AA and how I played them

[JimRivett]

I'm in the Bike on Sunday afternoon playing 6/12 while waiting for a seat in the 10/20 game. I'm in seat 2 and was in the big blind when this hand occured.

A young kid in seat 4 limps, folded to seat 7 who calls, seat 8 calls as does the button (in seat 9), and the small blind.

I raise, seat 4 three bets, they all call, I cap, they all call.

Six of us see the flop. As the dealer is dragging all the chips into the centre of the table, I throw in a blind bet. The flop comes 10 7 2 rainbow, seat 4 raises, we lose seats 7 and 9, seat 8 calls, I three bet, he caps, seat 8 and I call.

Again as the dealer is dragging the chips into the centre of the table, I throw in another blind bet, this time I get a frustrated look from seat 4. The turn is a King, for a board of 10 7 2 K. Seat 4 calls seat 8 folds.

I bet the river blind and another King appears. Seat 4 looks irritated and calls saying "Do you have a big pocket pair?". I show my aces and drag the pot. He shows pocket Jacks.

Jim

[GrinningBuddha]

Well, I suppose that works if you have no problem with your opponents knowing exactly what you have. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

I have no problem with it, if as in this case, they keep calling anyway. And they usually do.

Keep hitting 'em over the head with a big hammer until they give you a reason not to.

'Atta boy, Jim.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The problem with throwing in blind bets like that, combined with the way you played the hand, is that an observant player like me would read you for exactly what you had - AA. Lucky for you the guy with the JJ wasn't smart enough to figure it out till it was too late and he made a crying call on the end. Also, limp-reraising with JJ shows his lack of sense too, that was pretty dumb, as well as his capping on the flop.

al

[andyfox]

Worrying about observant players in a multiway pot in a 6-12 game is, IMHO, unimportant. They'll call you all the way down regardless. Hell, I think you can put up a sign that says, "I have pocket aces," and they'll call you down. Now I'm not a fan of blind betting into multiple players but it does say to the others "I'm fearless, take that," and that, they do notice. Maybe later, with only one or two opponents, Jim can 3-bet pre-flop with A-K and blind bet the flop, or in some other way, take advantage of this play.

[Relentless]

Al, how would you play the JJ in that situation?

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Worrying about observant players in a multiway pot in a 6-12 game is, IMHO, unimportant. They'll call you all the way down regardless. Hell, I think you can put up a sign that says, "I have pocket aces," and they'll call you down. Now I'm not a fan of blind betting into multiple players but it does say to the others "I'm fearless, take that," and that, they do notice. Maybe later, with only one or two opponents, Jim can 3-bet pre-flop with A-K and blind bet the flop, or in some other way, take advantage of this play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would guess we all agree JJ was going to call turn & river no matter how the hand is played. However, I think by betting blind you missed either a) 2 more bets or b) knocking out the LP player on the turn.

It sure reads as though Seat 4 would have either a) raised the turn if you hadn't bet blind or b) bet the turn so you could a check-raise. If you DON'T bet blind and Seat 4 raises, you either make 2 extra BBs if LP calls or make the same amount of $ with only 1 player to worry about.

Re:"Maybe later... Jim can ...take advantage of this play"- I think this gives these players that will call with AA tattoed on you forehead too much credit.

J

[JimRivett]

Well about 90 minutes later after only playing perhaps 5 hands (not counting blinds), I raise utg with AK offsuit, the only caller is seat 4, even the blinds fold.

I bet the flop blind, it comes J 7 2. Seat 4 mucks pocket 9's face up.


Jim

[andyfox]

I'm not a fan of betting blind because, as you indicate, it does limit your options. Once the king came on the turn, I don't think Jim can extract the extra bets from seat 4 you think he can, since if Jim waits for the card and then bets, I can't see seat 4 raising with what is now an underpair; and I can see him folding to Jim's check-raise.

But certainly if a small card came Jim might have opted to check-raise.

[andyfox]

"Re:'Maybe later... Jim can ...take advantage of this play'- I think this gives these players that will call with AA tattoed on you forehead too much credit."

See Jim's post of 5:28 PM.

[JimRivett]

by betting blind you missed either a) 2 more bets or b) knocking out the LP player on the turn

Don't you think the pot was big enough? and LP did fold on the turn.


It sure reads as though Seat 4 would have either a) raised the turn if you hadn't bet blind or b) bet the turn so you could a check-raise. If you DON'T bet blind and Seat 4 raises, you either make 2 extra BBs if LP calls or make

I don't get the opportunity to check raise too often because I like to bet my hands and also because I don't play too many hands from early position.

I think this gives these players that will call with AA tattoed on you forehead too much credit.

See my other response.

Jim

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the pot was big enough? and LP did fold on the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - the pot was plenty big enough on the turn. But you are better off either way if Seat 4 raises. The fact that in this case the LP folded to 1 bet doesn't make the fact that it is more LIKELY for the LP to fold to two bets cold if Seat 4 does raise.

Since you did in fact pull off a successful blind bet move later, that supports your argument that it helps set up a later play.

IMHO, I still would rather play THIS hand (the AA hand) optimally and try to max my chances of winning and/or max my $ win when I do win vs. setting up a play later to increase my chances of maybe winning a hypothetical pot later. Yes, you won a 3 or 4 BB pot later, but 1) you might have won it anyway without the blind bet, and 2) the fact that a slightly inferior play (again, IMHO) on a hand with a bigger pot may have helped set it up doesn't justify the move to me.

You obviously know better than I what your table image was and how the "blind bet" weapon might work for you, but I'm against them philosophically in 99+% of cases. I'm also not a fan of the overused B&M "check blind" play in all but very rare instances. I'm not sure I even bought the example Sklansky used in TOP (I believe his example was 7CS and it was along the lines of "consider checking blind whenever you would check no matter what card you receive", possibly with the caveat that your opponent knows this).

Here, it looks like you did a great job using/manipulating your table image. Perhaps that is one of the rare instances that image manipultation +EV can outweigh the -EV of a blind bet limiting your options as well as the likely range of hands your opponents put you on.

Good debate anyway - interesting responses.

J

[JayCo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a fan of betting blind because, as you indicate, it does limit your options. Once the king came on the turn, I don't think Jim can extract the extra bets from seat 4 you think he can, since if Jim waits for the card and then bets, I can't see seat 4 raising with what is now an underpair; and I can see him folding to Jim's check-raise.

But certainly if a small card came Jim might have opted to check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point on the likely fold to a check-raise to a K.

Maybe another way to look at the blind bet play is to count the # of cards you will have wished you did / didn't bet blind and estimate how many extra (fewer) big bets betting blind gets you.

I think I agree that when a Q,K, or A comes on the turn a check-raise is less likely to work and if you hadn't bet blind I suppose it is remotely possible that JJ folds when an A or K comes and you bet "normally".

My take is that I would "wish" that I had bet blind if an overcard to my opponents pair hits the turn/river, or maybe even if the top card on the board pairs. Dependng on how cheesy/slimy/goofy you felt like being, you could even wince a bit if you bet blind and one of these cards hit, hoping for action.

My argument is that you are likely wishing you had not bet blind if almost anything under a queen hits as your opponent would feel more false security the turn was "safe" if you did not.

J