Wait, who's in the lead? Lots of Party 15-30 action w/ QQ

[Ulysses]

Wild Party 6-max 15/30 table. Just prior to this, a player left the table w/ $6500. This player raised literally every single hand pre-flop for an hour and a half. When I sat down, he had about $6200. In that period, he swung up over $7500 and down below $5500. The remaining players are pretty loose, pretty aggressive, and pretty bad.

I have [ Qh, Qc ] in the SB

UTG calls, MP calls, CO calls, I raise, UTG calls, MP calls, CO now 3-bets, I cap, all call.

** Dealing Flop ** : [ 5d, 3h, 6s ]

I decide to checkraise and get it headsup between me and CO. Hopefully he has something like JJ.

I check, UTG check, MP checks, CO bets. I checkraise. UTG calls. MP calls. So much for my plan. CO now 3-bets. Hmmmm, more likely a pocket pair than AK. Hopefully it's Tens or Jacks, not Kings or Aces. I cap it, everyone calls.

** Dealing Turn ** : [ Jd ]

Well, I hope he doesn't have Jacks. I'm actually giving serious consideration to the fact that he might have Aces or Kings. I'm just going to check-call him now.

I check. UTG now comes out betting. What? Did he flop a straight or a set? Did he have pocket Jacks? WTF? MP folds. CO now just calls. He must be confused as well. I call. Queen, please.

** Dealing River ** : [ 5h ]

I check. UTG now bets. And CO just calls again. Now I'm thinking I have CO beat. With Kings or Aces, he really would have raised the turn again even after UTG's bet. So what does UTG have? I decide that both of these guys will pay me off with pocket pairs smaller than mine and that is most likely what they have. Or maybe UTG has something like Ad4d.

Anyway, I checkraise. UTG now 3-bets. Oops. CO folds. I call.

Why the action on the river, not the turn? Well, it really took me until the river to realize that I definitely had CO beat and that there were a lot of worse hands UTG might come out firing with on the turn.

So, what do you think?

[Pensive Gerbil]

Ulysses,

I agree with your view that you are probably ahead of the CO...primarily because it would be odd for a player to limp-reraise with AA/KK in that position with two limpers.

As for UTG... I felt he was probably in the lead when I read that he bet the turn (and your revelation that he three-bet the river seems to confirm this). I would fear that he hit the flop hard (e.g., top 2 pair or set) and was planning to raise you on the expensive street. When you checked the turn, he now had to bet to protect his hand. I think utg would have to be awfully loose and aggressive to take so much heat with a medium pair and then bet into the flop re-raiser (unless he had JJ of course!). Therefore, I would check-call the river.

-PG

[DocHollyday]

I guess, UTG was slowplaying a big hand. (Either he flopped a straight, two pair or a set). However, I think you played it allright until the river. When UTG comes out betting on the turn it should be a sign, that he has a real hand and you should be warned.

Your river raise somehow seems to be a bit silly, because you only think about, that you have beat the CO, not a thought about the UTG. YOu ask, why the action on the river? Hey wake up, he already gave you action on the flop, by calling your cap (which was two small bets for him the 2nd time) and on the turn by betting out. How much more action do you want?

However, unless the UTG is a real bad player I bet that has beat you.

[Diplomat]

Hi Ulysses,

God these 6-handed games are nuts. I was thinking of having a seatbelt installed on my computer desk chair to help me through the swings. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I really like the thought process that leads to the river raise. I agree with you, most of the time you will be called by a range of much worse hands here. Hell, you will be three-bet by much worse hands here.

So, I think the river raise was fine. I think you will have the best hand enough times to make it correct. The best way to look at unknown players in these games is to assume them to be maniacs until proven otherwise.

-Diplomat

[nykenny]

i would normally check call the river, and expect to WIN!

it's party poker, that's very common.

Kenny

[Rushmore]

I decide that both of these guys will pay me off with pocket pairs smaller than mine and that is most likely what they have. Or maybe UTG has something like Ad4d.

This is an interesting conclusion to come to.

Let's asume for a moment that you've got the CO beat. EVEN HEADSUP here this is a check-call. Why on Earth you'd want to re-open the betting with QQ here is beyond me.

I have been accused of always assuming my opponents have the nuts (a fallacy I've done well to overcome).

I see many others with the exact opposite problem. I hope you won the hand, but I cannot see this play being +EV.

Ask yourself: What if utg bet, and the CO raised? It's a laydown, right? I believe that much of the same thought process leads to this being a check-call.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
When UTG comes out betting on the turn it should be a sign, that he has a real hand and you should be warned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, he has a real hand. But I just showed weakness on the turn. Won't he possibly bet to protect a lot of weak hands? Won't a bad player w/ a pair here bet and hope both of his opponents have AK? He's definitely not mucking an overpair to the flop, so I think he's likely to bet when checked to.

[ QUOTE ]
YOu ask, why the action on the river? Hey wake up, he already gave you action on the flop, by calling your cap (which was two small bets for him the 2nd time) and on the turn by betting out. How much more action do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't asking about the other player's action. I was rhetorically asking why it was I raised on the river and not the turn. Simply put, I didn't figure out quickly enough that I should consider raising the turn. Unless he had J3, J6, or 36, the river didn't change anything for me. So, I basically played the turn out on the river, if that makes any sense.

[Ulysses]

Would you have bet, check-called, or check-raised the turn?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
i would normally check call the river, and expect to WIN!

[/ QUOTE ]

But what would your turn action have been? I feel like this hand would have been relatively standard had the turn and river been reversed. I just didn't decide what to do on the turn quickly enough, so I did it on the river. I also felt much better doing it once I was sure that I had CO beat. It was essentially a heads-up pot for me, so I'm definitely not going to just check-call w/ an overpair.

Would you bet, check-call, or check-raise the turn?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's asume for a moment that you've got the CO beat. EVEN HEADSUP here this is a check-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heads-up I'd always go for more action than just two bets total on the turn and river with this hand and this board. If UTG has me beat, so be it. HU, any pair that beats the flop will fire when checked to 95+% of the time. Once I figured out that CO didn't have KK/AA (which took me too long), I pretty much treated this like a HU hand v. UTG.

[ QUOTE ]
Why on Earth you'd want to re-open the betting with QQ here is beyond me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I think there's a big chance I have the best hand. I think the right place to do this was on the turn, but since I missed the chance then...

[ QUOTE ]
I see many others with the exact opposite problem. I hope you won the hand, but I cannot see this play being +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about if I check-raised the turn? Do you think that's +EV?

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself: What if utg bet, and the CO raised? It's a laydown, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

In this game, I'll call in that situation almost every time.

[Rushmore]

I would have bet the river and paid off a single raise on the river.

My biggest point was that the check raise on the river seems far more optimistic than the play of the hand would indicate it should be, and that betting out is preferable.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I would have bet the river and paid off a single raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that may well have been a better play.

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest point was that the check raise on the river seems far more optimistic than the play of the hand would indicate it should be, and that betting out is preferable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand. I wasn't going for a checkraise, though. This was a weird hand. What really happened was that only after the second "check, bet, call" sequence did I realize that I stood a good chance of having the best hand. So I checkraised.

I think check-raise the turn and call down after a 3-bet would have been a fine play, though. If that's correct, though, is check-raising the river all that bad?

[Ulysses]

I called. River 3-bettor had AJo. Good game.

[J_V]

lol. Nh. I have a symbol I like to throw out for players like that...<-///<

[J.A.Sucker]

I'll never understand hands like this.

One quibble: in your hand description you say that the CO would have raised the turn with AA or KK, but then when he only calls, you call, too, instead of raising. Why is this? Then, your plan changes on the river. Why? To me, nothing has really changed, and raising on the turn makes more sense than on the river, since there are 6 cards that would make you quite nauseous on the river.

Then again, I'll never understand hands like this.

[Ulysses]

On the flop I decided that CO quite likely had me beat and I was planning to just call down. I was so confused by UTG's betting out on the turn that I didn't really register CO's flat call and on auto-pilot just called the turn and checked the river. When he called the second time all of a sudden it hit me that I had him beat. Had I figured this out earlier, I would have bet out on the river. Had I figured this out at the right time, I would have checkraised the river. But I didn't do any of that. And I didn't think the river changed anything. And I thought UTG was a clown. So I raised.

[stripsqueez]

i bothered to add that up and i reckon its a $763 pot

i think there is a limit on how concerned you should be that you could of got more $$ in the pot when you win a pot this big in a 15/30 6 max game - you played the hand aggressively - that you could of played it more aggressively and won more $$ makes me think of 2 things

1) when i used to punt on horses i would always wish i had put more on the winners i backed which is of-course a terribly twisted appreciation of punting

2) loose begets loose - players like this can easily drag you down to there level and whilst appreciating and capitalising on there play is important you dont want to end up joining them

in short - no point taking a knife to a gun fight

very fine game !! - your posts are convincing me i must return to the party 6 max schools sometime soon

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
i bothered to add that up and i reckon its a $763 pot

[/ QUOTE ]

Just looked at the hand history. It was actually $778. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
i think there is a limit on how concerned you should be that you could of got more $$ in the pot when you win a pot this big in a 15/30 6 max game

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't concerned of this at all. I was just wondering whether or not the river checkraise was reasonable. Had I checkraised the turn and he 3-bet, I would have just check-called the river. So, I don't see myself playing this any way that builds a bigger pot (well, except maybe two bets from CO on the turn).

[ QUOTE ]
players like this can easily drag you down to there level and whilst appreciating and capitalising on there play is important you dont want to end up joining them

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point. Especially when you forget about the other guys there waiting for a real hand. I suspect that's partially what happened to CO in this hand. I see lots of more or less reasonable players get killed for thousands in this game for exactly that reason.

[Pensive Gerbil]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you have bet, check-called, or check-raised the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Against somewhat reasonable opponents, my plan would have been to bet-reraise the flop and bet the turn. I would fear that if I tried to check-raise the flop, the CO might be suspicious enough (and smart enough) to take a free card.

Against these wackos I would be less sure how to proceed. However, it seems to me that the biggest mistake you could make would be to get yourself in a position where you could be persuaded to fold your overpair.

-PG

[rigoletto]

i would normally check call the river, and expect to WIN!

This sounds like an argument for the check/raise!

[Diplomat]

[ QUOTE ]

Great point. Especially when you forget about the other guys there waiting for a real hand. I suspect that's partially what happened to CO in this hand. I see lots of more or less reasonable players get killed for thousands in this game for exactly that reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

*cough*

I think you nailed it on the head. This is exactly what happened to me last night. I was killing the 15 games for over 2 big bets an hour for the last two weeks (over about 70 hours), and suddenly I got hammered in an aggressive 6-handed game last night. Someone just kept waking up with a hand.

Now I feel like a goof. I've got a long way to yet...

-Diplomat

[ajizzle]

Personally, I like the call on the river, not a check/raise. IMO, it's a similar concept that Skalnsky covers in HPFAP: He says not to bet hands when it is checked to you on the river if there is, say, a 40% possibility that you are beat. If you bet and are called, you are most likely beat, and if you are raised, then now you've really dug yourself a hole.

In the context of this hand. Raising the river may be a good choice most of the time, but as you very well noticed on the turn, UTG began to bet when he was check/calling the entire way. This brings up the very real possibility that UTG has some sort of good hand or incredible draw. With this in mind, I like to simply call the river bet, knowing that if my raise is called, I'm probably beat, and that if I'm checkraised, well....cock in a crack.

Ajizzle.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet and are called, you are most likely beat

[/ QUOTE ]
If someone just calls my bet/raise on this board, I don't think I'll be beat much of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
and if you are raised, then now you've really dug yourself a hole.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, when I was 3-bet, I was pretty sure I was losing.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG began to bet when he was check/calling the entire way. This brings up the very real possibility that UTG has some sort of good hand or incredible draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't expect the hand he had, but looking at this after the fact, isn't the most simple explanation that the Jack improved his hand? I was locked in on a pocket pair for some reason until the river, but in retrospect "he made a pair of Jacks" seems like one reasonable possibility. The flop cold-call threw me off, but I think I should have considered this on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
With this in mind, I like to simply call the river bet, knowing that if my raise is called, I'm probably beat

[/ QUOTE ]
OK, back to this. Given the action in this hand, what better hands could someone have that you expect to just call here?

[rigoletto]

but in retrospect "he made a pair of Jacks" seems like one reasonable possibility.

When I first read the initial post AJ was the hand that popped into my head when UTG bet on the turn. It's a typical information bet: 'I got top pair, I'll bet and see if they raise me'. Once CO just called you should (as you said) have check/raised the turn. Once you missed the turn, I think a checkraise on the river is fine and in these agressive games I would also call the 3-bet (thinking I'm a dog though). All in all: well played.