Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[Josh W]

This just happened, and my mind was doing summersaults whilst the hand went down.

UTG (38/14) limps, Hijack raises (unknown), and button (27/12) threebets. SB mucks, and I call in the BB w/ AdKc. Four of us see the flop.

Flop comes 962, two hearts. I lead out. Yeah, I know this is hugely debatable, and maybe even flat out wrong. I'm trying right now to set myself up to win vs. another AK instead of chopping. Plus if UTG has a hand like QJ, I want him OUT. Da Soona Da Betta.

Instead, UTG raises, HJ and Button call two cold, and I call, wondering what I'm doing here.

Turn is an offsuit ten. I check, and it gets checked around. Weird. Maybe UTG has hearts, and I'm really ahead here.

River is an offsuit ace.

I check and start licking my chops, thinking the button 3-bettor will bet his AQ and I can checkraise and do a little dance. But, alas, visions of me dancing get thwarted by UTG betting again.

Now, it's true that he may have Axh, so I guess I'm going to call him.

Hijack calls.

Button calls.

So I muck.

Comments?

Josh

[bpb]

I don't see how the hijack and button overcalls affect your decision to call the UTG bettor. Given that the turn was checked around, don't you think one of them would raise the river if they could beat TPTK?

I think folding here at 13:1 is awful

[tongni]

[ QUOTE ]
So I muck.


[/ QUOTE ]

You misspelled checkraise.

[WillyTrailer]

Hi Josh,

I'd be much obliged if you would explain why you mucked on the river?

thanks,
WT

[obi---one]

bad muck josh.

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I muck.


[/ QUOTE ]

You misspelled checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

well put. /images/graemlins/smile.gif i also like a checkraise/fold to 3bet line. with 3 players you have alot of equity and i dont know why you think a call doesnt have value, but since you think folding might be correct of course checkraising wouldnt be. so one of us is really confused by the value of our hand here.

[Brom]

Even if you don't checkraise, at least call here. By just overcalling, the other two players are pretty much assuring you that they don't have you beat. This is the best/2nd best card in the deck that could have came off for you, and you played your hand to get into this position.

[Paluka]

I think the flop bet is pretty awful, but not nearly as bad as the river fold. I don't really understand what you were thinking on this hand.

[Duke]

I assume you posted this hand because someone had 2 pair or something, but as far as the action went the hand was played fairly backward.

~D

[Josh W]

The flop bet, as I said, is hugely debatable, maybe. I'm not sure that I can provide an adequate argument FOR the bet. I'll talk about it later tonight, maybe.

The river fold is easier to explain. I tried putting my opponents on hands. And, well, I ran out of aces in the deck. If I just had to overcall, I could do it, but by having to over-overcall, well, that meant that UTG couldn't have an ace. It's pretty clear that HJ and Button both have big aces, and there's probably about 25% chance I'm chopping at best with button.

But the problem is UTG...what does he have? Unless he is stone cone bluffing into a field of four when the worst possible card for him comes on the river (which I think he does way less than 1 outta 20 times, probably more like 1 outta 50 times), I'm hosed.

It's funny that everybody so far as criticized the river fold, but nobody has put anybody on a hand yet.

I probably need to have the best hand here at least 10% of the time to justify a call (because I'll be chopping a decent chunk of the time). And even if I was ahead this time, I don't think I'm ahead 10% of the time.

I tried putting them on hands, and I ran out of aces.

Josh

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Josh,

I'd be much obliged if you would explain why you mucked on the river?

thanks,
WT

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the hijack...awesome avatar.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the best/2nd best card in the deck that could have came off for you...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sorta true.

It's true that preflop (or even on the flop), I'd say "heck, the ace of purple horseshoes would sure be a splendid card right about now". No doubt.

However, by the time the river bet came around to me, three (not one or two, but THREE) opponents liked their chances of winning with that ace out there.

In fact, this could be THE WORST card in the deck for me. It's kinda like when you have QJh on a QJT9 (with the T9 of hearts) board. The betting is capped threeways on the flop and turn. The river is a king. THere's a bet and a call to you. Do you call or muck? Well, with a huge pot, you quite often call, right?

You get shown AK, and lose an extra bet. The King on the river made you call. It was a bad card for you, it cost you a bet. If it had been the 2c, it would have been a much better card for you.

Three people (besides me) thought that they could win with that ace out there. This means that three people (including me) thought that they could win with that ace out there.

Josh

[Philuva]

[ QUOTE ]
I tried putting them on hands, and I ran out of aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

So UTG has a set or middle two pair and decided to try and CR the turn even through no one showed they liked that flop?

I have a hard time putting UTG on a hand to be honest, but I don't think it really matters because you are ahead of the other two guys enough here given their passiveness throughout the hand. Plus, given the utg's check on the turn I think you have an easy call in a large pot with TPTK.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
UTG (38/14) limps.......Flop comes 962, two hearts.....I lead out. UTG raises..
Turn is an offsuit ten. I check, and it gets checked around. Weird. Maybe UTG has hearts, and I'm really ahead here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to do the hands and could only come with 78s for UTG. I could see him playing it the same way and going for turn c/r. Maybe I'm wrong, but 38/14's do things like that.

[Duke]

You didn't run out of tens and pairs in a huge pot from guys thinking that seeing a showdown is basically mandatory.

The problem is that you were going to call UTG, and then 2 guys basically tell you that you have them beat and add money to the pot, and then all of a sudden UTG has a better hand than he did. No, the callers don't need aces when the pot is this big. There's nothing to run out of. And I've seen guys bet 6 high into a field of 5 when an ace hit since it -is- a "scare card."

~D

[glen]

The dude plays 38% of his hands. You have to relax logical hand-reading against people who play 38% of their hands. Call the river. . .

[andyfox]

"then all of a sudden UTG has a better hand than he did."

I don't think this is so unusual. An ace comes, a guy bets, we figure the ace hit him. But now several other guys, who figure to have aces, call. If it's me, that decreases the possibility that the original bettor had an ace from what I figured were his chances of so having when he bet out. And since it's likely the others have aces, and it's likely he knows this, it's likelier that he can beat an ace.

Not saying it justifies folding, just saying changing the thinking about what the bettor might have in light of the two calls makes sense.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
You didn't run out of tens and pairs in a huge pot from guys thinking that seeing a showdown is basically mandatory.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but neither HJ nor button have those (they'd bet the turn), and they aren't calling with no pair on the river. So, that leads me to the same "what does UTG have?" question.


[ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you were going to call UTG, and then 2 guys basically tell you that you have them beat and add money to the pot, and then all of a sudden UTG has a better hand than he did.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[ QUOTE ]

No, the callers don't need aces when the pot is this big.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, this is absolutely true. In this case, because they obviously don't have a pair on the turn, they DO need an ace to call the river.

[ QUOTE ]

There's nothing to run out of. And I've seen guys bet 6 high into a field of 5 when an ace hit since it -is- a "scare card."

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, maybe UTG is bluffing here a naked bluff. But I think that it's probably less than 1 outta 20 times. And, I need to be ahead 1 outta 10 times to justify a call. River bets at 30/60 into fields of 4 are stone cold bluffs less than 1 outta 10 times. I don't think ANYBODY here denies that.

Josh

[bpb]

UTG is a 38/14 who limped preflop, then called two cold back to him. I'm going to assume he isn't the greatest player at the table.

As such, I can put him on hands like JTh, QTh, KTh, 98h, 97h, etc. He flopped a pair plus flush draw or two overs plus a flush draw, and therefore raised the flop. When his flush doesn't come, he checks the turn. Or maybe he pairs the T in addition to his flush draw and decides to check-raise. Then he refuses to acknowledge the A and bluff/value bets his weaker pair/ busted flush draw on the river.

Just because you (or any sane player) would never lead an ace high river in this situation with less than a pair of aces in your hand doesn't mean that UTG didn't.

Even given the likelyhood that you're splitting with one of your other opponents, you're getting a good 8:1 or so from the pot. I still maintain that UTG shows up with a stupid bluff or pair plus busted flush draw more than 1/9 times.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
"then all of a sudden UTG has a better hand than he did."

I don't think this is so unusual. An ace comes, a guy bets, we figure the ace hit him. But now several other guys, who figure to have aces, call. If it's me, that decreases the possibility that the original bettor had an ace from what I figured were his chances of so having when he bet out. And since it's likely the others have aces, and it's likely he knows this, it's likelier that he can beat an ace.

Not saying it justifies folding, just saying changing the thinking about what the bettor might have in light of the two calls makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I love you. No, not in that way.

See, you don't play online (I don't think). You rely on getting information the old fashioned way...throughout the hand. Too many people on here (and I'm not singling out anybody, least of all Duke), gather all their information before the hand, in the neat little VPIP and PFR numbers. They see those numbers, then act accordingly.

There are no stats that I've seen that take into account post flop play. The information you can gather via postflop play is soooo valuable, and people just aren't used to using that information anymore.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
I still maintain that UTG shows up with a stupid bluff or pair plus busted flush draw more than 1/9 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then we agree to disagree. No harm in that.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
The dude plays 38% of his hands. You have to relax logical hand-reading against people who play 38% of their hands. Call the river. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

I still say he bluffs the river less than 1 outta 10 times. His (preflop alone) aggression numbers don't indicate he's a degenerate bluffer.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


So UTG has a set or middle two pair and decided to try and CR the turn even through no one showed they liked that flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were me (and I play only SLIGHTLY less than 38% of my hands), I'd check the turn not to checkraise (although I would if the opportunity presented itself) but to allow all the drawing dead AK, AQ, AJ, etc catch up.

[ QUOTE ]

I have a hard time putting UTG on a hand to be honest, but I don't think it really matters because you are ahead of the other two guys enough here given their passiveness throughout the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I definitely have the other two beat. I was going to checkraise the river if one of those bet. We agree on that.

What we DISagree on is the merits of being second best. Saying what UTG has doesn't matter because I can beat the other two is silly.

[ QUOTE ]

Plus, given the utg's check on the turn I think you have an easy call in a large pot with TPTK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, if he'll bluff the river over 10% of the time into a field of four. I don't think he will.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
UTG (38/14) limps.......Flop comes 962, two hearts.....I lead out. UTG raises..
Turn is an offsuit ten. I check, and it gets checked around. Weird. Maybe UTG has hearts, and I'm really ahead here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to do the hands and could only come with 78s for UTG. I could see him playing it the same way and going for turn c/r. Maybe I'm wrong, but 38/14's do things like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I just mentioned in my response to Philuva....a turn check is not necessarily looking to checkraise. It could easily be looking to allow a drawing dead hand (i.e. AK AQ AJ) to 'catch up' on the river. Betting the turn with the nuts (or two pair or set or whatever) will get a lot of these hands to fold, which is disasterous.

Josh

[andyfox]

"Andy, I love you. No, not in that way."

Damn. Another bad beat.

[Josh W]

Like I've said, I'm not going to be a big defender of the flop bet. But like the bet or not, I don't think anybody here will say it's horrible (at least not anybody who's EV conscious). As such, I hope it doesn't become too much of a distraction.

When I called preflop, I gave some merits to capping. Instead, I called, with the express purpose of being able to beat AK on a raggedy board. By calling preflop, I've disguised my hand somewhat (not a ton, but...). On a raggedy flop, I can take this pot away from AK because he'll think "oh, he's in the blind, he's likely got some of that". Or, on an ace high flop, if the other guys have AQ etc, I can bludgeon them with my kicker, which they won't suspect. So I just call preflop.

Now, here I am on a raggedy flop. It's unlikely HJ has me beat right now. About the only hand a reasonable HJ will have here that beats me is TT. He likely caps JJ or bigger, and likely doesn't have a 9, 6, or 2 in his hand.

So I bet the flop for value vs. HJ.

The button very likely has a pair. Given HJ raised and I have AK, if the button has a pair, it's most likely to be smaller than kings, so I have 6 outs (5, if an A or K is in HJs hand). By betting into the button here, I won't have to call an unimproved river vs. him, I'll be able to find out where I'm at. The bet I'm losing here will be saved later.

The question is with UTG. He plays a lot of hands. However, most of his hands won't hit that flop. Lots of QJ, KT, A5 type hands will now muck, which is just fine by me. One less opponent in a big pot is sweet. He also may have a small pocket pair, like 44. If he does, he may or may not call, but will be scared somewhat by the potential of a raise behind him.

Look, there are a lot of "maybes" "potential" "likely", etc. in this bet. I'm not trying to defend it here, so much as I'm trying to explain it. I could certainly check/call. I could certainly check/raise a button bettor. I could even check/fold.

I just wanted to share my thought process here. Even though the flop bet sticks out like a sore thumb, it's somewhat irrelevant, and not really -EV in any way shape or form.

Josh

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]

Not saying it justifies folding, just saying changing the thinking about what the bettor might have in light of the two calls makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. I don't think I've explicitly thought about this before. Shows how weak my hand reading thought process is.

I've still seen too many LAGs make hopeless river bets after the turn is checked around though, despite the number of people in the pot. But I'm assuming mediocre postflop skills. If UTG is a reasonable postflop player, then a fold is in order.

[Paluka]

I think you make way too many very specific assumptions about your opponents hands and how they might play them on every street. You just can't ve that certain of how other people play.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you make way too many very specific assumptions about your opponents hands and how they might play them on every street. You just can't ve that certain of how other people play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must not have seen this paragraph in the post you just responded to:

[ QUOTE ]

Look, there are a lot of "maybes" "potential" "likely", etc. in this bet. I'm not trying to defend it here, so much as I'm trying to explain it. I could certainly check/call. I could certainly check/raise a button bettor. I could even check/fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

Josh

[Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The dude plays 38% of his hands. You have to relax logical hand-reading against people who play 38% of their hands. Call the river. . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

I still say he bluffs the river less than 1 outta 10 times. His (preflop alone) aggression numbers don't indicate he's a degenerate bluffer.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds like you think this but don't know for sure because you haven't played enough hands with UTG. And I think you need to have played thousands online against him to make this laydown. Also, you're getting ~13:1 so if he is bluffing 1 out of 10 times you have odds to call.
[EDIT: Well I guess button has AK 50% of the time and AQ 50% of the time. But if UTG has Ahxh say 2 out of those 10 times then your odds are 7:3 and the pot is offering 13-1. Even with the chop half the time that you win- I think you have odds to call. Not to mention if you are wrong in your read.]

You also said above, "Nobody can put UTG on a hand."
Sure we can.
Monster: set or straight that didn't want to lose anybody on the turn or was going to CR.
Two pair: A9 specifically, maybe A6 or A2 that got scared on the turn.
Hand you beat: Ahxh or a complete whiff

Button has an ace.
MP - no idea, but I don't care because he didn't raise.

You also wrote above
[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty clear that HJ and Button both have big aces, and there's probably about 25% chance I'm chopping at best with button.


[/ QUOTE ]
What do you mean at best? Do you mean at worst? Because the button and hijack have you beat about 1% of the time here.

[Edit to state I don't know what UTG but I think UTG won because Josh posted this hand]Now since you posted UTG probably had you beat this time but it seems to go back to basics. I'm not making big folds in big pots on the river without 98-99% certainty of my read.

If you were 99% certain then I think you need to state that - maybe you did and I didn't see it though. If you were 99% certain of your read then it was a good play win or lose. But if you were 99% certain and you folded and would have ended up winning then it's more likely that you (and by you I mean anybody) overrated your handle on the opponent -- than it was that 1%.

Thanks for posting a hand you probably knew you would get flamed for....it's always good to expand our viewpoints right or wrong, imo. And if you think I'm wrong let me know where.

[Josh W]

You have a lot in here I want to respond to, but so many quotes are making this cluttered. I'm going to try to get rid of some of them, but nothing critical (I hope!).

[ QUOTE ]

This sounds like you think this but don't know for sure because you haven't played enough hands with UTG. And I think you need to have played thousands online against him to make this laydown.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, I don't know for sure. But as I've stated throughout, I think he naked-bluffs here less than 1 outta 20 times (I think it's more like 1 outta 50). He'd need to bluff 1 outta ten times for my call to be justified.

[ QUOTE ]

You also said above, "Nobody can put UTG on a hand."
Sure we can.
Monster: set or straight that didn't want to lose anybody on the turn or was going to CR.
Two pair: A9 specifically, maybe A6 or A2 that got scared on the turn.
Hand you beat: Ahxh or a complete whiff


[/ QUOTE ]

AhXh is 'impossible' because HJ and button have aces. Of those you list, I beat only "complete whiff", and as I've said, I think he bets that here less than 1 outta 20 times.


[ QUOTE ]

You also wrote above
[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty clear that HJ and Button both have big aces, and there's probably about 25% chance I'm chopping at best with button.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean at best? Do you mean at worst?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what I meant. Just pretend I didn't write "at best".

[ QUOTE ]

Because the button and hijack have you beat about 1% of the time here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's less than that. I think maybe 0.1% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

Now I'm sure UTG had you beat this time but it seems to go back to basics. I'm not making big folds in big pots on the river without 98-99% certainty of my read.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are losing money. In this spot, with this pot size, you only need 90% certainty.

[ QUOTE ]

If you were 99% certain then I think you need to state that - maybe you did and I didn't see it though. If you were 99% certain of your read then it was a good play win or lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I've said, it's actually 90%, not 99%, and I have stated it. I'm somewhere in the 95%-98% region.

Josh

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were me (and I play only SLIGHTLY less than 38% of my hands), I'd check the turn not to checkraise (although I would if the opportunity presented itself) but to allow all the drawing dead AK, AQ, AJ, etc catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but they already called 2 cold on the flop, now they are reluctant to call 1 big bet on the turn?

Doesn't utg want to bet the turn if they are drawing dead because they will likely call a bet on turn while they are "drawing" but be reluctant to call a bet with bare Ace on the river. You need the parlay of them to be drawing dead and to make there hand on the river for it to be break even with betting the turn don't you?



[ QUOTE ]
Yep, if he'll bluff the river over 10% of the time into a field of four. I don't think he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to be bluffing, he just has to have a worse hand than you. There's no way utg can have Ahxh? Couldn't utg have been raising the flop trying to clean up his Ace outs, then checking the turn to draw as cheaply as possible?

[JasonP530]

I like your basis for the flop lead sometimes, but I don't think you have the river right. I think it is much more likely that someone is betting/calling without an ace than UTG raised a set/A9/A6 on the flop and then didn't bet the turn when a blank came. He can reasonably expect a higher pocket pair to 3 bet him from the CO and button, so it probably isn't out there. His check is very bad if he has a set(since they have already cold called 2 on the flop). So bad, that I would reward him by paying him on the river.

[Robb]

Sorry I edited my post - kind of wrote in a hurry - had a conference call at work.

Anyway, I didn't run the numbers with 95% certainty but it's probably an ok laydown because you chop half the time with the button.

Here's to hoping your read was on.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Edit: Hmmm the more I think about this...and I don't say this often but, based on the way the hand went down it's almost guaranteed MP has AK/AQ/AJ and button has AK/AQ/AJ.
Which means you're right, there are no Aces left. So it comes down to how often is UTG betting into 3 players (albeit one has checked) and can't beat an ace? 1 in 20 might be right. Ha, given all that online I still make a "I can sleep at night" call. But only because I don't trust my reads past the 10% intervals yet: 90% certain, 80% certain. Maybe one day.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it were me (and I play only SLIGHTLY less than 38% of my hands), I'd check the turn not to checkraise (although I would if the opportunity presented itself) but to allow all the drawing dead AK, AQ, AJ, etc catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but they already called 2 cold on the flop, now they are reluctant to call 1 big bet on the turn?

Doesn't utg want to bet the turn if they are drawing dead because they will likely call a bet on turn while they are "drawing" but be reluctant to call a bet with bare Ace on the river. You need the parlay of them to be drawing dead and to make there hand on the river for it to be break even with betting the turn don't you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not an exact science. But people 'take one off' on the flop with naked overcards A WHOLE LOT MORE than they do on the turn. If UTG bets the turn and a drawingdead opponent mucks, it's horrible. If he gives a free card, there's no guarantee that they call the river, but there's AT LEAST A CHANCE for post-turn profit to be made.


[ QUOTE ]
Yep, if he'll bluff the river over 10% of the time into a field of four. I don't think he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to be bluffing, he just has to have a worse hand than you. There's no way utg can have Ahxh?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think way less than 1% of the time, unless his "x" is the non-heart card on the flop. And even that is almost impossible. This is simply because there are only 4 aces in the deck. I've got one (100% certain), the board has one (100% certain), the button has one (over 99.9% certain) and the highjack has one (over 95% certain). I think that '95' for the highjack is also about 99.

So, if he doesn't have at least an ace, and has a hand worse than me, I call that bluffing. Perhaps he dillusionally betting K9 on the river, not thinking its a bluff. But I put that in the "less than 10% chance that he bluffs the river" category (even if he doesn't call it a bluff).


Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I edited my post - kind of wrote in a hurry - had a conference call at work.

Anyway, I didn't run the numbers with 95% certainty but it's probably an ok laydown because you chop half the time with the button.

Here's to hoping your read was on.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Edit: Hmmm the more I think about this...and I don't say this often but, based on the way the hand went down it's almost guaranteed MP has AK/AQ/AJ and button has AK/AQ/AJ.
Which means you're right, there are no Aces left. So it comes down to how often is UTG betting into 3 players (albeit one has checked) and can't beat an ace? 1 in 20 might be right. Ha, given all that online I still make a "I can sleep at night" call. But only because I don't trust my reads past the 10% intervals yet: 90% certain, 80% certain. Maybe one day.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I've never lost sleep over poker /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

Seriously, I've tossed away winners in pots like this before (I used to put too much faith in my reads, so whereas it may seem like I'm doing that here, I've done it much moreso in the past), and it never lingers.

When I throw away hands like this as winners (which doesn't meaned flawed logic, though it often points to that), I often end up posting the hand here and getting showed the error of my ways. So far, I've yet to see any error in my ways here....I'm not convinced that UTG bluffs over 10% of the time here....

J

[ggbman]

Anyone here with an ace is going to bet or call a bet here, regardless of what their kicker is in most situations. This pot is huge, and its also difficult for better hands to value raise weak aces in this kind of pot, and your opponents should know that. This river is an easy call.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
So far, I've yet to see any error in my ways here....I'm not convinced that UTG bluffs over 10% of the time here....

J

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that UTG could have Ax here (Ax hearts maybe?), and one of your other two opponents could have a horribly misplayed pocket pair that didn't turn into a set.

The button certainly has an ace to overcall the hijack, but the hijack could have less than a pair of aces, given that the turn was checked around.

[Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
The button certainly has an ace to overcall the hijack, but the hijack could have less than a pair of aces, given that the turn was checked around.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just in regards to what hijack could have....
There has to be a huge parlay for hijack to not have an ace here which means UTG doesn't have an ace:
1. No way he has JJ/QQ/KK - I have never seen one player at 30/60 play the hand this way.
2. a ten - without out another pair - like J10 - so you have to hope he called 2 cold on the flop with a J high pair draw with preflop 3 bettor yet to act
3. a nine - like J9 same comment in addition to the fact he didn't bet the turn once everyone else showed weakness
4. 77/88 you have to hope he thought UTG had a missed flushed draw and that nobody else would call.

Out of all of these I think a hand with a nine in it is the most likely candidate for hijack to have that doesn't contain an ace but still probably less than 2% of the time.

So in other words I thought it was a really bad fold at first but hand analysis shows it's a least a close call (in my opinion). But I still call in case UTG is an idiot and because I don't do this detailed of an analysis at the table.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If UTG bets the turn and a drawingdead opponent mucks, it's horrible. If he gives a free card, there's no guarantee that they call the river, but there's AT LEAST A CHANCE for post-turn profit to be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This analysis is terrible. He raises his impossibly strong hand on the flop, then checks it on the turn (cuz he "knows" you will call on the flop but not the turn, that's a special kind of fish that will call at 7:1 and fold at 11:1, then call the river)? Maybe, but that's the least likely scenario. What about the flush draw, just let him see the river for free?

I'm sure you posted this hand to show us how brilliant you are, so why don't you post the results, because your arguements don't seem logical to me. And that's why I don't think it's a good river fold.

[jogumon]

[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting the unknown on an A here is a HUGE assumption. You have no idea how loose/dumb he is. After the turn was checked, UTG bet, and he called. For all you know, he has a PP, and thinks he's calling UTG's bluff. Yes, he should think someone after him might have an A. Yes, if he's picking off UTG's bluff with less than an A, he should raise, to get the pair of A's behind him to fold. That's assuming he's a good player. Why are you doing that?

You are making a big laydown, in a really big pot, based on assumptions of how your opponents play. One opponent is a LAG, the other a complete unknown, the other loose passive. Your reading of their hands is based on how YOU (or another good player) would have played the hand. NOT how these players would play.

In the end, you have TPTK in a very large pot, needing to call 1 bet to close the action. The only player who's hand you're afraid of played in a very strange fasion. Checking this turn, with a flush draw out there, with any made hand does not make sense. There is no hand that he has where raising the flop to drive out those behind him, then checking the turn makes sense. Yet you're putting him on a good hand. Just call the one bet. This is NOT the spot for a good laydown.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If UTG bets the turn and a drawingdead opponent mucks, it's horrible. If he gives a free card, there's no guarantee that they call the river, but there's AT LEAST A CHANCE for post-turn profit to be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This analysis is terrible. He raises his impossibly strong hand on the flop, then checks it on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

The analysis is terrible only if you dislike winning.

People who raise preflop don't like folding in huge pots on the flop. People never (or, more accurately, rarely) think of themselves as drawing dead on the flop. However, people with no pair and no draw often find themselves drawing dead on the turn. Hence, people like to call more on the flop than on the turn. I'm startled that this is new information to you.

Many people adopt the (when flopping a monster) BetFlopCheckTurnBetRiver philosophy. I know Andy Fox has said he does this when flopping quads. I know tons o' people who do it live and online, I do it, etc. When you consider all the possibilities, I think you'll see that this is how you maximize profit. Forcing drawing dead opponents out on the turn doesn't help the bottom line. See, people don't like calling the turn drawing dead.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you posted this hand to show us how brilliant you are, so why don't you post the results, because your arguements don't seem logical to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, get indignant.

As I've said in this thread, I often post hands like this to find the error in my thinking. So far, except for the one person who said "I think UTG bluffs more than 10% of the time on the river", nobody has really pointed out errors in my thinking (and as I told him, we agree to disagree). I recently posted a hand where I jammed w/ KK on a raggedy board against 3 opponents, then checked when a Jack hit the river, thinking it was likely an opponent had JJ. As it turns out, they had TT and QQ. When somebody presented the math to show me the error in my ways, I quickly admitted as so.

Similarly, there's a good chance I misplayed this. There's a good chance I layed down the winner in a 13BB pot. That would be horrible. But if it's the right thing to do, it would be acceptable.

I'm waiting for somebody to provide a compelling argument that either:

a.) UTG bluffs more than 10% of the time, or
b.) HJ and Button don't have an Ace (and even then it's sketchy, because that only allows that UTG has an ace, and that may mean two pair, so just because the late players don't have an ace doesn't mean I should always call).

If (a) or (b) doesn't get shown, I played it right (regardless of results).

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


Putting the unknown on an A here is a HUGE assumption. You have no idea how loose/dumb he is. After the turn was checked, UTG bet, and he called. For all you know, he has a PP, and thinks he's calling UTG's bluff. Yes, he should think someone after him might have an A. Yes, if he's picking off UTG's bluff with less than an A, he should raise, to get the pair of A's behind him to fold. That's assuming he's a good player. Why are you doing that?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just going to address this paragraph here, because I've addressed everything else already.

By "unknown", I assume you are referring to the HJ.

You think he may have a pocket pair. In order for that to be so, he:

1.) Raised preflop. Okay, people raise with any pocket pair, so that doesn't narrow down his hands that much. I lose if he has 22, 66, 99, TT, or AA.

2.) Called two cold on the flop. Okay, so he doesn't have 33, 44, 55, 77, 88. Yes, he MAY have those, but it's getting extremely unlikely.

3.) He checked the turn. He doesn't have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 66, 22.

4.) He's an unknown. But we want to contend that he's aggressive enough to raise a small pair, but not threebet it on a raggedy flop with a preflop aggressor behind him (i.e. 77 would wanna three bet to get AK out, etc). Okay...fine. Maybe he's completely insane and just calls a bunch of bets and doesn't try to protect his hand, even though he's LAGGY enough to raise it preflop.

5.) He's CHECKING this pair on the turn??? He wants to give ANOTHER free card to AK/AQ on the button?????

6.) He's CALLING the river?

All of that is happening? At once? And he doesnt' have 2s, 6s, 9s, Ts, or A's? Hmmm, I don't buy it.

But let's keep playing this game where we aren't in touch with reality. Now...I have the HJ beat. So what?

And, yeah, I have the button beat (that's dang near a given).

I need all of those 6 things previously mentioned to be true AND beat UTG. He raised the flop, and bet the river when an ace came. He could have A5h, sure. But he could also have A2h, A6, A9, 87, T9, 96, 22, 66, 99, etc.

I say the highjack has an ace over 98% of the time, and that's being conservative. Now, I need to parlay that with the likelihood of me beating UTG. UTG has 5 potential hands that I beat (when he's not bluffing): A3h, A4h, A5h, A7h, A8h (and a lot of those, especially the last two, he probably bets the turn with).

UTG has at least 23 possibilities that I lose to:

3 A2s
3 A6s
3 A9s
3 ATs
3 22s
3 66s
3 99s
4 87s (only counting s00teds)

Hmm, that's 25, not sure how I came up with 23 earlier. Throw in a few T9s.

So there's like an 15% chance that I have UTG beat....couple that with a 2% HJ doesn't have an ace, and we have a whopping 0.3% chance I'm ahead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Guys, really. Play some poker. Quit thinking "TPTK Big Pot, I call". Look, you can beat soft games with that way of thinking, but people are whining on here every month about how much tougher the games are getting. You aren't going to be beating tougher games without doing some analysis.

Is this an easy fold? Absolutely not.

Is it a clear fold? No. It's not clear. I think it's a fold, but not a huge error by calling. The fact is, many of you are saying it is black and white. That is the only BIG mistake that can be made here...thinking situations like this are black and white. THAT'S THE ONLY BIG MISTAKE THAT CAN BE MADE.

And almost all of you are making it.

Josh

[jogumon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a fold, but not a huge error by calling

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the heart of the matter. If you call, it's not much of an error. EV wise, folding probably isn't either. It isn't black and white, and I don't think anyone here is saying it is. It's extremely close, but because of that, the size of the pot dictates a call. A one bet error is bad. A 13 bet error is catastrophic.

[ QUOTE ]
Called two cold on the flop. Okay, so he doesn't have 33, 44, 55, 77, 88. Yes, he MAY have those, but it's getting extremely unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I'm saying you are using your playing standards to read the play of an unknown or a bad player. Would you cold call two on the flop with these hands? probably not. Would an average player or bad player? I've certainly seen it done, at these levels online, more times than I can count. Even by players who seem good, at least according to PT stats.

[JasonP530]

Josh,

You have the CO and Button beat the majority of the time. UTG has played his hand so strangely, and so incorrectly, that you cannot be sure what he has. Giving a free card in this big pot(to what can easily be a flush draw or now KQ/QJ if your analysis is correct), would be a horrendus play on his part. So bad, that you cannot assume that other horrendus plays(like bluffing the river) are not in his arsenal. This is the reason you must call.

Jason

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's a fold, but not a huge error by calling

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the heart of the matter. If you call, it's not much of an error. EV wise, folding probably isn't either. It isn't black and white, and I don't think anyone here is saying it is. It's extremely close, but because of that, the size of the pot dictates a call. A one bet error is bad. A 13 bet error is catastrophic.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't even logic. A close decision factors in all elements, not the least of which is pot size.

If all of these matters make it close one way or the other, it's close. Pot size has already been factored in. Don't say it's close, then say potsize dictates a call. No, if you want to use that logic, say "it's not close, but pot size makes it close".

And LOTS of people are saying that this is black and white. They say folding is terrible horrible no good very bad ridiculous, blah blah blah.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Called two cold on the flop. Okay, so he doesn't have 33, 44, 55, 77, 88. Yes, he MAY have those, but it's getting extremely unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I'm saying you are using your playing standards to read the play of an unknown or a bad player. Would you cold call two on the flop with these hands? probably not. Would an average player or bad player? I've certainly seen it done, at these levels online, more times than I can count. Even by players who seem good, at least according to PT stats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see the part where I say they MAY have those hands? It's just that **SIX** elements need to be satisfied before they can have those. Looking at any one street, yeah, it's possible. Factor in all of the action on all of the streets, and it's really close to a 0% chance for ANYBODY to have these small pairs.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Josh,

You have the CO and Button beat the majority of the time. UTG has played his hand so strangely, and so incorrectly, that you cannot be sure what he has. Giving a free card in this big pot(to what can easily be a flush draw or now KQ/QJ if your analysis is correct), would be a horrendus play on his part. So bad, that you cannot assume that other horrendus plays(like bluffing the river) are not in his arsenal. This is the reason you must call.

Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

I swear reading comprehension is at an all time low on this board.

I DO FACTOR in the naked bluff. I just think it's less than 10%.

The guy is 38/14. Of course he's a bad player. I'm the only winning player I know with stats remotely that close, and they are dropping a lot with less shorthanded play.

There's no doubt he's a bad player. Instead of stating the obvious, give me some reason why he may bluff more than 10% of the time into a field of 4 on the river.

Josh

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"then all of a sudden UTG has a better hand than he did."

I don't think this is so unusual. An ace comes, a guy bets, we figure the ace hit him. But now several other guys, who figure to have aces, call. If it's me, that decreases the possibility that the original bettor had an ace from what I figured were his chances of so having when he bet out. And since it's likely the others have aces, and it's likely he knows this, it's likelier that he can beat an ace.

Not saying it justifies folding, just saying changing the thinking about what the bettor might have in light of the two calls makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I love you. No, not in that way.

See, you don't play online (I don't think). You rely on getting information the old fashioned way...throughout the hand. Too many people on here (and I'm not singling out anybody, least of all Duke), gather all their information before the hand, in the neat little VPIP and PFR numbers. They see those numbers, then act accordingly.

There are no stats that I've seen that take into account post flop play. The information you can gather via postflop play is soooo valuable, and people just aren't used to using that information anymore.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Josh, I love Andy too, but his logic doesn't make sense. Read the bolded passage. He says UTG knows that the other two guys likely have Aces. Did they tell UTG they were calling before he bet the river? That statement makes no sense to me. When UTG bets, what would make him think those guys have Aces?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"then all of a sudden UTG has a better hand than he did."

I don't think this is so unusual. An ace comes, a guy bets, we figure the ace hit him. But now several other guys, who figure to have aces, call. If it's me, that decreases the possibility that the original bettor had an ace from what I figured were his chances of so having when he bet out. And since it's likely the others have aces, and it's likely he knows this, it's likelier that he can beat an ace.

Not saying it justifies folding, just saying changing the thinking about what the bettor might have in light of the two calls makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I love you. No, not in that way.

See, you don't play online (I don't think). You rely on getting information the old fashioned way...throughout the hand. Too many people on here (and I'm not singling out anybody, least of all Duke), gather all their information before the hand, in the neat little VPIP and PFR numbers. They see those numbers, then act accordingly.

There are no stats that I've seen that take into account post flop play. The information you can gather via postflop play is soooo valuable, and people just aren't used to using that information anymore.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Josh, I love Andy too, but his logic doesn't make sense. Read the bolded passage. He says UTG knows that the other two guys likely have Aces. Did they tell UTG they were calling before he bet the river? That statement makes no sense to me. When UTG bets, what would make him think those guys have Aces?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is little that will prove to him that they BOTH have aces. But look at the action.

You have a preflop raiser and a preflop three bettor.

They both coldcalled on the flop.

They both checked through the turn.

As such, its very unlikely that they have a pair. Since they raised and threebet preflop, it's 'guaranteed' (i.e. over 99%) that at least one of them has an ace.

My love for Andy isn't so much for his analysis (which I don't have as much of a problem with as you do), but for the fact that he's willing to keep acquiring information throughout the hand, whereas most modern day internet players see a few stats preflop, and use that to dictate everything.

I clearly love Andy more. (No, Andy, still not in that way!)

Josh

[Ulysses]

Doesn't follow, Josh. By the logic you presented there, you make a case for folding if UTG bets, regardless of the other two player's action. But you already said that you thought you should call if the other two guys folded. Your logic does not agree.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability).

He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't follow, Josh. By the logic you presented there, you make a case for folding if UTG bets, regardless of the other two player's action. But you already said that you thought you should call if the other two guys folded. Your logic does not agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my reply to your other reply. I gotta run to dinner, so I can't go into too much detail here.

Look, he checked a non-scary ten. He's either passive or trapping. He bets the ace. If he's passive, he has me beat. If he's trapping, he has me beat.

I call if one of the others fold because he could then have AXh. When they both call, he can no longer have this hand.

Josh

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability).

He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't follow, Josh. By the logic you presented there, you make a case for folding if UTG bets, regardless of the other two player's action. But you already said that you thought you should call if the other two guys folded. Your logic does not agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my reply to your other reply. I gotta run to dinner, so I can't go into too much detail here.

Look, he checked a non-scary ten. He's either passive or trapping. He bets the ace. If he's passive, he has me beat. If he's trapping, he has me beat.

I call if one of the others fold because he could then have AXh. When they both call, he can no longer have this hand.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a multitude of hands (for example, draw that picked up a pair somewhere along the way and thinks he has a busted flush draw enough of the time - say a hand like 67h, or 88) that can call in the middle that don't have an ace.

[glen]

This whole thread reminds me of a pavement lyrics from "We are underused":

"Let's drink a toast -- it's the most I can stand to cry about
The mental energy you wasted on this wedding invitation"

[SA125]

n/m

[bugstud]

also, these opps should be pretty sure you don't have an ace, based on your play.

[teddyFBI]

I don't have much to add to this thread other than quoting whoever it was who said something along the lines of 'you don't make money in limit hold'em by making big laydowns on the river in huge pots.'

I really dislike this fold, and think you overthought this hand to death. You're giving way to much credit to a 38/14 player. His stats alone should tell you you're dealing with a donkey who doesn't play in a straightforward manner.

[jogumon]

[ QUOTE ]
If all of these matters make it close one way or the other, it's close. Pot size has already been factored in. Don't say it's close, then say potsize dictates a call. No, if you want to use that logic, say "it's not close, but pot size makes it close".

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably didn't phrase it right the first time. It is close, I don't think you can say with good certainty whether calling or folding is the more EV play. Therefore, call. This is limit hold em, and losing one extra bet is less of a mistake than folding a winning hand in a large pot.

That being said, I think what everyone here is trying to tell you is that you are over estimating the chance that you are behind. You are the only one who knows the actual outcome of the hand, and the only one advocating a fold.

I think you need to call this river, and not bet the flop....the way you played it, it would have been cool to donk the turn.....

[yoshi_yoshi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still trying to figure this out. Did you have a conversation with UTG after the two guys called and he told you he still thought he would win the hand? Or did those two guys tell UTG before he bet that they were both going to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that, when he bet, he thought he'd win over 90% of the time (with up to 10% bluffing probability).

He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having two callers does change the probability of this guy bluffing or not. Say the guy could be bluffing, betting an ace, or betting something better. OP has a read that the guy could be bluffing or betting an ace enough times that a call w/ AK is good.

If OP also has a read that the two callers are likely calling with aces, that could swing the call into a fold, because it removes the aces from the better's hand range. I think that's what Josh is trying to say.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG is blessed with something I am not...knowledge of UTG's hand.

All I can do is use all the information to figure out what his hand is. And when both other people call, that information tells me UTG doesn't have an ace. That, coupled with his non-fear of an ace tells me my hand is no good.

UTGs bet doesn't tell me all of this. And if both don't call, I certainly have to. But when both call, my kicker is irrelevant, and my holding of one solitary pair is overwhelmingly unsatisfactory.

I'm drunk, but I still like my play. If you guys think I'm wrong, please, give me some reason to believe so.

Josh

[Ulysses]

Josh, I am drunk too. Come up to SF Monday and party w/ mike l. It will be good times. Boris will be there. I will teach you how to play Texas Hold'em. And pinball.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have much to add to this thread other than quoting whoever it was who said something along the lines of 'you don't make money in limit hold'em by making big laydowns on the river in huge pots.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I am positive that Josh knows and considered this advice. As he has been repeatedly pointing out, simply restating "big pot ==> call" is not helpful.

Of course if Josh thinks he wins 10% of the time, he should call. However, if he's 5% to win, he should fold. So precision matters here.

Also, if you think it is a close decision, then folding is okay. There is a huge flaw in the idea that "You need to win 1 in 14 times, and I think you will win about that much, but call-and-it's-not-close because losing a big pot is catastrophic and losing a bet isn't." That's not how EV works.

If Josh is exactly 5% to win, he should not call. And that's true even if this is one of those times when he actually would have been good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

UTG is blessed with something I am not...knowledge of UTG's hand.

All I can do is use all the information to figure out what his hand is. And when both other people call, that information tells me UTG doesn't have an ace. That, coupled with his non-fear of an ace tells me my hand is no good.

UTGs bet doesn't tell me all of this. And if both don't call, I certainly have to. But when both call, my kicker is irrelevant, and my holding of one solitary pair is overwhelmingly unsatisfactory.

I'm drunk, but I still like my play. If you guys think I'm wrong, please, give me some reason to believe so.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright I'll try to explain what people have been trying to tell you ...

When UTG bets, he is saying that either he has an ace, he can beat one, or he's full of crap. You say he "doesn't fear the ace", when it may be simply that he hopes you all fear it enough to fold. Then when the two people call, one and perhaps both of them are thinking that they can beat the top pair off the flop, which is what UTG checkraised on, or they have an ace and are calling because the pot is large (and why the hell would you fold top pair for one bet in a pot this large, they think, as should you).

So you have one bettor who may have you beat, may be full of crap completely, and may have a hand you can beat. Then you have two people only calling because they probably cannot beat the ace. And you are sitting there with the best ace. No matter what they have, UTG's bet means the same thing--he's got a great hand, a good hand you can beat, or a busted hand. So the question is--can you beat UTG?

Well you sure as hell beat him often enough to call in this size pot. Look at your hand one more time--you have top pair, top kicker in a very large pot facing a single bet that comes originally from a player you might have beat. The other two players have shown no strength at all. If you don't call in this spot, it's a dreadful error. In fact, I'd raise.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't call in this spot, it's a dreadful error.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Josh thinks UTG will bluff 5% of the times he bets, it is clearly not "dreadful."

I think he should call too, but I don't think a fold is so obviously wrong like everyone else seems to. I don't think it's an obvious river play either way because if it were the thread wouldn't go on for so long. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is simple. What the other two guys do shouldn't impact your thoughts regarding UTG's hand strength (for the most part) or bluffing frequency (at all), because he does not know what they are going to do when he bets. If you think he is bluffing enough for you to call, it shouldn't matter whether zero, one, or both call in the middle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?? When the other guy's call, it attacks the range of UTG in a non-uniform manner. Why do you say it can't impact his bluffing frequency?

If, just after UTG bets, we put him on:
-3% bluff
-37% hand with an ace
-60% better hand no holding an ace

then it's a call.

However, after 2 callers, the likelihood of UTG having an ace has diminished to almost zero, and so of course our likelihood of being ahead are much closer to 3/63 ~5%, which is a fold.

[cracker9521]

This looks like one of those hands where the EV either way is measured in pennies and i'm curious as to what happened.

[ QUOTE ]
This looks like one of those hands where the EV either way is measured in pennies and i'm curious as to what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just can't imagine intelligent poker players believing that this is such a close decision ... this thread boggles my mind.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
n/m

[/ QUOTE ]

Aw, c'mon, you know I don't like giving results...

But I will...

I folded.

UTG won.

I woulda beat both HJ and button.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

Look at your hand one more time--you have top pair, top kicker in a very large pot facing a single bet that comes originally from a player you might have beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this.

Look at their hands.

Yeah, I might have UTG beat, but what percent of the time? have you read the thread? Have you seen where, in nearly (if not every) every single post I've said he may be bluffing. I've already accounted for that. And, as I've shown, accounting for it and all, means I should fold.

Thanks for verifying my point.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
This looks like one of those hands where the EV either way is measured in pennies and i'm curious as to what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, this has become my main point here. It's really very close. I've never once (and, this isn't directed at you, but to the thread in general) said it's a clear fold. But many people have said it's a clear call.

THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE A CLEAR CALL IS IF YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO READ HANDS. Period.

If you try to read hands, you'll see that it's very close. If you think UTG bluffs under about 10% of the time, it's a fold. If you think he bluffs 10 or more %, it's a call.

In any case, it's close.

Not often on a forum like this can somebody be de facto wrong. However, those who say it's a disasterous fold or a horrible fold or a clear call are just plain wrong.

Likewise, if anybody said it's an obvious muck, they too would be wrong.

Josh

Plenty of folks will bet the ace here without being able to beat an ace holding. They hold an overpair (or even an underpair) and panic-bet when the ace hits, they hold something/anything and think that a bet with the scare card will chase off the hands that will beat them (i.e. your ace), or even because he is a 38/14 donkey who thinks, "HOT DARN MY A5 THAT I RAISED WITH PREFLOP CAME IN! AND THEY SAY THAT POKER IS HARD! WOOOOOODOGGY! BET!"

Other times, he'll have AJ, AQ, or AK, and be making a straight-forward value bet.

Of course, he might also have made his two pair, a set, or the straight, but I personally have a hard time thinking that he has these later hands more than 92% of the time in this situation, with this board, with this play.

The two overcalls are even less of a worry, as Josh and others noted. If they could beat you, they would have likely bet the turn, or at least raised this river. Really, their main contribution to the problem at hand was to raise the pot odds for your call.

Accordingly, I think you have to credit UTG with being a far better player than Josh otherwise described him to make this situation anything other than a call.

I am looking forward to see how it actually went down. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Edit: I see that you posted some of the results while I was composing my thoughts, but that doesn't change my analysis. Like ALL1N, I would like to know what UTG had. /images/graemlins/smile.gif]

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
n/m

[/ QUOTE ]

Aw, c'mon, you know I don't like giving results...

But I will...

I folded.

UTG won.

I woulda beat both HJ and button.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

What did UTG have?

[imported_azalin]

If i was UTG and played the hand the way i had until the river and i am holding a monster i am check raising this river . Am i the only one?

[ QUOTE ]
If i was UTG and played the hand the way i had until the river and i am holding a monster i am check raising this river . Am i the only one?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like a check-raise-my-monster better if I (as UTG) had bet the turn. There is too much chance of it being checked through considering the passive play on the turn, making a bet hoping for calls or a raise the most likely to get any results.

[elindauer]

Hi Josh,

It's pretty impressive that it even occurred to you to consider folding. Excellent job thinking about what your opponents held, and considering that your otherwise quite strong hand might actually be second best. For that, kudos.

However, I think you misjudged this one. Both the bettor and the first caller can be ace-free, so there are plenty of hands that you beat. Make the call and take it down.

my 2 cents.
eric

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


However, I think you misjudged this one. Both the bettor and the first caller can be ace-free, so there are plenty of hands that you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two sentences, and yet, they contradict each other.

As I've said all throughout, yeah, I may be winning. But, in order to be winning, UTG needs to be bluffing (essentially...I did the math somewhere in this quagmire and show that maybe a 1% shot of HJ not having an ace, then UTG could have AXh....so maybe 0.3% chance of hitting that parlay).

So I'm not sure how I misjudged it. Are you saying that in your experience that when all draws miss on the river, UTGs bet into fields of 4 10% of the time?

Josh

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Look at your hand one more time--you have top pair, top kicker in a very large pot facing a single bet that comes originally from a player you might have beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this.

Look at their hands.

Yeah, I might have UTG beat, but what percent of the time? have you read the thread? Have you seen where, in nearly (if not every) every single post I've said he may be bluffing. I've already accounted for that. And, as I've shown, accounting for it and all, means I should fold.

Thanks for verifying my point.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]


I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I did the math AND SHOWED it, and it said "fold" unless you think UTG will bluff more than 10% of the time.

Why do the math and not show it?

Why resort to name calling?

Why get so indignant?

And, again, I very often post hands like this where I am wrong, and not sure why/where I am wrong. This forum usually clears it up for me. So far, all this forum has done has shown that it's incredibly close.

Show your work.

Josh

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This looks like one of those hands where the EV either way is measured in pennies and i'm curious as to what happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe it or not, this has become my main point here. It's really very close. I've never once (and, this isn't directed at you, but to the thread in general) said it's a clear fold. But many people have said it's a clear call.

THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE A CLEAR CALL IS IF YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO READ HANDS. Period.

If you try to read hands, you'll see that it's very close. If you think UTG bluffs under about 10% of the time, it's a fold. If you think he bluffs 10 or more %, it's a call.

In any case, it's close.

Not often on a forum like this can somebody be de facto wrong. However, those who say it's a disasterous fold or a horrible fold or a clear call are just plain wrong.

Likewise, if anybody said it's an obvious muck, they too would be wrong.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you are reading hands...

and your read tells you, that the two caller have aces each and the bettor has a non ace containing hand that he had slowplayed on the turn in a monster pot with a 2 flush on the board in a gigantic multiway pot with a probability well over 90%? thats hilarious.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I did the math AND SHOWED it, and it said "fold" unless you think UTG will bluff more than 10% of the time.

Why do the math and not show it?

Why resort to name calling?

Why get so indignant?

And, again, I very often post hands like this where I am wrong, and not sure why/where I am wrong. This forum usually clears it up for me. So far, all this forum has done has shown that it's incredibly close.

Show your work.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't do any math. You made some vague comments and put some vague percentages on their hand possibilities, said you "ran out of aces" and folded.

Do the math for real and find out why if you ran this hand 1000 times against the actual hand ranges you can determine with reasonable accuracy on the river, folding would be highly -EV. I'm not here to educate dicks.

And I'm certainly not the lazy one here, or the showoff who's decided to post a hand he screwed up and then rely on the results to vindicate his decision, then argue with all of the people who rightly point out what a crappy fold it really was.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I just did the math. It indicates a clear call given their hand ranges. It shows how dreadful your fold really is. Do it yourself if you want to see the results, because you've been such a total dick on this thread I'm not writing it out for you.

Don't believe me? Don't care. Play it however you like.

Way to make a big fold in a spot you shouldn't have and then have your "genius" confirmed by the results though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify. I did the math AND SHOWED it, and it said "fold" unless you think UTG will bluff more than 10% of the time.

Why do the math and not show it?

Why resort to name calling?

Why get so indignant?

And, again, I very often post hands like this where I am wrong, and not sure why/where I am wrong. This forum usually clears it up for me. So far, all this forum has done has shown that it's incredibly close.

Show your work.

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't do any math. You made some vague comments and put some vague percentages on their hand possibilities, said you "ran out of aces" and folded.

Do the math for real and find out why if you ran this hand 1000 times against the actual hand ranges you can determine with reasonable accuracy on the river, folding would be highly -EV. I'm not here to educate dicks.

And I'm certainly not the lazy one here, or the showoff who's decided to post a hand he screwed up and then rely on the results to vindicate his decision, then argue with all of the people who rightly point out what a crappy fold it really was.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're funny. I mean that in a good way.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

ok, you are reading hands...

and your read tells you, that the two caller have aces each


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.

[ QUOTE ]

and the bettor has a non ace containing hand


[/ QUOTE ]

This follows from above, and the fact that there are only 4 in the deck.

[ QUOTE ]

that he had slowplayed on the turn in a monster pot with a 2 flush on the board in a gigantic multiway pot


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, or he's bluffing.

[ QUOTE ]

with a probability well over 90%? thats hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. Oh, sure, you are missing lots of points, like, even if HJ doesn't have an ace, I'm still a big dog to win this because UTG still very possibly (in fact, LIKELY, has me beat...)

Look, if I said "the sun rose at 7:31 a.m., and the temperature at this time of day was 61 degrees in a specific city", well, that would be a pretty ridiculous parlay (of course).

However, if all indications are that it's the time of year when the sun rises at 7:31, and the normal temp at 7:31 is 61 degrees for this same time of year, well...suddenly it's not so ridiculous. That's what's happening here. Everything is strongly correlated. Once one thing happens (both opponents raise preflop, call the flop, check the turn, and call the river), everything else becomes VERY likely.

Josh

[jjacky]

i don't consider it to be very likely that someone has slowplayed on the turn (it would have been a terrible mistake).
sure, you are probably beat, but your read doesn't have a reliability of more than 90% (not even close).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

ok, you are reading hands...

and your read tells you, that the two caller have aces each


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.


[/ QUOTE ]

sure, its very possible that both caller have aces, but it isn't like almost 100% sure.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

and the bettor has a non ace containing hand


[/ QUOTE ]

This follows from above, and the fact that there are only 4 in the deck.


[/ QUOTE ]

yes, i am aware of the fact that usualy only 4 aces are in the deck.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

that he had slowplayed on the turn in a monster pot with a 2 flush on the board in a gigantic multiway pot


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, or he's bluffing.

[ QUOTE ]

with a probability well over 90%? thats hilarious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty much. Oh, sure, you are missing lots of points, like, even if HJ doesn't have an ace, I'm still a big dog to win this because UTG still very possibly (in fact, LIKELY, has me beat...)

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, he likely has you beat if hijack has an ace and he very possibly has you if hijack doesn't have one. the problem is that you have to be right much more than 90% of the time. i realy don't see why you think you are.

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

Sorry but you're stupid, wrong and stubborn. Good luck at the tables, Minnie.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but you're stupid, wrong and stubborn. Good luck at the tables, Minnie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'm stupid.

Nobody has shown why I'm wrong.

I am undoubtedly stubborn.

Good luck Minnie,

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for using math, really.

However, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I think you are saying (and I fully realize these are somewhat hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to understand your example)....

I'm beat 95% of the time both have aces.
Both have aces 80% of the time.

What's the 75% number representative of?

Thanks,

Josh

[lil feller]

Hi Josh,

I think your analysis is very insightful, and while I agree that being able to accurately analyze these sorts of situations is important as you move up in limits, I think in this particular situation you're making some assumptions that might not be warrented.

First, the HJ is unknown, and you can't know anything about his raising standards, his flop cold calling standards, his turn checking standards, or his river calling standards. You also can't assume that he's paying attention to what anybody else in the hand might have, or what the action means. He's not you, he's just some random guy at a 30/60 table. It's entirely possible, and not that unlikely, that he has something like 77 or 88, and saw 2 over cards and didn't want to bet the turn, but wanted to call the river, just because the pots so big. I think ruling out that possibility, and limiting his range to only a big Ace is assuming too much.

Second, without knowing more about UTG's post flop play I think its impossible to accurate assess how often he bluffs here. In some of yours responses to this thread you argued repeatedly that UTG can't be bluffing more than 10% of the time here, since that river card looks like it hit everybody and there's a 4 person field to bluff through. This player sees 38% of his flops, indicating his situational analysis skills preflop obviously need some work. Why would you assume that his postflop analysis skills are any better. I think its possible, certainly more than 10% possible that UTG is either betting a smaller ace (doesn't have to be Axh, a 38 VPIP is capable of limping with any ace), or a whiff with a "der, only way I can win is to bet" mentality without really thinking about the situation of chance of success.

I believe the only assumption you can safely make is that the button has a big ace. IMO all the uncertainty involved in all of your assumptions pushes this close decision towards a call.

Ultimately its that 10% number that this decision revolves around, and it sounds like, in reading a lot of your responses, that your applying your analyatical standards to UTG, this is likely a mistake. I also think its important to remeber that people don't always do stuff for any particular reason while in a poker game, I know i've been called by KQ on an Axxx board more then once in the Party 15/30 game...

These are just some thoughts, hopefully you'll respond with some of your own.

lf

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, I think it's very likely the first caller does not have an Ace.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, I think it's very likely the first caller does not have an Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that it's greater than 50% chance that HJ has an ace?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for using math, really.

However, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I think you are saying (and I fully realize these are somewhat hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to understand your example)....

I'm beat 95% of the time both have aces.
Both have aces 80% of the time.

What's the 75% number representative of?

Thanks,

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't believe my hypothetical numbers. i posted them just to show how sure you can be that you are beat and have to call anyway.

the 75% represented the assumption that you lose 75% of the time if hijack or button doesn't have an ace. to make it perfectly clear: i don't think that your chances to win are quite as bad as my numbers suggest. it was just to show how far you can go with the assumptions and still have to call.

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, I think it's very likely the first caller does not have an Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been following this discussion, and this was one sticking point for me as well. I thought about it some more. I agree that HJ is likely to call with hands worse than an ace here. But given the action, especially on the turn, shouldn't most of these hands be heavily discounted, if not outright eliminated, from the hand range?

Maybe the turn action is not black and white. I don't know how often UTG, or a typical player in this game, checks this turn planning to raise a big hand. Maybe HJ would check some non-ace hands that call the river, fearing this...otherwise, I would assume he value bets most or all non-ace hands that call this river.

If uncertainty exists, I guess it would support the call perspective to some estimable extent, but I'm not all that uncertain given the action. Unless my assumption is terrible (for this game, it may be), I don't see how HJ can have a worse hand to call with so often.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for using math, really.

However, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I think you are saying (and I fully realize these are somewhat hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to understand your example)....

I'm beat 95% of the time both have aces.
Both have aces 80% of the time.

What's the 75% number representative of?

Thanks,

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't believe my hypothetical numbers. i posted them just to show how sure you can be that you are beat and have to call anyway.

the 75% represented the assumption that you lose 75% of the time if hijack or button doesn't have an ace. to make it perfectly clear: i don't think that your chances to win are quite as bad as my numbers suggest. it was just to show how far you can go with the assumptions and still have to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clearing that up. I assumed that you didnt' have carte blanche faith in the numbers you presented, which is why I threw in the disclaimer in the first place.

However, if you do the math with 'your' numbers (in quotes because they aren't necessarily what you believe), I only lose 91% of the time. Since I'm getting 13:1, this would make it a call.

However, it doesn't take into account any probability to chop (most likely with the button). If I'm chopping at all, this means it's neutral EV or better to fold.

Again, this assumes the numbers presented, which are fictitious. However, I'm throwing this analysis out there to show just how close it is.

Whether you (by "you", I don't necessarily mean just jjacky, but anybody here) think it's an obvious call...you should rethink it.

At the very worst, it's immensely close.

[note that in my opinion, the 95% is about 95%, the 80% is more like 97%, and the 75% is probably about 80%]

Josh

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not sure how I misjudged it. Are you saying that in your experience that when all draws miss on the river, UTGs bet into fields of 4 10% of the time?

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? He doesn't have to bluff 10% of the time for your call to be good. Of the three players in the pot, you only need 1 to be willing to play with less than top pair. After the turn gets checked through, ANY of these are possible:

- the bettor is bluffing
- the first, unknown, caller, is willing to call with less than top pair
- the second caller is is willing to call with less than top pair


Any time any of these events occur, your hand may be good. You're getting good odds on your call so it doesn't have to happen often for the call to be correct. So call.

You may argue that the 2nd caller having less than top pair is unlikely, and I'd agree. But the aggressive player taking a shot or the first unknown caller calling with a pair both seem perfectly plausible to me.

Additionally, to put UTG on a bigger hand than yours that doesn't contain an ace, you have to believe he checked two pair or a set on the turn despite having the lead. Of course, anything's possible, but it seems to me that most players bet hands this strong with many opponents and a rapidly growing pot, so you should discount this option significantly. Now it looks more likely that he just hit his ace, and the first caller simply has some pair he wants to showdown.

my 2 cents.
eric



PS. You wrote
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I think you misjudged this one. Both the bettor and the first caller can be ace-free, so there are plenty of hands that you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two sentences, and yet, they contradict each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

But these sentences are not contradictory at all. Perhaps if I'd have written that they both can have a hand without an ace that you beat, it would have been clearer?



PPS... did either caller have a hand that did not contain an ace? If the first unknown called with an underpair, the whole debate would crystalize and calling would be obviously correct.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole key to the argument. You make two critical assumptions here that I, and I think most others, don't agree with.

1. Both callers have aces.

Personally, I find most online players to be way too loose, almost regardless of the stakes. The first guy especially is an unknown. Why don't you think he can call with a pair less than aces? I'm not saying it's necessarily a good call, just that people make that call all the time.


2. The bettor can beat an ace.

Even if we agree that both callers have an ace, you imply that becaues both callers have an ace, the bettor must be able to beat it. However, he didn't know when he bet that they were going to call, did he? Why can't he just think that everybody has an underpair and maybe he can steal this pot with a bet at the scare card? He is an aggressive player, right?

Put another way, which seems more likely to you, that he a) has flopped a set and got multiway passive action on his raise, but decided to check the turn anyways, or b) this aggressive player has taken the opportunity of the turn being checked through to stab at the pot? How can you feel so confident that he is not simply bluffing?


The key is, you use both of these assumptions to come to the conclussion that TPTK is no good. Despite the fact that every player in the hand has played their hand in a way to suggest that you beat them. Taken individually, who beats you? I think you'd have to agree that your hand against each individual hand is a favorite.

In light of that, the only way you can fold is if you rigidly stick to the assumption that everyone must have a made hand of at least top pair. Even more crazy, you have to believe that everyone has this hand despite the fact that 2 of your 3 opponents have made it pretty clear they are unlikely to have a hand that can beat top pair.

let's say the aggressive player will only bluff at the scare card 1 time in 20, but will also bet an ace. Remember that this is a guy who raises tons of hands preflop, but didn't raise this hand and also checked the turn with the lead. Isn't it possible he's bluffing? Let's also assume that the unknown will call with less than top pair 1 time in 20. Again note that this is an unknown who put in 1 raise, then called the flop and checked the turn. Can't he call with a weaker hand than top pair? Are these reasonable assumptions?

With these very strict assumptions, which give an aggressive player little room to bluff, and an unknown little room to call, one of these events will happen almost 10% of the time. You're getting 13:1. Sure, you'll chop sometimes, but then again, these 5% figures seem pretty conservative to me. If you think the bluffer will bluff less than this an the unknown will call less than this, then we simply have to agree to disagree.

-eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's another possibility. Let's look at the facts:

1. he raises 14% of hands, so he's pretty aggressive.
2. he didn't raise this hand, and he plays almost 40% of his hands. he didn't limp reraise. he's probably weak.
3. the flop contained a flush draw, and several open-ended and gutshot straight draws, and he raised.
4. the turn did not complete most draws, and he checked in a spot where he couldn't have much hope of winning with a bet
5. the river missed all draws, and he bet a scare card after a huge display of weakness on the turn


Are you telling me that this guy can't have a missed draw? Why do you think he has to be either passive or trapping on the turn?

-Eric

[elindauer]

Hi El Diablo,

I agree with your point that UTG doesn't know he's going to be called when he bets, and it's an important one. However, the callers do impact the range of hands UTG has. As the aces become more scare, it makes it more likely that he is either bluffing or has a monster. On this point, Josh's at-the-table analysis was excellent.

I just don't think it impacts the odds as much as he seems to think it does.


-eric

[jjacky]

that means you think the likelihood that UTG slowplayed 2 pair/set on the turn is over 92%.

do you think his possible slowplay is decent or even good, or do you think he simply is a complete donk (as i mentioned already, i think a slowplay on the turn would be absolutely horrific)?


and i am surprised (to say the least) that you are so convinced that both callers have aces. i agree with all those who pointed out that this event is not quite as unlikely as you think.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi El Diablo,

I agree with your point that UTG doesn't know he's going to be called when he bets, and it's an important one. However, the callers do impact the range of hands UTG has. As the aces become more scare, it makes it more likely that he is either bluffing or has a monster. On this point, Josh's at-the-table analysis was excellent.

I just don't think it impacts the odds as much as he seems to think it does.

-eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, rather than "for the most part" I should have said something like "not as much as you think, because it is very easy for at least one to not have an Ace."

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE A CLEAR CALL IS IF YOU DON'T EVEN TRY TO READ HANDS. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always enjoy when someone complains about people making bold statements and then writes something in all caps with no room for discussion. So you are absolutely sure you cannot prove this is a call, huh? There's no way you made a math mistake? It's impossible that anyone who thinks about hand ranges could conclude that calling is definitely correct?

[ QUOTE ]
If you try to read hands, you'll see that it's very close. If you think UTG bluffs under about 10% of the time, it's a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you believe that the two callers will never call with less than top pair. You state this over and over, but do you really believe it? Are you prepared to assume that the first caller, who is unknown to you, will never call with a pocket pair? He can't have TT or 88 or 77? If the caller can have these hands, then you can still beat plenty of things that UTG may bet for value. He doesn't have to be bluffing for you to win.

-eric

[Josh W]

Regarding your first point, to me there is a large difference between a "clear call" and a "call". That was the point of my all-caps statement. My "no room for discussion" (as you put it) statement is simply that there is room for discussion, that it is close.

Regarding your other point, it's been rehashed too many times already.

Josh

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Three people (besides me) thought that they could win with that ace out there. This means that three people (including me) thought that they could win with that ace out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't quite what happened. A better description goes like this:

- 1 guy thought he could bet and drag the pot
- a 2nd guy thought he might sometimes win a showdown against a guy who thought he could bet and drag the pot
- a 3rd guy thought he might sometimes win a showdown against the 1st 2

Now, it's on you. They didn't all look at each other, have a discussion, all come to the conclussion that they had the best hand, and all value bet together, which seems to be what you'd have to assume to put them all on top pair or better.

-eric

[elindauer]

Outstanding. Pat yourself on the back for this summation.

-eric

[Victor]

hi josh,

i think el diablo has eluded to this but i am not sure. i have not seen anyone else explicity say it yet. but, just bc the callers call does not mean they have an ace. remember the reason we play poker: bc other players do not play correctly.

[bernie]

hmm.

Checkraise the flop if you want players out. You're not protecting anything by betting here. Even a c/r given the pot size may not do it, but I think that's better than betting out. You're betting into the least aggressor preflop with the likely raise coming after 2 callers.

[ QUOTE ]
River is an offsuit ace.

I check and start licking my chops, thinking the button 3-bettor will bet his AQ and I can checkraise and do a little dance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to go for the overcalls behind you on the river instead of shutting them out if the button bets. Who's folding a better hand here? AK surely isn't folding here after going through that wave of chips to get there.

I'd call this river. You think UTG has A9? He could have AJ and not raised preflop. He isn't checking the turn with a set or an overpair.(neither is anyone else) The calls behind UTG you could very well have them outkicked. As you mentioned, the button could have AQ or AJs.

b

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
But I will...

I folded.

UTG won.

I woulda beat both HJ and button.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

This is so lame.

You put all your opponents on very precise hands (basically set vs. AJ vs. AQ/AK), now you won't tells us what they were? You don't even tell us if you would have beat utg.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
Aw, c'mon, you know I don't like giving results...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I hope you'll stop liking getting thoughtful responses. If you aren't willing to satisfy the curiousity of the forum, why on earth would they be willing to satisfy your curiousity when wanting insight into your decisions. This is a give and take place, right?

lf

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Aw, c'mon, you know I don't like giving results...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I hope you'll stop liking getting thoughtful responses. If you aren't willing to satisfy the curiousity of the forum, why on earth would they be willing to satisfy your curiousity when wanting insight into your decisions. This is a give and take place, right?

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

First and foremost, you had a great reply that I just haven't gotten around to responding to. Please don't think I'm ignoring you.

Secondly, we are poker players. Thus, we strive to not be results oriented. Results really don't matter.

Thirdly, and most importantly...I've been given a lot of crap in this thread for posting just to brag about a great laydown. To prove that this is NOT the case, I'm not going to mention the results, regardless of how I would have done. I waited a long time to give the abbreviated version of the results (to help dissuade people from thinking I was just bragging), but that didn't work. So, I'm just not going to give them at all.

If you are so results driven that you need results to think that giving your opinion here is worthwhile, well, that's your perogative. Your input will be missed, but I'll get through it.

Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I will...

I folded.

UTG won.

I woulda beat both HJ and button.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

This is so lame.

You put all your opponents on very precise hands (basically set vs. AJ vs. AQ/AK), now you won't tells us what they were? You don't even tell us if you would have beat utg.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't thinking set for UTG... I thought T9 or 87 were slightly more likely.

Josh

[lil feller]

First, you don't need to worry about me not posting just because you don't give results.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose behind posting results, however. Perhaps for some, or maybe even many, its to simply satisfy their curiousity, or they think that they can prove their point by reading them. The merit in results lies in how it adds to the analysis. I'm sure there were many people that agreed with your analysis, and your decision. Learning, lets say, that UTG+1 had 88, however would help them learn not to be so specific in assigning hands/ranges. Having complete information helps each of us understand the thought process of each player in the hand, so we can better understand what a 38/12 might play that way, since nothing really makes sense.

It can only add to the insight provided by the original post, thats my point. Whether you were right or not doesn't make it a great laydown if you were completely off how you arrived at your decision. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons in a game of incomplete information is essentially doing the wrong thing. If you made a mistake that worked out well, we could all learn from how you arrived at the wrong conclusion, or at the right one.


lf

[andyfox]

But they surely have a reasonable chance of having an ace when they call. That being the case, that raises the chance of the bettor having a hand that beats Josh. Not saying it means Josh should fold, just saying it should be considered in his thinking.

[AceHigh]

OMG, you folded the winner didn't you?!

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG, you folded the winner didn't you?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've done worse.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, we are poker players. Thus, we strive to not be results oriented. Results really don't matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
2+2ers say this all the time, and I've never agreed with it. Seeing results helps us refine our hand reading skills. For instance, say you assign specific, narrow ranges to your opponents' holdings, and they showdown hands outside those ranges. You have to decide if it's a fluke or if you need to adjust your reads for the next time you're in a similar spot.

We mostly work on hand reading while we play, but there's no reason we can't do it here as well. Seeing what opponents had helps.

[psuasskicker]

Allow me to bump up what I thought was a very interesting thread with a quick question.

I agree the decision is extremely close. +EV or -EV I think has to be based on the assumption of # times he'll chop and % that UTG will be bluffing into three opponents. Josh was there to make the assessment, we weren't who are we to judge that.

I guess I have two questions:

1) It sounds like you're leaning more toward it being EV neutral than -EV at this point. Is that a correct assessment, or do you feel it's a -EV call?

2) If you feel it's EV neutral, care to walk us through the decision to fold rather than call? This seems to be a variance issue, but on EV neutral marginal river calls, I tend to make the calls. Probably mostly for the mental factor...makes me feel good to win a huge pot and I get really pissed if I folded the best hand in a massive pot, whereas I'm not bothered at all if I throw away one bet to see if I'm best with a marginal holding. I'd love your insight into this...

- C -

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Allow me to bump up what I thought was a very interesting thread with a quick question.

I agree the decision is extremely close. +EV or -EV I think has to be based on the assumption of # times he'll chop and % that UTG will be bluffing into three opponents. Josh was there to make the assessment, we weren't who are we to judge that.

I guess I have two questions:

1) It sounds like you're leaning more toward it being EV neutral than -EV at this point. Is that a correct assessment, or do you feel it's a -EV call?

2) If you feel it's EV neutral, care to walk us through the decision to fold rather than call? This seems to be a variance issue, but on EV neutral marginal river calls, I tend to make the calls. Probably mostly for the mental factor...makes me feel good to win a huge pot and I get really pissed if I folded the best hand in a massive pot, whereas I'm not bothered at all if I throw away one bet to see if I'm best with a marginal holding. I'd love your insight into this...

- C -

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't write much now, but don't think I need to.

Even though I'm now claiming that it's pretty close, and the time, I thought it was a fairly easy fold.

Contrary to popular belief, I didn't post this to brag. I posted it to learn. While learning, my stance has changed.

My gut reaction at the time was "easy fold", because I didn't take into account the LAGgy nature of UTG. However, people here have pointed out that his play won't always make sense.

So, yeah, I think it's close. But at the time, I didn't. I thought it was easy to fold, which is why I folded.

Hope that makes sense.

Given how close I think it is now, I may have called if in the same spot again....but I don't think so.

Josh

[psuasskicker]

Definitely makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

If anyone wants to weigh in on their thoughts about why they would call/fold EV neutral hands on the river aside from what I noted above, I think it could make for interesting discussion...

Maybe for a new thread?

- C -