Similar to the controversial T9 with A 6 7 board?

I said a long time ago that the next time I played a hand similar to the ever so controversial "T9 in EP with a board of A 6 7" hand that I would post it here for discussion. Well, it happened...


It's a kill pot and the BB posts the kill. Two fold, one limps, and I limp with Td9d. The cutoff and button call, as does the SB, killer checks. 6 take the flop for a bet apiece.


The flop is 6c 7d Kc. It's checked to me. I bet as a semi-bluff, even though I doubt all will fold. However, unless I get raised by the button or cutoff, I doubt anyone has a king, so a ten or nine may be an out as well. I'm hoping to get those with hands like QJ to fold, making my hand effectively the same as two overcards with a gutshot. I also want someone with a ten or nine, but higher kicker to fold, as if I catch a pair, I don't want to be dominated. It will be real hard for anyone with no pair, no draw, and no ace to call, but then this is California, so you never know.... The button and the BB call.


the turn is the Qh. I don't like the overcard to my two cards, but it does give me a double belly-buster, so I can't complain. The BB checks and I bet. This is more of a true semi-bluff, as the possibility of winning the pot outright is very real. Only the button calls my bet.


The river is a ten, no flushes completed. I bet and my opponent folds.


the hand is similar to the now infamous problem, but may not be exactly the same, as I don't remember what the EXACT board was. However, there is a king instead of an ace, the pot is unraised, and there's a flush draw on board, plus I have a backdoor flush draw on the flop.


Comments?


Dave in Cali

I question your bet on the river. It is very unlikely that your opponent threw away a ten, and I doubt very much, given the size of the pot that he would throw away a king or queen. So I'm questioning the value of your bet on the river since if he calls he probably has the best hand and won't fold it, but he might not bet a better hand. Of course, if your bet stops him from bluffing and you won't call his bet if you check then that partly makes up for it.

The way the hand was played the opp

could have had JT and there's a decent

shot he'll toss it looking at two over cards

vs a guy who Bet every chance he had.

You might be right about the river bet. I'm not sure what better hand I thought I could get him to fold, nor what worse hand he would call with. Perhaps he had second pair on the flop, but he would be hard pressed to call the river with two more overcards showing up. A flush draw is a hand that would have made sense, given how it was played. The other thing is, I would have called if I had checked and he had bet. He is certainly capable of bluffing or taking a stab at the pot with something worse than tens, and the pot would be too big to fold heads up. It seems unlikely he would have folded a pair with that much in the pot, so a flush draw is most likely what he had.


Erin may have had a point as well, as I am known to this particular player, he's a regular. He knows I am solid, and that I'm not generally betting all the way with trash, so he might have given me credit for a king and called all the way trying to make two pair. However, the best case is that he folded a better ten, I doubt very much he would have folded a queen.


In hindsight, I also question the river bet after seeing your comments. I don't think I made the bet for the right reasons.


Dave in Cali

I think that you have to bet the river. If he made two pair he might raise. If he has the queen he has to think about folding. I think you have represented a king the whole way with your bet. If you check he might get to flip his queen for free. You have to give him the opportunity to fold if he hit his queen.

Why would a player holding something like QJo peel one off when you have bet portraying a King? What is he hoping to hit, a 2nd best pair, or runner-runner?


Maybe I play too tight for LL, but if I have QJ behind someone who bets out into that board, I am in the muck. If he's bluffing me, well so be it, I was outplayed. But I'm not chasing to make what will be most often a 2nd best pair when all I have invested in the pot is one SB.


Now, having said that, if the players in your games ARE chasing with two undercards to a higher card on the board, with no str8 or flush draws, then you have a sweet game. Sure, you are going to get some bluffs and semi-bluffs cracked, but your profits from having these guys try to run you down when you do have the goods are more than going to make up for it. And if they are chasing their Queen and hit it on the turn, don't count on them making a big laydown on the river. For that reason, I don't like Dave's bet on the river. If he checks, he may induce a bluff from a busted flush or str8 draw, but from my LL experience, there is no chance that a K or Q would lay it down.

"a busted flush or str8 draw"


bingo! it's pretty clear what dave's opponent most likely held from the way the hand was played and the board. a weak flush draw seems likeliest.


once we've determined that we see that his river bet is wise because it keeps him from having to show his hand on the river and letting his smarter opponents get a wiff of his semi-bluffin' ways. there is considerable value in not showing down T9 here. im surprised mason didnt mention this.

On the one hand, QJo is very unlikely to be the hand held by my lone opponent on the river. With no draw, he wouldn't have called with just two undercards, especially given my show of strength the whole way. However, QcJc, or any suited queen or jack IS a hand that is likely to be played in this game, particularly by this opponent. So if he was on a flush draw and missed, I have to hope it's not queen high. One thing to note though, there is no way this guy would have folded the river if he had caught a queen. I know that much about this opponent, so that affects what the correct play is.


On the other hand, not having to show my hand DOES have some measurable value. It would behoove me to re-inforce just how tight I am, and how "when I bet I always have a good hand" with this opponent in the near future, as he will "call you down" if you bluff too much. Or as we sometimes say it here in Cali: "he got pulled over by the bullshit police."


In the end, given my knowledge of this opponent, there isn't much in the way of better hands he would fold. Perhaps on a real good day he might have folded a better ten, like if he had JcTc, but I seriously doubt it. Anything better than tens he would call virtually 100%. Worse hands he would call with? If he had something like a flush draw with bottom pair, and wound up with only a pair, I still believe he would call the majority of the time. He's loose, but he's not a stupid player, he does understand that folding on the river is a potentially catastrophic play, and he's just loose enough to call your ass with nearly anything.


All things considered, is the value of not showing my hand greater than the value gained by the few times he calls with worse hands or folds better ones? Mason is right, most of the time, when I get called here, I will probably be beat. So I have to say probably not, but maybe someone else will have another view.


Dave in Cali

I agree that if you are called you are probaly beat, but if you check you give the guy a free shot at taking you down. Don't you at least have to make him think about it?