Leak In My Game - Need To Plug It

[Magician]

Pokerstars $10+1 NLHE tournament

Blinds are 50/100.

I am the BB with 995 chips (down to 895 chips after posting the BB of 100). I am dealt T3 suited.

All fold to the SB, who calls. I check.

SB has 3,075 chips after calling.

Flop is K K 4 (2 of a suit, none of the cards on the board match the suit of my pocket T3 suited).

SB checks. I check.

Turn card is a 10 (not matching either of the suits on the board).

SB bets 100.

I've never seen the SB before so I'm not sure what that means. Since it's a $10 tournament, my bias is to assume a generally lower skill level than if it was a $200 tournament, but you never know.

First I'll describe what I did, and then describe what I think I could have done instead:

What I did:

I believe I have the best hand but I'm not sure - maybe he has a King but with 2 kings on the board and him just limping in from the SB I decide it's possible but unlikely. It's possible as well he has a T and a better kicker but who knows? I decide to "test him" by raising to 300 (i.e. he needs to put in 200 more to see the river). He moves the rest of my stack all in, I feel he's making a move on me, I call, he flips over K7o, and I bust out.


What I could have done:

Instead of raising to 300, I raise to 200. If he pops back at me, I muck, if he calls, maybe we check it down.

The problem with this is, what if I really did have the best hand, he had something like QJ or A4 or AQ (or any of a very wide range of hands) and beats me on the river? That consideration is what made me raise to 300.


Alternative C:

Raise to 300 like I did, but if popped back at, just muck, be stronger about being able to get away - in fact before raising think of reasons to muck if popped back at.

I could have just called on the turn, but for reasons similar to just raising to 200, what if he was behind and gets the free card and beats me?

Please let me know if any of you guys have a better solution to what seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[cferejohn]

I like C or D: muck to the bet.

Generally when I get a free play with a crap hand, I'm not pushing it too hard with less than 2 pair. Once the SB goes all-in, he's got to be expecting you to call, so I have to put him on a slow-played king or a ten which is better than yours.

Also, when its just me and the SB and its checked to me, I'm betting 150 on the flop just about every time here, whether I have something or not. Most of the time I'll take it down. If he calls or raises, I'm done with the hand ( on this board, even if he calls and I hit a weak pair on the turn I'm folding to a bet).

[Magician]

cferejohn,

I like to fire on the flop automatically like you describe when I've got at least an average stack and the SB's stack doesn't dwarf mine - I didn't feel comfortable doing this against the much bigger stack as it is so easy to get bullied on that hand.

You're right, if he raises back on the flop after firing I should muck, but with his bigger stack it's more likely that if he has a weak hand he will try to bully me so it felt to me like giving the chips away.

That's why I checked and if the turn had missed me I would have mucked without any problem when he bet 100.

I think the takeaway here was not to push that marginal hand.

Another option even was to call the 100 on the turn, then see what he does on the river. It would have saved some chips.

[cferejohn]

Yeah, I might actually go with the call 100 here and see what happens on the river. Of course, many players would put a small stack all-in with anything on the river and if you're going to call that, you may as well have raised all-in on the turn. On the other hand, maybe he checks or makes another small bet on the river and you get to showdown what may be a winner (this is disreguarding our knowledge that he in fact has K7o).

Reversing time to the flop, I know what you mean about not wanting to bluff into a bigger stack, but since it was just limped you can bluff without putting in too many of your chips, and since you have nothing at that point, you can merrily laydown to a re-raise. A call screams weak K to me. I think a 4 would have bet out, and any pocket pair almost certainly raises pre-flop. So the answer is "don't become short-stacked" /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Moving back in time a bit further, I think he played it poorly by not raising preflop with K7 in the first place. That's a couple ticks better than a random hand, and the flop could just have easily come TT4 with a K falling on the turn.

After the flop, he played well, giving you a free card when he knew it couldn't hurt him.

[PlanoPoker]

I like just raising 100 here. If he has a king, he is going to reraise you almost every time, because you are offering him a chance to make a real pot out of his trips. If he has a ten or a draw he puts you on the K, only calls your extra 100 and checks to you on the river. If he decides to play his K slow and just calls your turn raise, then checks to you on the river, well you are checking it through with such a weak ten anyway. This is the cheapest way through the hand, which is what you want. The alternative is to just call and see what he does on the river, which is only cheaper against a player who doesn't "power through" their bluffs. I.e. if they get any action on the turn they check to you on the river.

[Magician]

Re: limping in with K7o pre-flop - how is that a poor play?

If he raises to 3 or 4 BB and I muck, fine.

But he will only be called by hands that are likely better than his and will be out of position for the rest of the hand if I do call his raise or re-raise.

Against a tight player who folds often I can see how raising is positive EV, but against skilled opponents maybe it's just best for him to limp - so long as on the flop and turn he plays conservatively.

He can resolve to fire on the flop come what may - if he misses and fires, and gets raised, fine, easy muck, but what if he misses, fires, gets called, then catches a 2nd best hand on the turn? Or what if he catches a piece of the flop,fires, gets called, and faces another difficult decision on the turn?

It sounds like an easy way to get into a marginal situation that can bust you out - especially with a substantial amount of chips already invested after raising pre-flop and then firing on the flop. By simply limping in, you can limit your investment to just the 1/2 bet.

What's wrong with calling (for the pot odds), seeing the flop, and putting money in only if you hit it really hard (usual terms and conditions apply though, but you get the idea)? That way any muck decision becomes much easier and you conserve chips.

I am referring to a general situation - if the BB is short-stacked and I am the SB (like in this situation, I have about 900 more to invest to his 3,000) - does raising pre-flop make more sense than if the stacks are of roughly equal size?

[cferejohn]

The reason I would raise is the same reason I would raise on the flop with top pair and a 2 flush. I think I have the best hand, but I don't want to give a free card. By just calling in the SB when you think you have the best hand, you are giving not 1 free card, but 3. If he called and allowed your T3o to suck out on him, that's pretty bad.

If you had a hand that did not figure to be best before the flop, but you wanted to see a flop (like 54s, T8o), calling is more defensible, but Kx is better than 2 random cards, especially when x is greater than 6.

[Magician]

I used to think along the same lines but I found that my results improved (at least in single table sit n go's) by just calling in these situations if BB has a roughly equal or bigger stack to my SB.

Benefits

Raising Benefits:

You could take the blinds right there.

You have a 55-45 edge against the theoretical random hand the BB has.

You don't give away the 3 free cards.


Raising Drawbacks:

If popped back at, and you muck, you would have been better off just calling. If you had called and then get bet at a large amount the whole episode would have cost you just 1/2 a bet for the initial call.

You are out of position the rest of the hand.

You could easily get into a marginal situation that could bust you out.

When you do get action, you're no longer facing the theoretical random hand you have an edge over. You have to think that given that the BB has called your raise that he must have a hand considerably better than "average".

So on most flops you see, odds are you are already behind and first to act (most hands you would likely have been ahead of would have mucked).

Anyway, I don't know if there is an easy answer to this.

Do the pros raise with that hand every time from the SB to the BB?

Is there any truth to what Cloutier says that given that everyone else has folded to, the SB that it's more likely that since they had nothing that the BB would have something?

Against a shorter stack (say, if I have 5,000, the BB has 1,000, the blinds are 50/100), sure, a raise to 350 and then a big bet on the flop for the rest of his chips come what may sounds like it would be effective, but if you have roughly equal stack sizes (or if he has a significantly bigger stack than you) it's more likely that you get outplayed because of the positional disadvantage.

[cferejohn]

I can see just calling if you have a small stack, but in this situation the SB had you outchipped 3-1. I still tend to raise here, but if I was shortstacked, I could certainly see not doing it.

There is something to the 'when everyone folds, its more likely the remaining hands have big cards theory', but it's not a gigantic factor in hold'em. Its easy to imagine 2 or more aces with bad, unsuited kickers folding in early-to-mid position.

If he had raised to 300 and got popped back by someone who only had 900-odd chips left, he's pretty close to getting odds to call.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with calling (for the pot odds), seeing the flop, and putting money in only if you hit it really hard (usual terms and conditions apply though, but you get the idea)?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are only going to put money in if you hit the flop really hard, you definitely do NOT have pot odds to call pre-flop, since the odds of hitting the flop really hard are a lot longer than 3-1.

Raising pre-flop does not have to mean that you bet and bet and bet after the flop and play it like you have AA. But if you're going to play at all, you should at least give yourself the chance to win without a flop.

[Magician]

By pot odds I mean:

Calling with the intent of check-folding to the river if I miss. Calling rather than mucking so as not to "waste" K7o.

I can perfectly envision having K7o to an opponent's T6o, and we both play it very conservatively. If he shows strength after the flop, I muck, otherwise I just try to get to the showdown committing as few chips as possible.

So even if I don't hit the flop perfectly I still have some EV.

[Magician]

bumping this up, very similar to immediately preceding reply:

Is it ever a defensible play if:

I am the SB with K7o, all folded to me, BB and I have say roughly equal stacks, I call with the intent of trying to reach the showdown risking as few chips as possible.

If I hit the flop really hard, it's a bonus. Otherwise, I play carefully and conservatively. Idea of calling is that I don't want to "waste" K7o, but I don't want to commit a lot of chips either to a hand where I'd be out of position from the flop on, which is what would happen if I raise and am called.

Of course, I do give up the chance to win the blinds right there.

Is it defensible or simply stupid?

[Greg (FossilMan)]

If you feel there is a good chance that you're ahead on the turn, just call, and then call his river bet.

You propose raising to 300. There's a good chance he simply bets another 200 on top of the current 100 if you call the turn. So, you see the river for the same price, or close to it. True, you do give him a chance to catch up by hitting an A, Q, or J in his hand, but this is still the best play if you've decided folding is out of the question.

Especially here where you say you don't give him credit for a K because he didn't raise preflop. The same logic says he shouldn't have an A, nor the exact hand QJ, as he should be at least as likely to raise with those hands. Thus, if you're right about him, he will at most have Qx or Jx, and only 3 outs. That is a small enough risk to take, and means you should flat-call now and on the river if he doesn't bet way too much.

Why buy more information about his hand when you can buy a showdown for the same price?

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)