10-20 5 player online. River play

[chezlaw]

Playing 10-20 online 5 player table. I've been there about 20 minutes.

I'm Dealt Q /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif and raise one off the button. One caller from the BB. He seems a bit loose (not much data to go on though).

Flop 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

He bets I raise He calls

Turn T /images/graemlins/spade.gif

He bets I raise He calls

River J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

He bets. Fold, call or raise?

[Ulysses]

[all_aces]

It's a tough one, because you have so many ways to lose, but you have to call here. He will probably show you A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifT /images/graemlins/diamond.gif or less likely JJ (depending on the player), but you still have to call.

For what it's worth, I like the way you played it, and I hope I'm wrong and you took it down.

Regards,
all_aces

[ZeeJustin]

Your play so far is perfect IMO and you should call the river. He probably has you beat, but if the pot was half as big as it is, you would still be getting sufficient odds to call.

[chezlaw]

Thanks for the comments.

I called fearing the worst and he had 8 9 for the straight. I've upgraded him from 'a bit loose'

[naphand]

Sick.

I thought that kind of lobotomy-play only happened at $1/$2. I seem to recall tilting a bit when I had nearly an identical play put on me a couple of days ago (I was having a very bad day of it overall).

I presume you upgraded him to *Genius*? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[DaveB]

I haven't played 10/20 but this is would be run of the mill for 5/10. I'm kinda surprised you are so surprised nap.

[naphand]

OMG. Surprise turns to <shock!> /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

Maybe I am missing something here? or is there some logic to the Turn play? I can understand the bet on the flop with a draw, but getting raised and then betting out again unimproved on the Turn, when at least 5:1, with the immediate prospect of another raise seems, well...it's beyond me. Is there a valid reason for it? - 'cos I'd like to know. At the moment I'm thinking I need to put this guy on my Xmas card list..... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Ulysses]

Since he bet the flop w/ essentially no hand, no draw, I wouldn't have been surprised to see him 3-bet the turn. After all, his hand did improve. You see all kinds of stuff in this games. Overaggressive is often an understatement.

[ZeeJustin]

I agree that the 98 played the hand poorly, however, it's not as bad as you think.
The flop came 774, so the 98 isn't thinking "I have the best hand". He's thinking "We're both drawing to overcards, so I'll win the pot by being more aggressive". On a T774 board, 98 all the sudden starts to seem a lot better. There's a card to scare the opponent (overcard to flop), and he's drawing to 8 cards that he knows wont scare the opponent (i.e getting mroe action when he hits his str8).

[naphand]

Thanks guys. Your rationale for the *thinking* behind this is pretty much what I figured they *might* be thinking. It remains over-aggressive, but I can see if they are thinking as Zee suggests, then an improved hand (albeit still a dog) is *obviously* worth another bet. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

It may be that facing a raise PF, they automatically put you on AKo. This seems to be their default, as whenever I raise PF the response from 95% of the other players can be best explained by this. In which case Zee's rationale makes sense. If this play is a common as you say, then at least I should be able to muster a response to it.

However, auto-betting because your hand *improved* remains moronic, as this is not a justification (well, it is in once sense, just not enough in this case). I see what you say Zee, but improving from *nowhere* to 4.75:1 dog is not a reason to bet in my book (although, if he has put his opponent on overcards, he may believe he has more outs than just the straight), and I was thinking; maybe there is a good reason to bet that I don't know about? Sure, he improves, but does he really think he is scaring out a player that RAISED him on the Flop?! If its a semi-bluff (which is the best *strategy* we can put him on) then it's a very poor one, that got lucky, as the bluff aspect was surely never going to work.

Maybe trying to get inside the minds of some of these players in a bad idea, it doesn't look like there is much room in there....

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]

However, auto-betting because your hand *improved* remains moronic, as this is not a justification (well, it is in once sense, just not enough in this case). I see what you say Zee, but improving from *nowhere* to 4.75:1 dog is not a reason to bet in my book (although, if he has put his opponent on overcards, he may believe he has more outs than just the straight), and I was thinking; maybe there is a good reason to bet that I don't know about? Sure, he improves, but does he really think he is scaring out a player that RAISED him on the Flop?! If its a semi-bluff (which is the best *strategy* we can put him on) then it's a very poor one, that got lucky, as the bluff aspect was surely never going to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm too LAG (as my moniker suggests), but I don't know if you can call the play so bad that it's "moronic". If he puts you on AK, then he figures he's a little over a 2-1 dog. There's a little over 4BB in the pot on the turn, so even if you raise him back, he's getting 3-1. Plus, there's got to be a chance that you would lay AK down -- if you were convinced that he had paired the T then you'd be a little more than a 6-1 dog and you'd be getting 5-1.

Now, all of this makes sense only to someone that puts you on a hand and then doesn't consider the possibility that you may hold something else (which may itself be moronic). But I could see making this play against someone I thought capable of laying down overcards in this spot.

[naphand]

He may well be getting 3:1 to call the raise, but his bet is not. And his judgement of the hand was wrong, if judgement was there (=mistake) as his paired outs were no good (so he was worse than 4:1 even on his 3:1 call).

This bet, on a draw HU, is at best a semi-bluff with *theoretically* 3-ways to win: catch your outs, win it right there or win it if a scare card hits. Against a player showing strength PF and the flop, you are unlikely to win it there, and even with a scare card, you are likely to get called down.

My point being, if he is thinking of a semi-bluff, the timing is plain wrong, as it is not only very unlikely that his opponent will fold, but he is likely to be re-raised (which is what happened). Building a pot HU based on a draw like this is -EV.

I did not actually say THIS play was moronic, what I said was betting just because your hand *improved* was moronic, particularly if it has only improved from *nothing* to *something with a chance*. That kind of bet could be classed as moronic, or at least pretty stupid, as I suspect the thinking behind it extends no further than a knee-jerk *I have improved, so I bet*, I doubt very much if it incorporates much thought about the other player's hand. If he has put his opponent on AK (how exactly?) that may have more to do with hope than logic (that is, *if* he is playing AK I should keep going strong).

I can give you an example of this from a game I played today, which perfectly illustrates this kind of play:

UTG raises, all fold to SB who calls, and BB calls.

Flop: 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gifQ /images/graemlins/heart.gif8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB bets, UTG calls, SB raises, BB 3-bets, UTG calls, SB calls.

Turn: Q /images/graemlins/club.gif

BB bets, UTG calls, SB calls

River: 7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

BB bets, UTG calls, SB raises, BB calls, UTG calls.

SB: Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
BB: Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif
SB: K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/club.gif

I was the BB, SB was a touch unlucky (but played really weak), and SB..... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

SB bet because his hand improved. What was he thinking? If he seriously thought he could take the pot down for one more bet then he is a........(fill in blank yourself).

I figured there had to be another Q out there, and possibly UTG had a pocket pair. I called the River raise fearing the other Q had hit his kicker, or made trips for FH. But who folds in this position?

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Against a player showing strength PF and the flop, you are unlikely to win it there, and even with a scare card, you are likely to get called down.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he put you on overcards, his play is fine. Many people often try to put the last action in on the flop when they are last to act so they can see a free card on the turn, but will just fold if they don't improve. On a flop like 733, or whatever it was (too lazy to check), it's very likely you're on a draw, I.E you have a hand like AK. If you had AK, you wouldn't be saying that his play was bad as it would put you in a very tough spot. However, you did have QQ, so it's only naturall to think, "did he really think I was bluffing?"

If I was playing this hand, I wouldn't think you folding to the turn bet is out of the question at all. It's CERTAINLY not worth a value bet alone.

[naphand]

OK - well the hand hand been described in a few different ways inc. *poor*, *over-aggressive* and *just fine*.

I guess in truth, this play could be pretty dumb, or it could be ok, depending very much on the players involved and how much they are thinking. I've seen this play made by players who cannot be put on any thought, but clearly it can be a reasonable play in a more aggressive game too. I suppose there may be a few hands which could be played the same way stupid or smart, so I guess it helps to have some kind of idea of who you are up against.

We don't know if the 89 was suited or not, but again, playing 89 against a raise from the BB HU is probably ok as you may hope the flop comes low/medium and your opponent is playing overcards. Sklansky does mention possibly playing 89 HU from the blinds.

If this player has indeed put his opponent on overcards, then surely a CR on the Turn and lead on the River, is a better way to represent a paired T (or trip 7s)? Again, only against a player capable of folding AK overcards. Bet/call looks weakish. If the opponent checks behind your Turn check, then it looks even more like overcards, and you get a free draw to your straight/pair.

I use this play from time to time against a good player I suspect is on overcards. They can fold right then, or fold to the River bet. Even if the River bet is called, any future CR (with strong hands) I might expect to be called down also... /images/graemlins/grin.gif