are here. we initially do not see the terrible error in betting the turn. if we want to be able to survive against this level of player, we must know beyond any doubt, never, ever bet the turn in this situation. clark, the strange thing is that you and i would bet even though it would be wrong and clearly, clearly lower our ev. this is not even close and i'm amazed that there is any question about it. but no. i did not understand this until today, and no one here seems to understand. it is not even close though clark. it's a frigging amazing hand.

[Clarkmeister]

I'm not talking about betting or checking the turn. I'm merely saying that there is almost no chance he is behind on the flop, given the flop action. His opponent would have to specifically have bottom set, and thats a near impossibility given his flop play.

Mason can check or bet as he desires on the turn, I'm merely saying your analysis that he is "way ahead or way behind" is wrong. He is way ahead or way ahead. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[elysium]

hi phil
phil, betting the turn will not get the fold. if this opponent has JT, and he doesn't, but if he did he wouldn't fold. unfortunately, everyone is influenced by the battle-ground of clarity that mason chose to fight on, the river. but had mason's post ended at the point of the turn check-down, and we didn't get a clear peek at the river check, because this good player had check-called the flop introducing the natural tendancy to bet when he checks on the turn, no one could say with any certainty that mason wasn't being manipulated into betting. if mason had said,'and i felt that i was being manipulated into betting, so i checked it down', and the post ended at that point, on the turn check-down, everyone would swing the other way on the poker pendulum. but that was not the only consideration. there are at least five other good reasons for checking it down that are not apparent right away. i just feel as though the river check tainted the turn check-down. but even if this good player was manipulating for a free-card, he wouldn't fold anyway. when you temper that with the fact that mason's hand can improve and that furthermore if he is being manipulated into betting on the turn that it is mason who needs the free-card, again checking it down is correct. in fact, there is no real alternative in this situation. mason must check it down albeit it takes a considerable amount of study to understand why.

[Jimbo]

I believe your oponnent held either 99 or TT. If you bet the turn he will fold, you gained a bet by waiting till the river to bet.

[elysium]

hi again clark
clark, as you i've got to believe must know, the check-call on the flop doesn't indicate that mason isn't being manipulated into betting on the turn. couple this with the fact that if mason checks it down, he owns the river, but a bet on the turn may find the reason this opponent check-called the flop, one way or the other; either way ahead or way behind; but he will recover that bet on the river and get a bet in without the risk of being check-raised, and even provides himself with the correct back-drop for those times that his opponent bets into him on the river, to wit , a turn check-down meaning that this opponent's bet on the river may be based on weakness shown on the turn, but that a call by this opponent on the turn would represent strength, and now when he bets out on the river, mason's call isn't so strong, if mason can manipulate it so he battles on his own turf with clarity, but action on the turn makes the river more dicey, and the river is mason's turf, why would he want to muddle his fight on the river by tossing in the back-drop of an opponent who called his turn bet? the check-down itself becomes a tool in the river fight. it disables the possible check-raise. his opponent must bet with anything. and best of all, the back-drop also means that he must call with anything. this opponent will call with many hands that he would have folded with on the turn. but clark that's really not important. what is important is how mason's fortunes rise with a check-down, and how they fall with ANY turn action whatsoever other than a check-down. the danger of course, is glossing over how the check-down enhances mason's position on the river. the check-down on the turn guarantees mason positive ev. at a time when his position is the most unclear-ish. not grammatically correct clark, but you get the point.

[ALL1N]

Hi elysium. I just browsed through all the drivel you pasted, not reading much, but I did read this, your last sentence:

"but the main point is that mason cannot fold out the draw anyway, so betting the turn is correct only if mason's opponent will release a draw with positive ev., virtually never. "

This is completely wrong. If your opponent has a good draw on the turn, and you have the leading hand, you bet! You collect an extra bet from the opponent in a pot in which you have a greater chance of winning than he/she does. To check and give a free card is completely and utterly wrong.

While I am one of the few to agree with Mason's check behind, it is for completely different reasons than you. You say that checking is to save bets against a better hand; considering that Mason's opponent is a "very good player," KQ has to be played for the best hand. He would have bet a set out from 4th position of 6 every time.

You have much to learn yet, elysium.

ALL1N

[ALL1N]

Everybody is having their say as to what they think the opponent has, but lets clarify which hands it can really be.

What we know:
-The opponent is a very good player
-He limped from MP after a MP limper.
-He checked the flop from 4th position of 6.
-He called the flop bet as the second last player to act with immediate pot odds of 7:1.
-He checked the turn.

Can he have:
-A set? No, he would bet out from 4th of 6 every time.
-Two pair? Ditto.
-AA or any king? No, he would have bet the flop.
-A queen? He would have bet the flop with AQ, and probably checkraised/mucked with the QJ/QT (these have poor drawing potential).
-A seven? A7 is a distinct possibility, but any lower kicker than an ace he would have folded.
-JT? He would usually have bet the flop from 4 of 6. However, if he didn't, when second to last to act facing a weak bet, he would have checkraised or bet out on the turn, not just called with such a strong draw.
AJ or AT- Essentially the same hand, this is what fits the best.

If you disagree with my reasoning please reply, but I just feel that the debate of the turn play should be based upon the fact that the opponent almost surely has AJ, AT or A7.

ALL1N

[Diplomat]

Why have you ruled out a pocket pair or a seven with a different kicker?

[PiquetteAces]

A very descent player check-call you . The only kind of hand I can see is AJ or ATs ( he's likely to raise preflop AJs and likely to fold AToff ) .
He calls the flop because he figures :
-HE has 4 outs for the nuts
-An ace might be an out ( unless you have flop a bottom set , he knows you cant have the 2 other sets or if your betting a JT . ) .
-Maybe you have QK so an ace no good .
-Maybe AJ is the best hand if you are betting a JT .

The most important point of the hand is teh check on teh turn . You know that he has only 4 outs to beat you and that he will fold the turn if you bet .You might have evalute that it worth to risk the money in the pot to make him put a bet on the river .

Its a very advanced play , but I wouldn't have made it because the turn make a hearth draw and maybe you'll loose a bet if he has AhTh , or 3bets if he check-raise-semi-bluff it.

- jpp

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ALL1N:

You wrote:

Given that the opponent is a very good player, I think the only hands you can figure him for are AJ, AT, and A7.

If he had any of these hands wouldn't he had bet on the flop?

Best wishes,
Mason

[ALL1N]

With a medium pocket pair, I feel that a good player will either checkraise or fold after the button bets. Why would he call? He has only 2 outs, the pot is small, and he is definitely folding to a turn bet. By check/calling he cannot hope to represent a strong hand, as he would have bet out every time here if he held a strong hand. So if he knows that he cannot hope to represent a strong hand, he knows there will be another bet on the turn.

The case of a seven with a different kicker is almost the same. He cannot hope to get a cheap showdown, and with an undercard kicker, his outs are horrible. So horrible that if his kicker paired he wouldn't be able to play it with any authority, and it could just cause him to lose more money.

I don't think a very good player would call with either a medium pocket pair or a 7 with poor kicker here. They would checkraise or fold IMO.

ALL1N

[elysium]

hi all
betting to cut down the draws odds is quite irrelevant, outside of getting the check-caller to possibly fold, which mason doesn't want. and yes all, everyone is aware about betting to make the draws pay. i'm not a wordsmith all, and i don't think that i phrased that correctly and really shouldn't have said that. if there was someway of knowing that this opponent was on a draw, betting would be correct. but we don't know that. and betting is incorrect in this situation. yea, i pretty much shouldn't have said that. what i meant was that ' mason shouldn't bet here to cut down the draws odds, only to be check-raised by a set that doesn't fold.' thanks for allowing me to restate that.

i see you think the opponent would have bet his set everytime on the turn. wouldn't that be nice....(lol). then when he doesn't bet, we know we have him where we want him i suppose....(lol). get some sleep all.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi flopdanutz:

You wrote:

I doubt he would check a king with a decent kicker unless he knows he is behind.

If he held a king, isn't there a good chance he would have either bet or check raised on the flop.

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi DKNY:

You wrote:

Pre-flop would you raise with that hand sometimes to vary your play or to drive out the blinds?

No. There are now too many players in. If my hand was suited, it would be different.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Bernie:

While what you say is correct, you can also eliminate many other hands such as AT or A7 because he would have led on the flop as a semibluff. So it looks like he either has a very strong hand or is virtually drawing dead with something like a QT which he now might fold to another bet.

Best wishes,
Mason

[ALL1N]

Why would he bet AJ, AT, or A7 on that flop? There are 6 players in, and a K and Q on the flop. There isn't much chance of stealing the smallish pot, and all he wants is a cheap draw.

Would you really bet those hands there? I'm surprised.

ALL1N

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dynasty:

You wrote:

If the board wasn't so draw heavy, the play would be a reasonable option. But the gut shot straight draws and the unaccounted for K/forums/images/icons/heart.gif make the play a mistake.

I disagree. My opponent would have bet most of these hands, and if he held the K/forums/images/icons/heart.gif and didn't bet the flop there is a good chance he would have check raised.

best wishes,
Mason

[ALL1N]

I said he would bet his set on the flop every time here, not the turn.

And it is true. There is absolutely no reason he would not bet his set from 4th position of 6.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi ALL1N:

Yes I would bet these hands. See HPFAP.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Lee:

You wrote:

The thing that terrified me about the check on the turn was that Mason's opponent acted exactly like he had JT.

A good player will bet an open end straight draw everytime in this spot.

For semi-bluff draw bets to be successful, they only occasionally have to fold everyone out. See HPFAP for more discussion. By the way, suppose he does have JT and he bets it and gets what looks like one weak call. Clearly he has just made a very good bet.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Vehn:

If he doesn't fold on the turn, there is a good chance he check raises with a set of sevens.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dan:

A lot of "good" players would frequently bet the AJ on the flop.

best wishes,
Mason

[adios]

The pot is fairly small after the flop betting which is a key factor in this play if I'm understanding correctly. Your opponent probably bets a straight draw on the flop IMO given the situation. You're a big favorite most likely so extracting another bet from your opponent by checking the turn-betting the river or inducing a river bluff from your opponent gains you an extra bet often enough to overcome losing the pot to a freebee. Of course the preceeding is true if you think your opponent will fold on the turn when you bet and you probably don't want him to. If your opponent would call twice as a big dog, of course you bet it twice. Apologies in advance if anyone else stated the same thing as I wrote since I didn't read all the posts. Dang this forum has grown over the years.

PS: I read a few posts after I posted. I would simply call pre-flop as well in the situation you described.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

I'm sorry but I don't have the time to read and respond to all the posts. But here are my final comments.

This is a simple hand reading exercise. First, my opponent's check-call on the flop is a very strange play. That's because he would bet almost all draws and semi-bluff with a hand like A7. If you don't understand why this is correct play, see HPFAP. If he held a king, he should have either bet on the flop or check raised.

So this means he should have either a very strong hand, probably a set of sevens, or a very weak hand, like a pair of eights or perhaps a queen, that he is likely to fold again for a turn bet. So in either case, there is virtually no reason to bet the turn.

When he checks the river, it is almost 100 percent that he does not have the set, so a bet on my part becomes mandatory.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rick:

IMO with a hand such as this you should tend to raise a bit more from the cutoff or one off the cutoff and tend to limp with the button. But I wouldn't go so far as to call limping a mistake (it would be with KQ suited).

I disagree. With this many players you need to hit the flop to win, and would prefer to have someone bet into you.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Jimbo:

You wrote:

"John Barleycorn Must Die"

Are you a "Freedom Rider?"

Best wishes,
mason

[Pirc Defense]

For what it's worth, prior to reading this thread I posted a somewhat similar thread under the HE General forum, asking in general, do you bet this draw?

I'm outclassed here, but in my humble opinion I would bet a draw if I were the opponent. As I posted on this very topic, I would love to hear reasons for and against the good player betting or not betting assuming he had a draw.

I also put the good player on either AT, AJ or, for some strange reason, JJ, but this new information/wrinkle points to something other than a draw.

On yet another note, the analysis in this thread is just awesome. I'm smarter for having read some of your comments.

Edit: Mason posted quite a bit after my post, and he addressed my question a bit. I believe there is a lot for me to learn about betting a draw, and it doesn't seem to be a cut and dry issue. I'm curious as to what parameters govern whether to bet a draw?

[mike l.]

mason,

you played the hand terribly. i suggest you take a look at some of the better poker books on the market. there's one called hold em for advanced players that's pretty popular around here and promotes tough aggressive play. there's another by a fellow named david sklansky (maybe youve heard his name around here?) called theory of poker. go pick those up and that should help clean up some of the rough edges we see popping up in your posts lately.

good luck, mike l.

[serge]

Hi,
as many others, i am really surprise by your check on turn;
If your opponent plays exactely as you suppose, your check is OK but...you said:

"If he held a king, he should have either bet on the flop or check raised."

Is that sure? and if it is sure, is that player really good? A very good player can't be so predictable and must mix his play, doing some check-call with various hands, including sometimes a K. It is too easy for you if he tell you :"Mason, i check so you can be sure i have no K"; So my question is: wasn'nt your turn-check in fact a mistake?
Thanks in advance for all comments
Serge

[adios]

This play is described in HFAP written by Mason and David as well as in Hold'em Poker written by David.

[AceHigh]

With the hand becoming heads up, wouldn't your opponent expect you to bet your weakest hands (gutshot straights and straight draws) on the turn? Especially after he checks the turn?

So, if his hand has some showdown value and he will call a bet on the river, isn't there a decent chance he will call a turn and river bet?

[skp]

Well, I doubt that he has a Queen as he should bet that in his late position on the flop. And if he did have a Queen, he will pay you off on the turn and river. He has to.

As for a set, I think that a good player will almost always bet it on the flop in this spot.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi SKP:

You wrote:

As for a set, I think that a good player will almost always bet it on the flop in this spot.

This is incorrect logic. While your statement may be true, the fact is that he did not bet. So you must precede from that point.

In my experience, many players, including some who play fairly well, will automatically check sets on the flop even when they shouldn't. So you can't rule out a set quite so quickly.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mason,

I can easily see the very good player semi-bluffing on the flop with A7.

However, with AT (or AJ) why wouldn't a "very good player" USUALLY check with only one player who hasn't acted left ( the one player being Mason Malmuth) hoping to get a free card or a cheap draw at an inside straight? After all, there are four players who have checked to our very good player. How often will his bet blow all of them out? Not often enough IMO, although sometimes he will get Mason out (had Mason missed the flop) and if one of more of the players who had previously checked now calls he might get them to check to him on the turn giving him a free card. Still, I think most very good players usually check here.

With JT he MIGHT semi-bluff hoping to get position of other favorable results for the turn. If two or more call he has money odds on his flop bet (to make a straight). If one calls he might blow them out with a turn bet. But this sort of bet is much more likely holding a hand such as KQ with a JTx flop IMO. In a nutshell, I don't understand how you can so easily dismiss the JT.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mason or anyone,

Let's say the very good player (VGP) holds JT. The flop is KQ7 and four players have checked to him. Mason Malmuth is the only player behind.

VGP gains equity by betting when:

1) Two of more players call (since he gets money odds)

2) Nobody calls (very VERY unlikely with this board and five opponents)

3) Mason folds and one "weak player" calls. But with this board how many callers will be weak enough to fold to a turn bet? This isn't a "take one off and fold to a turn bet" sort of board IMO.

VGP loses equity by betting when:

1) Mason raises cutting off the field.

2) One player with a strong enough hand to go to the river calls.

3) He gets checkraised and ends up head up with the checkraiser.

Now that I go through this it appears that JT has a reasonable bet, but JT has a reasonable check too. Overall it appears to be close. Am I missing something?

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

venh,

I posted just below Mason before reading your post above. I now think it is very close for a JT to either bet or check the flop. You seem to think it is an auto bet.

Also, Mason and I think AJ (offsuit or suited) and AT suited will often limp pre flop after other limpers in mid position. You think they will probably raise. I'd be interested in additional input.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Dan,

You wrote: "It is, of course, worth risking a gut shot to win a call from an AJ on the river, or to get such a hand to bluff. THis is bcause you are risking 5 big bets (the pot + 1) on a 10:1 shot, with a good (call it 2/3) chance to win a bet on the river."

Let's say Mason's opponent has AJ (or AT). He gets the free card on the turn. How often will he pay off a river bet when a blank comes?

Let's say he pairs the ace on the river. Would you agree he pays off one big bet?

Let's say he makes his river gut shot. He bets. How often will Mason merely call behind? I would think that Mason usually raises and probably cryingly calls the reraise. Mason loses big on this parlay.

You also wrote: "Occaisionally, you will be able to win more than this if you fill and he is helped also."

In other words, he has Kx or Qx and is drawing dead. But wouldn't he bet either hand on the flop?

Thoughts?

Regards,

Rick

PS I'll be around for a change today with a chance to respond later.

[skp]

In addition to the reasons you have listed, other reasons to bet:

1. To get a read of where you are at on this hand. Always harder to do when there is no bet on the flop.

2. To make you less readable on future hands.

3. To get a more valuable free card if a couple of guys call and check to you on the turn

4. Associated with Number 3: To enable you to see the river card cheaper by reducing the chances of the turn being raised. i.e. if the flop gets checked through, a savvy early position player may bet with just about anything. A guy to his left may then raise with something just a little less ugly like, say QT and you are stuck calling two bets cold with your open-ended draw rather than just seeing the river for free if you had only semibluffed the flop

5. To get people to put money in the pot on the flop for those occasions when you do go on to complete your draw.

6. To create ostensible outs i.e. a King which could cause guys with a Queen or a 7 to fold on the turn.

Okay...brain cramp...I'll stop here...well, one more...

7. It feels right!

[skp]

Mason,

If you have the time, please have a look at the thread I started "A WAY more interesting hand to talk about". It deals with a hand (Js6s) you played out of the bb against a button openraise. I thought it was an excellent play but I wonder if I have your thinking right (please see in particular my post in reply to Mike l's post and Elysium's post.)

Thanks in advance

[Rick Nebiolo]

skp,

With the infamous LA basin "June Gloom" I haven't seen the sun in two weeks. It's out today so I'll be back online later. Gotta look good for my trip home /forums/images/icons/smile.gif.

Regards

Rick

[mike l.]

thanks. could you point out the page numbers where i can find this play. i dont recall anything like this. when they talk about checking almost 60% of the time on the turn w/ good and bad hands that's when youre first to act and want to checkraise a bunch.

i understand the value of tricky checks, but i think it's much closer on this hand than usual. i think there's some chance mason's opponent will play a weak, but turn-calling hand like a crummy Q or K (or even JT) this way and that mason gave a pointless free card on the turn and missed a bet. weighing the chance opponent has one of those turn-calling hands vs. the chance he has mason beat (set of 7s, almost impossible given lack of preflop and flop action) vs. the chances opponent can catch up on the river vs. the chances he'll be more likely to call the river when he wouldve folded the turn favors a turn bet in the games i play in and the mid limit games ive encountered in vegas.

[Rushmore]

There are several major factors to consider when deciding to bet this sort of draw:

1.) Is it a draw to the nuts?/ Do I have overcards?
2.) Based on the players/my position, am I likely to get raised?
3.) Is it possible my bet might buy me a free river?
4.) If I miss, will I have to call a bet on the river?

These are the questions I ask myself when deciding whether or not to bet my draw.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rush:

Here are my answers.

1. If it's not a draw to the nuts and you don't have overcards you should still bet.

2. If there is a good chance that you will get raised you should still bet.

3. You should still bet even if there is only a very small chance you buy a free river card.

4. Whether or not you have to call a bet on the river should have very little impact on whether you make this flop bet.

I hope that helps. By the way, have you been reading one of those books where they seem to think that your opponent always has the nuts?

Best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rick:

You wrote:

How often will his bet blow all of them out?

He only has to get them all to fold a small percentage of the time for his bet to be correct. Furthermore, it could also be advantageous to only be against one (or perhaps) two players on the turn than against everyone. Do you see why?

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

if one of more of the players who had previously checked now calls he might get them to check to him on the turn giving him a free card.

Maybe a blank hits and he gets them to fold for a turn bet.

MM

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Rick:

I suspect you're missing the size of the pot. That increases the value of your points that favor a bet.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi SKP:

As usual, Vince didn't get much of that hand right. I would have folded a J6s in that spot. I held a J8s, and that makes a big difference both before the flop and on that particular flop since it gave me a three flush and a three straight. (I believe the 6, and not an 8 was on the flop.)

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mike:

I am familiar with HPFAP, but I haven't read it in a while. Do you think it would be worth my time to look at it again?

As for this David Sklansky person, if you remember, I fired him a few months back.

Best wishes,
Mason

[bernie]

not to mention you cant charge that draw on the river once he misses.

b

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mason,

Now that I've looked over the various posts in this thread and the related one I started, I agree that "a very good player" (VGP) will usually bet the flop with a JT. In fact I closed my eyes, put myself in the VGP's position with this board and lineup, and realized that even I, essentially an OK and somewhat slow thinking player, would bet the flop /forums/images/icons/grin.gif.

~ Rick

[adios]

It's in both books in the chapter that talks about an irrational check againt a tough opponent on the turn. Don't have the page numbers handy but I'm telling the truth.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Mason,

You wrote: "He only has to get them all to fold a small percentage of the time for his bet to be correct. Furthermore, it could also be advantageous to only be against one (or perhaps) two players on the turn than against everyone. Do you see why?"

Let's see. Assuming the very good player (VGP) holds AJ or AT narrowing down the field to one (or two) opponents on the turn with a flop bet often puts the VGP in position to 1) more easily win when an ace or even kicker (jack or ten) hits, 2) get to see the river at a discount if he chooses, 3) get his opponent to fold a better hand when the board pairs or comes scary on the turn (of course it wouldn't happen in this case but in general) and 4) make it less likely he has to face a bet or a bet and raise on the turn.

Of course the bet has some disadvantages, and I'm not sure a typical VGP would make this bet as often as he would with the JT. Interesting hand.

Regards,

Rick

[astroglide]

As for this David Sklansky person, if you remember, I fired him a few months back.

what is the background on this joke?

[Jimbo]

Below is the link astroglide. Actually the entire thread is worth reading.

Mason Fires David (http://www.twoplustwo.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=gossip&Number=234554&Forum =All_Forums&Words=fired&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Sear chpage=1&Limit=100&Old=6months&Main=234188&Search= true#Post234554)

[mikelow]

Was it beacuse of "The System?"

[Pirc Defense]

Rushmore, thank you for the reply, and Mason thank you for the reply to the factors that Rushmore listed.

But color me confused. Maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but HPFAP SEEMS to contradict what you (Mason) are saying in your answers.

On p. 54, HPFAP says when in last position you may not want to semi-bluff, and the "factor that determines whether to bet in this situation is often how frequently you think you will be check-raised."

On p. 57-58, semi-bluffing is summed up like this: if your hand is worth a call or even almost so, then it is better to bet if there is come chance that you can win the pot right there. The threat of being raised should not deter you, unless there is a GOOD (my emphasis) possibility that you will be raised, in which case it may be incorrect to semi-bluff.

Yet, you answered Rushmore saying that, if there is a GOOD chance that you will get raised you should still bet.

What am I missing?

[MD_]

If I remember correctly, that advice (in HPFAP) applies to head-up situations.

-MD

[MD_]

I don't think a middle pocket pair would have check-called that flop.

-MD

[Rushmore]

Mason,

What I meant was that these are the logical CONCERNS when considering betting a draw. I did not say that these are, independently, prohibitive factors.

Based on what you said in your reply, you would NEVER check a draw. I'm confident that's not what you meant. My reply to Pircdefense was simply intended to indicate the things that I consider when deciding whether or not to bet my draw.

I hope I am not wrong in thinking about these things at the poker table.

Rushmore

P.S. There are BOOKS about poker?? And some are better than others? What the hell are you talking about??!!

[AceHigh]

"Some considerations for you based on this read:"

Also, there might be a small group of hands like J9/T9, or hands that picked up a flush draw on the turn that might be able to call a turn bet, but have no showdown value and won't be able to call a river bet.

"a metagame approach dictates betting."

I agree. I think I would bet all my weak hands in this situation most of the time. So I want to be betting my strong hands also.

So...do you think it's possible Mason's table image is so different from ours that his metagame needs to be very different? If Mason routinely checks his weakest hands on the turn, he might need to check his strongest hands also.

[Pirc Defense]

Hi, MD_.

The advice may apply to a heads-up situation, but there is no indication in the text to support that. In fact, the word "opponent" and "opponents" are used almost interchangeably.

[cero_z]

Hi Mason,
I've only read 10 or so of the 94(!) replies, but I have a couple of thoughts:

This hand appears to be comparable to an example from TOP, where David advises checking behind a good opponent because the chances of being check-raised by a better hand, along with the chances of collecting another bet from a worse hand (if you don't plant that seed of doubt by showing weakness), indicate that checking is better than betting.

But, I think checking is wrong, as a likely hand for your opponent (on the turn) is JT, with which he will certainly call with on the turn, but not on the river. If the pot was small enough to make folding a straight draw correct, I'd check behind a good player, as it would be too hard to gain expectation on the turn (he'd fold too many losers).

Also, I don't know how good "very good" is. Is he good enough to restrain himself from almost always raising as a semi-bluff with JT, QJ, etc.? In my view, this pot is not a good candidate for this type of play (as it's biggish and the bettor led into a large field), but many of the 30-60 players I consider "good" can't resist making this attempt almost every time.

[cero_z]

Hi Mason,
"A good player will bet an open end straight draw (JT) everytime in this spot."
and: "That's because he would bet almost all draws and semi-bluff with a hand like A7."
If you mean that a "good" player and anyone better would make these plays, I strongly disagree. That's the way I expect a player who's merely "good", to operate, i.e. semi-bluffing indiscriminately. I consider myself "very good" (and you're better), and I would choose not to lead as a semi-bluff, because I'd expect anyone with a K or Q to raise in this aggressive game (IMO the default description of Vegas 30-60), and I don't want to pay 2 bets when there's less than a 10% chance I can win right on the flop.

I see this all the time in online play (also very aggressive): 1 limper, a LP raise, the BB calls, and then the flop comes A J 5 two-tone (something the pre-flop raiser will automatically bet if checked to). But, the BB leads, and they always have the same hand: 4 flush. The bet has no chance to win on the flop.

[DanZ]

Most players are pretty darn predictable in 6 way pots. Good players especially so, because the pot size is higher, 5 players can collectively have lots of ways to beat you, and also can have lots of ways to pay you off or pay to draw. It is much more dangerous to give 5 players free cards with "untested" hands than 1 or 2. So, yes, a good player would be betting or check-raising the button's bet with a king on this flop every time. Notice his king must have at least a ten kicker for him to play from that spot, and if it's not suited, a jack at worst, more likely a Q.

Dan Z.

[DanZ]

"Would he pay a bet with A high on the river?"

That's what were trying to make happen. That's why I estimated 2/3 of a bigf bet profit from checking. He must have exactly AJ for this to work, but Mason says he doesn't and a Q is more likely. So a Q would also pay off, and is drawing dead. It is very easy for Mason to have AT, AJ or JT, so an AJ should consider calling a river bet. So should a hand like 88 (but, IMHO, that hand should not call on the flop.


"If a T fell on the river, wouldn't Mason raise?"

Mason has no intention of raising the river, as he thinks a set of sevens is possible. There's no way I would raise the river either, unless I filled. So no, there is no risk of this. Given my read, if the river was a ten, I would check behind, and otherwise bet if checked to.

It is very unlikeely someone with just a Q would bet the river, so a river bet is a fold or call decision, not a raise.

Dan Z.

[andyfox]

A bad player would play the king about the same way as a good player. The difference is the good player will play other holdings about the same way as he would play the king.

[skp]

On one of my Vegas trips, I walked up to Sklansky as he was going to cash out and introduced myself. He said a cold "hello" and kept walking to the cashier.

Initially, I felt "geez, I have been posting on his site for eons...at the very least, he could give me the time of day and make some other idle small talk". But it occurred to me that this scene (i.e. some 2+2'er walking up to him to make some small talk) must happen so regularly that he is absolutely sick of it.

So, I don't blame him for blowing me off.

In any event, I am happy to report that Mason has been very gracious to me on all of my visits to Vegas. My thanks to him for that as I am sure that he too must tire of talking poker with every "home town hero" that rolls into Vegas.

[Bama Boy]

Are you sure he was cashing out and not buying chips? Seems every other time someone has mentioned seeing DS he has been buying chips ... /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[skp]

I posted elsewhere (perhaps in the thread that Rick started) that Mason should consider raising on the river if an Ace comes and the other chap bets. I also said that Mason should just call if the VGP bets on a river Jack or river Ten.

Agree?

[flopdanutz]

who won the showdown, sorry i looke thru most of the posts and could not find the answer

[SoBeDude]

He's notorious for that. (not giving the result)

[Billy Ricard]

wow, interesting response, I would never have thought about betting any of those hands. Can you point to the chapter or section in the book where I can read more about that issue? I have the book, I just don't want to scramble to find it, and risk missing the section.

[Tekari]

I would say maybe a Pair of TT? or ATs or AJs with 3 to a flush. I think this is resonable because it would lend him to call pre-flop... and also to call a late bet against a possible steal with outs. Also the check behind you on the turn would make sense because if he is already beat he will get called (with a low pair) and if not it could induce a bluff. So him checking behind you could be TT or something similar.

[Ed S.]

Mason,

I think you played reasonably well there. Considering the very good player in middle position called you on the flop he could of had those pocket 7s in Mp. But I can't see him having them on the river when you bet and he didn't checked raised. Yes you did practice what you preached in HPFAP by checking the turn. The board was non-threating unless there was a made hand already like a set of 7s. So by checking vs a possible made hand you save yourself some bets. Yes if he is on the draw then yes you might lose some bets there but I think you are waiting to see what happens on the river. My guess is that you put him on the trip 7s early on in the hand but on the river with no check raise I don't think you can any longer put him on trip 7s. The only other thing I can put MP on is maybe AKo. Is he capable of playing AKo in this fashion?

I'm still a new player for the most part but am I heading in the right direction on this one with my train of thought?


Ed S.

[bigfishead]

If the read on the turn is he wont call a bet on turn but he'll call most any river on a "I can beat a bluff" then the check is fine. The chances are rather slim that he'll draw out on ya. However I still fire. I believe there is the chance that this type player may call down the last position "forced to bet" bettor too often anyways and give me 2 BB.

ALSO, there is the chance he has the A7h, A8h and wants to try a check-raise semi-bluff against a "bluffer" from last position.Then you can take a 3rd bb from him 3-betting the turn. It would be interesting to know what you think his thoughts and actions were or would be to betting turn.

[acewithaface]

Did your opponent have AQ offsuit?

[baseball38]

I am just curious as why you did not bet on the turn?

baseball38 /forums/images/icons/spade.gif