80-160 River play ?

[MHoydilla]

This hand took place while I was sweating my friend in 80-160 at the Belligio last night. First off the game was juicy with 2-3 players who liked to see every flop. Best game at this limit I have ever seen. BB is dealt Jd9d UTG raises 5 callers to the BB who called. So 7 handed to the flop of Td 8d 9c the BB checks Preflop raiser bets it gets raised by UTG+2 cold called by 2 players when BB 3 bets and called by 4 players. Five players to the turn 2d {Td 8d 9c} big blind bets and all 4 call 5 to the river. (Did I say how good of a game this was. River brings Qd {2d Td 8d 9c} and the BB does ??????????????

[andyfox]

Folds?

OK, I say bet; hopefully he'll be called in two places, raised by the Ad, cold-called by another guy, and he can then 3-bet.

[mike l.]

is the correct play check or bet? depends on who he thinks has the Ad and the Kd cause he wants to trap each of those players for the most bets possible. checking may actually be the correct play.

[MHoydilla]

Mike L how is checking in this game a good move???? no honestly not being sarcastic how????????

[Eric P]

Bet it will get raised almost every time, except the king who might just call. But if he bets a weak diamond might call, then the Ace raises, and he gets 2 extra bes by betting maybe. if both the A and K of diamonds are out then it's probably best to check, but only if you know that both are out. if you bet you gets at least 3 bets, that's too good to resist, you will be very lucky to get 4 or 5

[bigpooch]

If someone checked here, I would hope that everyone else
did too! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I say bet; hopefully he'll be called in two places, raised by the Ad, cold-called by another guy, and he can then 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that's pretty much what I'd do and what I'd hope would happen.

[MHoydilla]

I almost fell down after seeing the hand as the BB was not the one I was sweating. My friend a consistant winner at this game said a check was not that bad. My question is why? I could not imagine checking here but my friend said that if she was 3 bet here that she could fold the Ad. What do you all think????

[Ray Zee]

of course you bet out here. there is no sxure thing the ace or king is out and will even bet for you. and with the pot so big someone will call with a small diamond or straight. you would look like and be a fool to find it checked around.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
is the correct play check or bet? depends on who he thinks has the Ad and the Kd cause he wants to trap each of those players for the most bets possible. checking may actually be the correct play.


[/ QUOTE ]

good f-ing lord Dr. l. in a game this good and this loose with players obviously going way to far with their hands and being way out of line i would expect to be RAISED and i can 3bet if i was the bb. thats a whole lot of big bets. one pot like this in a session can be the only one you play in the 8 hours and you'd still be way above your expectation for that time. think about what you MAY be giving up by checking here and passing up the opportunity to 3 bet the ad with callers at $160 a pop!!!

although you may be right that you'll be able to get in the c-r, do you think it'll be 3bet by tha a? whereas you can 3bet after the ad raises you.

i don't mean to sound at all like an [censored] and if i did i apologize but this is just too good a game to check imo.

-Barron

[MHoydilla]

You may sound like an ass but an educated one at that. I agree that this must be bet here, for almost the identical reasons you listed.

[Ian J]

Two questions:

What happened on the river after the BB checked?

Your friend could really lay down the Ad here? If so, impressive.

[MHoydilla]

BB checked it got checked to the button who bet BB raised and only the button called who had the Ad. As for the fold to a 3 bet Im not really sure if I believe it, but the BB is a regular so read dependant maybe.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
BB checked it got checked to the button who bet BB raised and only the button called who had the Ad. As for the fold to a 3 bet Im not really sure if I believe it, but the BB is a regular so read dependant maybe.

[/ QUOTE ]

This river play is so ridiculous it doesn't seem true. Good to know that players who are presumably much better than me melt down occasionally too.

[MHoydilla]

Shemp thats what I thought too. When I saw the hands flipped over I fell down out of shock. The only thing I can think of is that the BB was didnt realize until after checking that the 4th diamond gave him the st8flush.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
if both the A and K of diamonds are out then it's probably best to check, but only if you know that both are out

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you know that both are out *and* you know that the A is nearer your left then the K *and* that no set or any other monster that put in a ton of money and needs a showdown in this huge spot is between you and the A...

So basically, if the hand came off a cooler, go ahead and check.

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]

Your friend could really lay down the Ad here? If so, impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the word I would use. She's going to lay down the Ace-high flush for one more bet when in order to lose someone has to have EXACTLY Jd9d or EXACTLY JdKd?

SpaceAce

[Eric P]

Disregard the whole money and bets thing. I wouldn't want Ray to think i looked like a fool, i'd consider mucking if it was checked around

[mike l.]

look here's how it works. this is why a bet is not definitely the correct play. it's strictly position dependent: the bb's position and the position of the player he figures to have the Ad.

let's say bb thinks utg has the Ad. so now bb checks and utg bets and one or two people call who would not call 2 bets now call 1 bet, now bb lands his checkraise and let's say utg is scared and he just calls and now some fool with the Kd calls too, or some fish with a set or straight, whatever. or let's say utg reraises and now bb 4 bets and utg crying calls. so im not saying a check is definitely the correct play, im just saying that it is an option worth considering depending on what players bb thinks are likely to have the second and third nuts (as well what players can be trapped for multiple bets).

you see what im saying now? obviously if you know nothing about the players and see that humungo pot and you have the nut straight flush you can go ahead and just bet and hope people call and the button raises and so on and so forth, but this game is about maxing the value out of all your nut river hands.

here's another way to look at it: what if bb knows button is severely weak tight and he will dump the Ad im that board when bb 3 bets. so bb bets, some fish calls, and now button raises. if fish wont call two cold, but will call one more bet, it'd be correct to just call correct? so the bottom line is the default play of course is just go ahead and bet, but this a situation where knowing your opponent's and their tendencies will make you significantly more in the long run, and that's also why checking can not be completely disregarded as an option.

[Ahigh]

Mike
If you bet , get 2 callers and then a raise from the button. Would you raise there? Or would you go for 2 overcalls?

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
look here's how it works. this is why a bet is not definitely the correct play. it's strictly position dependent: the bb's position and the position of the player he figures to have the Ad.

[/ QUOTE ]

No Mike. I haven't missed a thing. In fact I gave one breakdown of the sort of position dependent mindreading you're talking about. You've missed plenty though, and it's that there is more to the river than you and the guy with A, and the not quite irrelevant detail that the A doesn't have to be out there at all. If you want to defend check-raising the button, well, you the man -- here's a guy who if he was able to put the A in the field at all, definitely must have put it in the wrong hand -- which is a roundabout way of saying he checked and prayed something groovy would happen, which is what you are sugarcoating with your after dinner prattle.

If you want to posit a read so strong and an arrangement of hands that makes checking right -- well, of course, this is possible. It's a load of hooey, though. Do you see why?

[mike l.]

"If you bet , get 2 callers and then a raise from the button. Would you raise there? Or would you go for 2 overcalls?"

who knows? it's all player dependent. if there's no read on players than go ahead and just bet your hand, but if there is some way of possibly juicing an extra bet than sometimes it's right to check when you might normally bet, as well as go for overcalls when you have the stone cold nuts. im not sure what's so difficult about this concept...

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]
it's all player dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cop out. Read the hand again. Now, without adding unstated premises, you know, actually responding to the question posed without moving the goalposts, defend check-raising the button. No need for a parallel universe where you can read the cards and minds of your opponents with a fair degree of certainty when they call you on the turn on that board, after that flop action.

[ QUOTE ]
im not sure what's so difficult about this concept...

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently applying it to the scenario provided is difficult, because, well, you know, its that thing you haven't done while instead questioning the dimness of others.

When the facts are against you, argue the concept; when the concept is against you, argue the facts; when both the facts and the concept are against you, pound on the table.

[mike l.]

"No need for a parallel universe where you can read the cards and minds of your opponents with a fair degree of certainty when they call you on the turn on that board, after that flop action."

youre so confrontational it's disturbing. im not sure how to repsond to it. clearly you are very passionate about this hand. i think the best thing at this point would be to just say yes youre right a bet here 100% of the time is the correct play and i was mistaken in all of my previous analysis in this thread. so that's what i will say. and i can say that with absolutely no sarcasm or worry, in case you wondering about that. hope this helps ease your nerves friend.

[mike l.]

"defend check-raising the button."

sorry wanted to add something: i will not be defending checkraising the button because that is a stupid play here obviously. if you figure the button to have the Ad then it'd be a big mistake to check here obviously. you want to bet and hope someone in between calls. this contradicts nothing i have already said. i was never trying to defend the bb's play in the hand. i was trying to answer the original posts question of what should the bb do. i was the only person willing to say that checking could sometimes be a viable option. and yes i do believe that you all seemed to miss the reasoning behind that option which is why i tried to clarify it.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your friend could really lay down the Ad here? If so, impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the word I would use. She's going to lay down the Ace-high flush for one more bet when in order to lose someone has to have EXACTLY Jd9d or EXACTLY JdKd?


[/ QUOTE ]

KdJd wouldn't even be good there- there's only one possible straight flush. And even if anybody really would make that laydown, the last thing they'd want to do is brag about it.

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your friend could really lay down the Ad here? If so, impressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the word I would use. She's going to lay down the Ace-high flush for one more bet when in order to lose someone has to have EXACTLY Jd9d or EXACTLY JdKd?


[/ QUOTE ]

KdJd wouldn't even be good there- there's only one possible straight flush. And even if anybody really would make that laydown, the last thing they'd want to do is brag about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, you're right. That makes laying down the Ace ten times as bad in my opinion.

SpaceAce

[shemp]

Your analysis that you can check if you can put someone on/near your immediate left on the A is not much of an analysis unless you can explain how one puts someone on your immediate left on the A. I didn't miss your observation, I addressed it directly *before* you told me that I missed it. Further, I conceded it as a concept *before* you wondered how someone could miss the concept. You psychologize about what I miss or don't understand rather than actually develop an argument, that does annoy me.