A Questionable Stop-and-Go Play

Hi guys,


After a four month hiatus, I've been playing a bit more frequently of late now that summer's here.


I've found my game to be a little rusty after the layoff, and have been thinking over some of the hands I've played. Most errors were fairly obvious upon reflection, but here's one hand where I'd like some feedback on how I chose to play ...


It's about four hours into a session where I'm slowly getting blinded down, with occasional bits of "limp-flop-fold" thrown in for spice. The game is relatively loose, and fairly passive to boot. 2+2er Jim Roy is on my immediate right, and one of the looser "action" players (Jerry Q for the Edmonton crowd) is my LHO. Jerry hasn't been hitting tonight, and so he is relatively subdued.


Three off of the button, I'm dealt KcJs. There are a couple of limpers to me (including one weak-tightish player), Jim folds, I limp, Jerry limps, button limps, and both blinds stay. 7-way action.


FLOP: Kd 7d 4d. Hmmmm, I think as the action gets checked to me. I bet, Jerry Q raises, and everyone folds to me.


I'm not a huge fan of the stop-and-go play, but I think it might be warranted in a situation like this.


Jerry will raise (and likely cap if rereaised) with a wide variety of hands, ranging from assorted straight and flush draws, to weak kings, to made hands/sets/2 pairs, etc. There is a decent chance that my hand might still be good, but it is vulnerable.


A raise here will punish Jerry's weaker hands, but it will prove to be an expensive exercise with little or no gain of information about Jerry's hand. There are a lot of cards that could fall on the turn that I don't want to see ... perhaps as much as a third of the time, I will have to release a hand when a scare card falls.


On the other hand, I feel that folding in this situation (against this opponent) is probably giving up a small amount of EV, and will encourage others at the table to take more shots at me on scary boards.


So my decision at the table was to call on the flop, and bet out on the turn provided diamonds (and/or scary straight card) didn't come. (I may also bet if a scare card comes, but that would depend on any tells I might pick up from Jerry.) This plan saves a big bet in the event of a scare card falling on the turn, while denying a free card to Jerry's drawing hands. Moreover, a second raise from Jerry on the turn will be a reasonably clear signal that I am beaten, and I will be able to "safely" lay down.


Following this plan, I call. The turn brings an offsuit ten, and I bet out. Jerry thinks long and hard, then calls. The river is an offsuit five, and we check it down. I think the river play is clearly correct on my part, as Jerry will not call with missed draws, but will also not lay down a weak two pair if I continue betting.


I'll leave out the results lest I bias anybody's opinions of the viability of this play.


I'd like commentary on my choice of the stop-and-go in this scenario. I've laid out my reasoning on the subject for scrutiny as well, as I'd appeciate anyone pointing out "fuzzy thinking" on my part. At the table, I considered all three options seriously, but settled on stop-and-go as best.


Flame away,


Dave

If there was at least one more player in the hand, I would say let it go. As it is you are off to the river for the reasons you stated. I would probably have made a too loose river bet, but that is this moment, next moment a check would be better.


Folding would have been placed you under a lot pressure in future hands by anyone with a clue. Now your position is clear at least for the next hour - no BS. Well played imo.

I don't see any fuzziness in your thinking!

I would tend to bet out on the turn, no matter what fell - but thinking about it now, your default of checking if a diamond hits is superior because:


- the board looks at least as scary to Jerry (and I'm guessing that you have a tight-solid image) - so he is not going to call if you are ahead - only if you are behind with none to few outs.


If a diamond falls, you check, he bets, I might call him down.


RIVER:

In my experience, once a player like Jerry gets to the river heads up, he is going to call with just about any pair (he may rationalize that you were on a flush draw etc.) Therefore, in the abscence of any other info, I would often bet this river.

I hate it, but that's because I play with Jerry a lot and know his tendencies.


I once thought Jerry never saw the flush draw he wouldn't cap it with, but I've revised my opinion to some extent lately. He has been on an extended losing streak and is playing much less aggressively than he used to, and appears to almost possibly be taking some notice of how many people are in the pot before capping it up with a flush draw. He might raise it once against you but not cap it unless he has the flush.


So, I'd reraise him on the flop and probably fold if he caps it since he will cap it with a flush. If he just calls, I will assume Jerry is being taken to kicker school, but that he could very well have a low diamond in his hand (something like Tommy's hated KTo perhaps?) and play accordingly. But I'm playing this hand to showdown against Jerry almost 100% of the time.


Generally speaking against a Jerry-type player, I'd still 3-bet the flop and if he caps, I'm check-folding the turn if I don't improve in some way.

Clarkmeister,


I certainly respect your opinion, but I'm still skeptical that betting this river is superior to checking. Let's see if I can work this out.


My reasoning goes something like this:


When I am not raised on the turn, this likely rules out made hands and sets, and maybe also top two. Various other assorted goofy two pair, and better kings are still possible holdings for me to contend with.


Given my read on Jerry's possible hands, he could beat me with AK, KQ, KT, K7, K5, K4, T7, T5s, T4s, 75, 74, 54, 86, 63. Assuming my morning coffee has kicked in sufficiently to let me do the combinatorics correctly, I count 100 ways he has me beat. This number will increase somewhat when I figure the longshot chances he was playing a set weakly, etc. We tie another 6 times with KJ. All of the above listed hands should be worth at least a call in Jerry's mind, and some of the better ones will undoubtably get raised (which I will not pay off.)


Now, since I give him credit for playing Kx, then there are 40 combinations that give him top pair with worse kicker than mine. However, whether he would call a bet on the end on this board with something as weak as K3 or K2 seems dubious even for Jerry.


When I get called on the end, then, my hand will be good somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20% of the time. This seems to be nowhere near breakeven ... by attempting to gain an extra bet, I am giving up EV by betting in this scenario. The only way I come close to getting +EV from a bet is if Jerry will also call with second and third pairs ... and even he isn't that bad.


I will concede that checking the river smacks of weakness. However, on this hand, is that not the impression I want to convey? I want Jerry, who is a loose action player, to be encouraged to take shots at me on the river.


In addition, Jerry is not as likely to bet on the end with hands that beat me. My turn bet seemed to confuse him (the pause was natural and not acting), which may dissuade him from betting his good top pairs and weaker two pairs. In this case, I lose less, since there are fewer times when I call with the weaker hand.


In all, I seem to win by checking. Consider:


1. There is no difference in what I win whether I bet and he folds or we check it down.


2. I collect an extra couple of bets from induced bluffs from hands he would not have called with.


3. While I lose calls from K6, K8, and K9, I save more bets when he doesn't bet his better kings and weak two pairs after I check. (In this case, my read at the table seems to have been correct ... on the actual hand, he checked it down with K4, for flopped top and bottom pair. This gives at least some idea of his minimum betting standards when checked to in this situation.)


All in all, I cannot see why you figure that betting is superior here. While some of my thinking is opponent dependent, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find an opponent who calls with enough second best hands (or throws enough superior hands away) to make this bet profitable.


Do you agree with my reasoning on this?


Dave

i dont know the player, so this is unbiased...


if a scare card falls, how would you play if you hit your flush here? play it the same way. unless your sure hed have it...think of how you look to him...


personally, if the scare card hits, id bet out. its just as scary to him. if he raises, then fold.


also if he showed weakness in the turn call, id be betting the river...


it seems like you had trouble defining his hand...the only way to do that is by applying pressure. you cant really gain info by calling and checking...


i mightve 3 bet the flop, then bet out on the turn also...the turn is where his hand will be more defined. *in my experience with these types, the small street doesnt scare em, but the fact that you havent slowed down might*


but again...i dont know the player...it sounds like you do pretty well...so ill give ya credit on your play...


b

Don't respect my opinion too much. I'm still learning this silly game.


Basically, given your description of the opponent, I think you are ahead. I suspect that he would have raised you again on the turn with two pair. A nut flush wouldn't have raised you on the flop and a smaller flush would've raised you on the turn. It seems highly likely to me that your top pair/reasonable kicker is good.


Now the question is whether he will call more than he will bet or bet more than he will call. I don't know his perception of you, so only you can answer this question. You seem to think he will bet far more than he will call, so I defer to you on this one.


But in my experience, they will call with a whole lot of worse hands than a pair of kings. AdXx where X paired the board might call, as would many pocket pairs. I don't understand why these people call, I just know that they do. I also know that there is a tangible benefit to betting the river and not showing down. Especially on scary boards. In the Vegas games, if they see you play this hand this way too many times (and they see if if you keep showing down), they are going to start cranking you on the turn with their naked Ad.


Just some thoughts.

Despite our disagreements on other posts, I agree with Clarkmeister. Jerry will call down with a lot of hope and not a lot else. But that might just be against me. It is true that he might only call Dave with a better hand, especially given how Jim was probably mocking Dave for being a rock at the table.

I thought Jerry probably had a dry high club or set or very low flush when I watched this hand. Shaw had not played a hand in a while, and I think Jerry would be afraid to raise anything less than AK here. This is why it looked like a value check on the river was best.


And I doubt Jerry would lay down here. He'd hem and haw, but eventually throw in the money.

Hi Dave,


I like your thinking through the turn, but given that this is an action player, and based on his long turn pause, I think that he might have raised with either a weaker King, or maybe A of diamonds and an underpair, both of which he is likely to call with on the river. I think that with many of the hands that would beat you, he is going to raise on the turn. So I think that betting on the river will probably gain a little over the long run, depending on whether or not he is capable of bluff raising on the river.


Good luck,

Play well,


Bob T.

I revealed the ending in the subthread under Clarkmeister's post, but for the rest of you...


I lost on this hand to K4o (black) for flopped top and bottom pair. In this case, my read on what Jerry was likely to do with what hands seems to have been reasonable.


I do think that it is closer between betting and check and call on the river than I had considered at the table. Perhaps this is very opponent oriented.


Thanks for all the feedback,


Dave