The Big Blind just wouldn't fold

This is a hand from about a week ago. It's 4-8 Hold'em ($1 and $2 blinds) at the Monte Carlo on the Vegas Strip (best small poker room on the Strip!) and the game is typical with a few loosies and a couple decent players.


The hand:


A couple early position players limp and a respectable middle postion player raises. I expect this means he has either a big pair or possibly AK. I don't think he's raised with anything else so far. No callers to me in the cutoff. I've got AcTc. I can expect the early limpers to call the raise so I call as well. The big blind and early limpers call. 5 players see the flop.


The flop is: Kd,Qd,Jd


That flop looks a bit coordinated. I've got a straight and it seems very likely that the pre-flop raiser has a set. If the board doesn't pair, he's in for a surprise. If it does pair, I'm folding. Of course, I've got to be leary of a made-flush which I'm drawing dead against.


All four players check to me and I bet. I can't let a stiff diamond get a free card and my bet may scare out the Td, 9d or 8d who may think their drawing dead against me. The big blind calls. Both early positon players fold and then the MP (pre-flop raiser) check-raises me. No surprise there. He's either got a set or he's got AA or AK with the Ad. Maybe he has TT with the Td but I seriously doubt it. Either way, I'm ahead of him. I decide to just call so that I can raise on the turn to drive out the big blind who I put on a single stiff diamond.


The turn is: Kd,Qd,Jd,4c


Good turn card and everything goes according to plan. The big blind checks. The MP bets and I raise to get the hand heads-up. But then... the big blind 3-bets! I get an empty feeling inside. The MP calls and I reach for my chips to stubbornly call the hand down since I've got the "nut" straight. As I'm about to put my chips in front of me, I stop and finally think about it. "What could he possibly be three-betting with this board?" I ask myself. After a moment, the answer comes--"Duh!".


I fold.


Did I put too much money into this pot with a three-flush on the flop?


Results in a moment.

The turn is: Kd,Qd,Jd,4c


I folded to the 3-bet with AcTc thinking I was drawing dead against a made flush.


The river is: Kd,Qd,Jd,4c,7h


The big blind bet and the MP called.


The MP had QQ and had indeed flopped a set. With a big pot, I often call with a set in this type of situation but this time it was obvious a set wouldn't win.


The Big Blind turned over AdTd! No wonder I couldn't knock him out of the hand.

When the BB called both you and the MP on the flop, I might have started wondering. Doesn't BB pretty much HAVE to have at least a stiff Ad at this point? Because if MP has it instead, say, with pocket aces, then what in the world can BB have that he can call two bets with?


In any event, I've got to think that after both MP and BB pay to see the turn, you're looking at SOMEBODY with a flush.


But all that being said, I don't think it was a terrible play to see the turn, and I admire your ability to lay it down when you did. A lot of players couldn't have done it.

"A respectable player raises meaning a big pair or maybe AK"


Post flop you were fine, nice laydown. But you should have lost less by folding pre-flop. What hand could he have that you weren't dominated badly?

My question would be: If you put your opponent on a big pair, or A-K, why would you want to play A-10 suited? In that game, with a small blind structure and a raise to $6, you should throw the hand away. After the flop your play seems reasonable.

When "analyzing" a hand, it's become common for some posters here to make a quick comment like "You shouldn't have called pre-flop" and then hardly say nothing else useful in the rest of their post. We end up reading a 2-4 sentence post which adds nothing to the discussion of a hand.


It seems some people can't get beyond a borderline pre-flop decision or one which may have been slightly poor. In my hand, I called a pre-flop raise (from a SUSPECTED big pair or AK) with AcTc because I expected to be in a multi-way pot when at least the early limpers also called the raise. If all you say is "Don't call pre-flop with [Group 3 hand]" then you're not saying much. ATs is an excellent multi-way hand and will beat a SUSPECTED big pair if I flop Aces since it's unlikely he has AA. I also can pick up a flush draw or maybe a more vulnerable straight draw on the flop and create a big pot with many opponents. If I miss the flop, I can just fold.


But, in this hand and lots of others over the past couple months, many people just can't get beyond a pre-flop call when it's clear that the more difficult and more important decisions of that specific hand were post-flop. Whenever I comment on someone else's hand, I will criticize a pre-flop decision if it's warranted but also will add my opinions about the rest of the play of the hand. Most hands are posted because they have some interest/difficulty post-flop and I assume that most posters want the discussion focused there.

It is very discouraging to see posts like the following:


"I would never have called preflop so I can't comment on the rest of the hand"


Give me a freaking break.


I'm on a poker trip in LA right now and if anyone lays down A-10s against just one raise they may as well stay home. Out here not only do you call ONE preflop raise, but you call 2 cold and throw in the cap with an ungodly multiway monster.


Not every game is a very tight very aggressive mid limit game, and you are giving up way too much by laying hands like AQo and A10s down because someone raised UTG. YES there are situations where you can't call with those hands. I have mucked AQo before the flop several times and never regretted it. BUT not every hand posted in these forums comes from a game with conditions EXACTLY the same as the S&M tight aggressive mid limit stereotype.


Lighten up and help people out with their postflop play folks.


Clark

What you say is true; if one is going to do any analysis, one should try to do a comprehensive analysis. One sentence attempts are neither interesting nor very informative.


"[M]any people just can't get beyond a pre-flop call when it's clear that the more difficult and more important decisions of that specific hand were post-flop."


I will have to take some exception to this, however. I realize that the posters may be looking for post-flop help/analysis most of the time, but almost always the importance of decisions goes from high to low in the order they are made. A bad decision early will tend to put you in a position of making a difficult or important decision later.


In essence, the one line analysts are taking the ounce of prevention vs the pound of cure approach (whether the advice is correct is irrelevant). Why teach someone how to get out of trouble when you can teach him how to avoid it in the first place? Generally much more useful.


However, a good teacher will address the specific problem as well as dealing with the more fundamental problem.


Eric

Pre-flop I think you played just fine. In a multi-way hand, ATs is a hand with great potential, with nut flush and broadway str8 possibilities. You examined the situation, and made the correct decision according to your analysis. Play the situation, not just the cards.

I remember the days when I would grade freshman physics homework, and the answer key (although I know there is not one correct answer in poker like there was in physics) would give points at different steps in the solution. So if you fouled up at the beginning, but still used the correct techniques throughout the rest of the problem, you still got "partial credit".


It does seem that many posters here (I may have done it myself without realizing it) take the "all or nothing" approach. If you screwed up at the beginning, then whatever you did after that is irrelevant, even if you made a great laydown, semi-bluff, etc. We should all look for the "partial credit" in everyone's posts.

I agree here. You should always provide reasons for what you are saying, just saying "you shouldn't have called pre-flop" isn't enough, you must say WHY, otherwise it's just hot air and wasted forum space. Also, once you enter a pot, assuming you go to the river, you have four rounds in which to make decisions. Regardless of how you got there, each decision is separate, and should be treated as such.


As for you pre-flop call...


Against a typical raiser with fairly good standards, I would consider your call borderline at best. Against the many loose aggressives I see regularly, I would routinely call and occasionally reraise. Against some of the best players in the cardroom, I would fold without hesitation.


On the flop, you get check-raised. When this happens, I would pretty much give up on the idea of driving anyone out. What would they be playing with now that you could raise them off of on the turn? Not much, IMO. therefore I feel you lost two big bets unneccesarily on the turn.


Dave in Cali

Dynasty, my post and G Ed's both commented on your post flop play. There simply wasn't much to say about that hand.


Your mistake was calling pre-flop (IMO). If you don't think it was a mistake, that's fine. Everyone plays different and that's one of the things that makes poker interesting (imagine the game if we all played the same). But other than the pre-flop call there's nothing to discuss in this hand.

Clark I agree with much that you have written. Much of the play of hand depends on the game and the opponent. Too much emphasis is put on the rankings of hand and not enough about situations. In this case, the opponent is one who would only raise with a big pair or A-K, hands that badly dominate A-10. In addition the action is not yet closed, and, if the blinds fold, the pot is 4 handed, hardly a huge multiway. IMO a clear fold.


After the flop the hand plays itself with a choice of either to call down or lay down. Not much to say there.

My comments were about a trend I've seen over an extended period of time in dozens of posts. I never mentioned you (or anybody else) by name.