Is This An Easy Hand To Read?

[Sparks]

I think I need to work on my hand reading. Last night at the Bike in a 10-20 game I have 9/images/graemlins/spade.gifT/images/graemlins/spade.gif in MP. The BB, myself and and two LPs see the flop for one bet. Flop comes:

8/images/graemlins/spade.gif7/images/graemlins/spade.gif4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

BB bets, I raise, and only one LP calls. The turn comes:

J/images/graemlins/heart.gif Here's the interesting part: I bet, LP raises, I re-raise, LP 4-bets, I 5-bet, LP 6-bets, I 7-bet and LP calls. It was a little bizzare, and for the life of me, I couldn't figure out what the heck he had. It seems obvious to me now, but at the time, I didn't see it. Is it obvious to the experts here what the guy is holding?

River comes J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and I checked to him. Thoughts? And don't worry, I know I'm an amature.

Sparks

[Mikey]

it seems to me that he has 56.

[glen]

When he slows down on the turn, he either has an overplayed set, 56 and finally realized that you have the nuts, or the same hand realizes that you also have the same hand and may be freerolling with your spades. Since raising on the flop like you did tends to fix a specific read that you wouldn't have the nuts on the turn, and since most players won't six bet without a hand they feel is the nuts, and since he did stop raising, I think a river bet is safe here. . .

[JTG51]

One of the other nines and one of the other tens comes to mind. That or 56 (or something a little crazy like AsJs) are much, much more likely than a set against a typical opponent, so you should bet the river.

[shemp]

No. If has a set, he should fear a straight. If he has 5s6s (or any 56), he should fear a higher straight. If he has T9, he should fear T9 with a redraw. So he gave too much action, with whatever he has, and the only one of those hands that you beat is 5s6s, so the check is *okay*, despite that I'm kind of expecting to see 5s6s. Personally, I would bet, mostly because I like to bet, but partly because if he did have a set, I feel I should give him more money on the river.

[Yeknom58]

I doubt he goes 7 bets with set on that board so I'm thinking he has 56 or 9T. All of which equate to a river bet.

[King Yao]

From your post, it seems like you were the first limper into this pot, and you limped from middle position. T9s looks like a decent drawing hand, but I think a limp in middle position with this hand is quiet loose, and in the long run will cost you money.

[Sparks]

I played the hand because 9T suited from MP in an unraised pot is perfectly valid, according to DS anyway.

I thought he had 9T himself when he finally called on the turn. When the second J fell on the river, I caved into paranoia, and checked. It was an obvious mistake, because not even a lunatic would six bet a set with a straight out there.

He checked the river, and showed 56 spades. I think he got blinded by his straight flush draw.

Sparks

[Eric P]

without reading other posts, he MUST have 9T or he is an absoulutly horrendus player. Anyone who would do this with a set or worse is seirously insane, i hope he did have 9T since then you were on a free-roll to win the whole thing.

If he had trips then never leave when he is playing

[Eric P]

how can so many people think he has 56? If he showed a 56 of not-spades wouldn't everyone be shocked? I am shocked by the 56 anyway, 5 bets he could have 56 or JJ, but once he goes over the top again he HAS to have 9T in my head. It is crazy that he did this with 56, i don't know why so many people went directly to that hand... hopefully it was just the tone of the post

[elysium]

hi sparks
it looks like 56s.

[King Yao]

"I played the hand because 9T suited from MP in an unraised pot is perfectly valid, according to DS anyway."

That's interesting, do you know the source where DS says its a playable hand in a situation like yours? I think its a playable hand in MP in an unraised pot if there is at least one other limper (although I would prefer two or more). If you are the first one in, I just don't see the justification in future pot odds on a middling hand like this. If you know what book or article DS specifically says this, I'd appreciate you pointing it out.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
I played the hand because 9T suited from MP in an unraised pot is perfectly valid, according to DS anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The game has to be one of the best loose/passive combinations on the planet for this to be correct. This hand is a dog without multiple callers. Best case scenario a few limp behind you and no one raises, which makes it a somewhat + EV hand. Worst case the cutoff raises you and you're heads-up with a hand that plays terribly in that sort of situation.

You should muck this hand with no callers (and I would say anytime in middle position).

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
"I played the hand because 9T suited from MP in an unraised pot is perfectly valid, according to DS anyway." -Sparks

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That's interesting, do you know the source where DS says its a playable hand in a situation like yours?

[/ QUOTE ]

HPFAP "The First Two Cards: Middle Position" second paragraph.

But you are correct, more callers is better than fewer.

Sparks

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
without reading other posts, he MUST have 9T or he is an absoulutly horrendus player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was sure he had 9To myself Eric, and not until he showed did I comtemplate 56 spades. Just plain bad hand reading on my part. But what happened to me, I think also happened to him -- namely, when I flopped an open ended straight flush draw, the last thing I was thinking was that he TOO had an open ended straight flush draw! Just didn't enter my brain. His mistake was massively bigger than mine though.

Sparks

[King Yao]

Thanks for the reference, I appreciate it.

However if you read further, DS and MM agree with me. That T9s should be folded in MP in an unraised, no limper pot.

I'm not sure about the quoting criteria on twoplustwo.com, but I will quote away unless told to stop.

Fifth paragraph : "...But if you are in middle position and no one has voluntarily entered the pot means that it is unlikely that you will get the multiway action that these hands require".

Then they give two examples, 22 and 87s where they state "..if the first three or four people pass in this exact same game, you should throw this hand away....If you do play, in addition to not getting the multiway action that you wish, you may find yourself isolated by an agggressive player. Now unless you flop a set you will be playing a weak hand out of position. Similar comments apply for a hand like 87s. The situation changes if there are already one or more players in and you can anticipate a multiway pot".

I think it is a mistake to lump all Group 4 hands as defined by DS and SM and say they should be played the same way. I would raise in your situation with AJo and KQo, but fold with T9s and 98s, all 4 are in Group 4. These hands may have equal value in general, but they certainly do not have equal value in all situations. T9s is a better hand in a multiway pot than AJo is, but AJo is a better hand in your situation than T9s is.

Later in the chapter, they write : "It may also be correct to raise with Group 4 hands AJ or KQ." Notice they distinctly note AJ and KQ, not all Group 4 hands.

I stand by my earlier opinion that T9s should be thrown away pre-flop, and my intrepretation of their book, DS and MM would agree.