Is there a point where I stop raising here?

[jman220]

This is a hand from about 4 years ago, that I often think about, and have never posted before. Its not so much a strategy question, as a probability/strategy hybrid, so I figured I'd just post it here. Apologies if it really is an uninteresting hand.

The Setup: about 4 years ago, before the poker/ no limit boom really took hold. I'm playing 1-3 spread limit holdem at turningstone. This is an unstructured game where at any point you can be between $1 and $3 dollars. Small and Big Blind are both $1. Betting is capped at 4 bets unless it gets heads up, in which case you cna reraise an unlimited amount of times. Hero has about $400 in chips (I've been running really really hot, and I've been there for a long time.) Villain has around $350 in chips, he may also have been running really well. I should have reads on villain by this point, but 4 years ago I wasn't such a great poker player, and wasn't really paying enough attention to the game or the players. All I can tell you is that its an older man, and its a husband/wife combo, sitting next to each other (tourists). This is pre-poker boom, so people really have no idea how to play, not even from watching tv, in terms of whats a strong hand and what is not. On to the Hand:

Villain is MP, Hero is MP +2. Hero is dealt two black Kings. UTG Calls, folded to Villain who Raises to $4. Folded to Hero who raises to $7. folded back around to Villain who caps to $10. 2 Handed to the Flop. Flop is K/8/5 Rainbow. Villain Bets 3. Hero Raises to 6. Villain Raises to 9. Hero Raises to 12. Villain Raises to 15. Hero Raises to 18. Villain Raises to 21. Hero Raises to 24. Villain Calls. Turn is an offsuit 3 completing the Rainbow. Villain Donk-leads the turn for 3. Hero Raises to 6. Villain Raises to 9. Hero Raises to 12. Villain Raises to 15. Hero Raises to 18. Villain Raises to 21. Hero Raises to 24. Villain Raises to 27. Hero Raises to 30. Villain Raises to 33. Hero Raises to 36. Villain Calls. (At this point everyone at the table is oohing and aahing, but luckily no one is table-coaching or making comments about whoever doesn't have the nuts is an idiot).

River is a 3. Making the final board K8533. I no longer have the nuts and can lose to four 3's. Villain again opens the betting, and we get into another raise fest. At this point Villainn has around $200 left and I have him covered. Is there a point here where I should just call? Or do I cap him for all of his chips because the way the betting went, it just can't be possible that he has pocket 3's?

[tonypaladino]

I don't see how the you could put him on 33 with that action on the flop.

[wheelz]

i think i'd give up after like 30 bets or so... i don't think 33 is out of the question, considering villain is clearly not so bright, and slowed down a bit on the flop to go nuts again on the turn.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
i think i'd give up after like 30 bets or so... i don't think 33 is out of the question, considering villain is clearly not so bright, and slowed down a bit on the flop to go nuts again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, there wasn't much about this hand that made sense.

[Sponger15SB]

I dunno, I wouldn't stop raising.

However if this is the worlds worst bad beat I promise not to berate you and will feel your pain.

I can't believe I care but....did he have 33?

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I care but....did he have 33?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he did or the OP wouldn't be posting this four years after it happened /images/graemlins/smile.gif nevertheless, I would get in as many bets as possible.

[wdeadwyler]

I would lose my stack here if he never stopped raising.

[umdpoker]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't believe I care but....did he have 33?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think he did or the OP wouldn't be posting this four years after it happened nevertheless, I would get in as many bets as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

i dunno about that. i usually think more about hamds where i slowed down way too fast. if the other guy flipped over a worse hand after i stopped raising, i would feel sorta stupid too. honestly, i think that way overplayed aces or a flopped set are way more likely than 33. hell, the way opp. played this hand, he might just be a full-blown maniac with any 2.

[stigmata]

If I played the hand now I would just put all the money out there.

If I was a begginer/on a limited bankroll I think I could see an argumant for puting in another $50-80 or so. If he doens't slow down again and keeps going beyond the point at which he slowed down on the flop/turn, it might be reasonable to think the river helped his hand.

I really expect to see overplayed aces though.

[jman220]

Results:

Well, a few of you got it right. I believe we went about 50 or so bets on the river, and I was down to $100ish left in front of me, when I decided to stop raising, he could have 33, I was a beginner, and I didn't want to blow the entire night's winnings on one hand. (Back then I didn't really have a correct concept of the poker "long term.") So I called the 50th bet or somewhere around there, and he triumphantly tables (results in white:) <font color="white">pocket aces </font>. I've always wondered about this hand, what good players would have done in my situation, and what I would have done if I knew then what I know now. I doubt I'll ever have a hand like it again.

Edit: Since I remember having about $100 in front of me, it might have been closer to the 40th bet when I called, I can't remember exactly.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I would lose my stack here if he never stopped raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

How big would the stacks have to be for you to not lose your stack? What if you both had a grand in front? 10 grand? I assume at some point there is a correct place to stop, and that from a probability standpoint you can estimate where it is.

[2+2 wannabe]

LOL awesome

hope I run into him somewhere /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Punker]

If I have that money on the table, its all going in. No matter how much it is. If I can't put it all in in that spot, I should have left the table already.

[stigmata]

Although you obviously should of put all your money in, what I was getting at is you shouldn't really be to harsh on yourself becuase you were a begginer/on a limited bankroll. Although there was only a very very miniscule chance you were beaten, getting stacked would of hurt so frigging bad at that stage in your poker career that it was worth avoiding.

What went on with the banter after you tabled your hands? I bet he fealt really stupido /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]

How big would the stacks have to be for you to not lose your stack? What if you both had a grand in front? 10 grand? I assume at some point there is a correct place to stop, and that from a probability standpoint you can estimate where it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say your hand is good here an extremely high percentage of the time against virtually any opponent (e.g. you would have to be pretty stupid to play AA this way, but a complete and utter moron to play 33 this way). Therefore it is a good gamble, period. I think how much you put in should actually be a function of your bankroll. If I figure there is a 1% chance he has pocket 3's I probably stick 25-30% of my bankroll out there. This would be equivalent to a 300BB downswing, and whilst it would be a total kick in the teeth, it wouldn’t be a complete &amp; utter disaster. (But considering I would never ever be sitting at a table with 1/3rd of my bankroll, I would just shove in everything in front of me -- I was just addressing the theoritcal issue of a "non-table stakes game" (in which case I might be scared the hand was rigged)). Phew. Not sure that this makes any sense at all.....

I'm not sure what the correct way is to approach this mathematically, but that’s my gut feeling.

[jman220]

Table chatter was interesting, I gathered he really didn't understand poker. He thought he had a winning hand (obviously), something along the lines of he had two pair, I couldn't have a higher two pair, and there was no way I had a 3, so he must be a winner.

[Alobar]

at one point in my life I hope I get in a spot where I actually get to go to the felt in an unlimited raise war. This is easily a spot I would have done it on.

I wouldnt beat ureself up tho, like you said, you werent that good back then. Hopefulyl if you replayed this hand today tho, youd gladly shove everything you had in front of you in the pot.

[danzasmack]

I had a similar situation where i had the nut straight on the flop with KT on QJ9. The turn made a heart flush and after somebody check/3bet me, I folded (this was at 2/4). The river came an 8, for a final board of QJ948 - 3 hearts, no sf possibility. It went a good 10 or 12 bets as I sat back happy i folded. On player showed 8To for the straight, other player flipped Q9 in disgust.

So yeah, I never, ever, stop raising.

Wait until he raises his last remaining chips, then stare him down for about 5 minutes before you muck your cards.

That would be sweet.

But seriously... if it was NL, I would have called an all-in, so in this case, I would definitely keep raising.

[cocked&locked]

[ QUOTE ]
But seriously... if it was NL, I would have called an all-in, so in this case, I would definitely keep raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that putting all of the money in here is smart, but this argument doesn't make it so. In limit, each raise gives more information that isn't gained in no-limit.

[obsidian]

I would never, ever stop raising here with the 2nd nuts when the pre-flop and flop action makes it almost impossible for him to have the nuts.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But seriously... if it was NL, I would have called an all-in, so in this case, I would definitely keep raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that putting all of the money in here is smart, but this argument doesn't make it so. In limit, each raise gives more information that isn't gained in no-limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but after the 11th re-raise, I'm not sure you're gaining much more info than you had after the 10th re-raise... other than "yup, this guy still likes his hand."

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
something along the lines of he had two pair, I couldn't have a higher two pair, and there was no way I had a 3, so he must be a winner.

[/ QUOTE ]
Amazing.

I will admit, being weak tight by nature, I could not have gone to the felt here. I would like to think I could have gone as deep as you did.

[Greg J]

I had some clown go to war with me the other day with 33 on the preflop and on flop -- just a pair of 3s mind you -- against my flopped set of Queens. This was online at Stars 2/4 (or it might have been 3/6). Turn was a brick and he went to war again. I ended up taking down a nice pot after he slowed down after another river brick. PA shows me he had 33 and he told me jovially "nice hand" and "I had a pair too. Not as good as yours though. I'm still new and don't really know what I'm doing." I told him he was doing fine and just have fun and not worry about it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

EDIT: Moral of the story: beginners and clueless players can have a lot of different things. I expected to see KK or AA they way he played it.

[SoCalRugger]

Playing a Party 5/10 game about a year ago, I was dealt pocket kings, flopped top set on a board of Kxx. Turn 3. River 3. Betting was capped on every single round with 4 players, and at the end one guy turned over pocket 3s. The other two guys were chasing flush draws that got there when the board paired. So I've seen first hand how it can happen. But even after going through that, I'd still go down to the felt here with unlimited raising heads up. No matter how bad a guy is, I just can't see anyone going so many raises on the flop with 33. I'm putting all the money in, and if he happens to turn over pocket threes, then that's why poker sucks sometimes.

[wheelz]

i've definitely seen clueless people play an underpair that hard, saying the previous action makes 33 "almost impossible" is a pretty ridiculous thing to say IMO. anyone dumb enough to play AA like this is clearly dumb enough to put in that many bets preflop (they capped a reraise heads up, that means just about nothing) and on the flop with 33. these people don't know what they're doing.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
anyone dumb enough to play AA like this is clearly dumb enough to put in that many bets preflop (they capped a reraise heads up, that means just about nothing) and on the flop with 33.

[/ QUOTE ]

definately. I think I would start to worry especially with people standing around the table and after 50 bets show a cooler. I would feel like a damn idiot if he had 33.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would start to worry especially with people standing around the table and after 50 bets show a cooler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with this term, what do you mean? Cheating?

I wouldn't have stopped betting. By your description I had him on AA. (Since that is the best hand and it can't be beat ;-) or so a new player would think. or at best 88 for trip 8s or 55 for trip 5s on the flop.

No way would I have even thought running 3s would give him quads.

I bet now you would have a) have a read on him and b) taken all his money.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I would start to worry especially with people standing around the table and after 50 bets show a cooler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with this term, what do you mean? Cheating?

[/ QUOTE ]

the second nuts.

[Pog0]

Well if we take just the turn, he called your bet for 36. If he had one out, he'd be 47:1 to win so he'd have to win about $1700 from you on the river to show a "profit" from his turn play. Turns out you were in worse shape, since his AA only has to make up about $850, but that's offset by the bet or 50 bets he loses on the river when he doesn't hit.

With 33 on the flop he was a 2256 to 1 dog if he held 33.

For the 24 he paid to see the turn, assuming he only continues if a 3 hits and only calls your bet for a total of 27, it looks like he needs to make about $60,000 from you to make it worth his while. I think you're safe to put that last $100 in there.

[Abbaddabba]

Look at it this way.

There is no hand that he could bring to 20 bets on the flop that he could conceivably have that would make sense. If he's bringing it to 13 bets with 3/3 on a flop with 3 overcards, he's just as likely to bring any full house to 50 (or whatever) bets with any full house. I'd say it's more likely.

If you're risk neutral, repeated raises are necessary. If you aren't risk neutral (say, the chips on the table are needed for rent money), then you could make an argument for not raising all of it.
[ QUOTE ]
But seriously... if it was NL, I would have called an all-in, so in this case, I would definitely keep raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Horribly flawed way of thinking, and probably not too much off from what the guy with aces was thinking when he raised an absurd amount of bets there with such a vulnerable hand.

In this situation, yeah, you probably should be getting it all in except against someone who really does know what theyre doing (and also thinks that you know that you know what you're doing).

The two situations aren't analogous. Because you're willing to push/call an all in for that amount in a no limit game doesnt mean you should raise repeatedly to get all in when the game is LHE.

I can't wait until I invent a working time machine so I can go back in time before people didn't know as much about how to play and play against them.

Or I could just sell the time machine I guess.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't wait until I invent a working time machine so I can go back in time before people didn't know as much about how to play and play against them.

Or I could just sell the time machine I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, those were the good old days. Of course the caveat is that I didn't know as much about how to play either. My poker education at that point consisted of reading a non 2+2 book that taught me to play "tight" by only playing hands that had a blackjack value of 20 or greater, to bet the hell out of hands when I hit, and how to calculate "pot odds" for drawing hands (no mention of implied odds though, I didn't learn about those till much later).

[CCass]

Playing 6/12 limit at Harrahs in New Orleans last year, I had almost the exact same situation come up (I had top FH, only thing that would beat me was quads). On the river, after about 8 raises I looked at the guy and asked if he just wanted to go ahead and push the rest of his stack in. He just called and mucked when I flipped over my hand. I think that my asking him about pushing all-in was a -EV move...lol

To answer the OP's question, I am raising until one of us is out of chips in this hand.

[Sponger15SB]

Anyone love Villians donkbets on the turn and river. hahaha

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone love Villians donkbets on the turn and river. hahaha

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, that was one of the (many) things that threw me on this hand while I was playing it. He was always the one who closed the action by calling, yet he would lead on the following street. When he donkbetted the turn after that x came, I just figured hey, more money for me with the nuts, but when he donk-betted the river after that second x came, it added to my concern after about 50 bets or so that i might not have the best hand.