Hand from yesterday's 2+2 SNG - Analysis please!

[Poker Jon]

Hey all,

Some of you saw this hand last night in the 2+2 SNG when it was played, but I would like feedback on both players and how they played the hand.

PokerStars Game #385394076: Tournament #1400810, Hold'em No Limit - Level III
(25/50) - 2004/04/13 - 16:32:42 (ET)
Table '1400810 2' Seat #6 is the button
Seat 4: Poker Jon (2105 in chips)
Seat 7: Senseless (1595 in chips)

Senseless: posts small blind 25
debaser: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Poker Jon [Qc Qd]
Choyce: folds
heyrocker: folds
HelmetSky: folds
TheStrength: folds
Poker Jon: raises 100 to 150
Tosh27o: folds
ByronKincaid: folds
Senseless: calls 125
debaser: folds
*** FLOP *** [Td 6d Kh]
Senseless: bets 100
Poker Jon: calls 100
*** TURN *** [Td 6d Kh] [8c]
Senseless: bets 200
Poker Jon: calls 200
*** RIVER *** [Td 6d Kh 8c] [Kd]
Senseless: bets 1145 and is all-in
Poker Jon: calls 1145
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Senseless: shows [5c 5h] (two pair, Kings and Fives)
Poker Jon: shows [Qc Qd] (two pair, Kings and Queens)

Poker Jon collected 3240 from pot

I thought Senseless played this hand very well, in the fact that I used all my time to consider the call - and almost layed it down; any other bet apart from all in, I think is an automatic call. I didn't believe he had the King on the river, but I thought he may have had Aces - then I discounted this, as I'm sure he would have been scared of me having AK/KQ (KQ as I had been raising quite a lot on this table) or possibly the diamond flush. So I concluded that the only possible reason for the bet was a bluff and called.

A couple of people at the table said he should have bet more on the turn which is a possibility, but I'm still not sure if I lay this down on the turn (possibly bad play by me - I don't know).

How do you reckon we both played it?

Was it a poor bet on the river by senseless, or a poor call by me?

I suppose by me just calling the flop and river, senseless smelt possible weakness, but I suppose it could have been a possible trap as well.

In case you haven't noticed I am having trouble getting my head around this particular hand.

Any thoughts would be well and truly appreciated!!

Cheers

Jon

[Che]

Poker Jon-

senseless will never win if called so you have to fold more than half the time for this to be a +CEV play.

The most likely hands that would be calling along here are KQ, KJs, and A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif x /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. None of these hands should fold so I think the river bluff will be unprofitable, especially against players like you that can make a tough call like this one. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

I think you need to take credit for a very good call on the river. It was very risky since he could have been semi-bluffing a diamond draw or betting with top pair, but the danger is what qualifies this as a very good call IMHO. In many situations you would have been wrong, but you timed it right this time. Well done.

Che

[Senseless]

hey jon

jesus yeah you really picked that one apart /images/graemlins/smile.gif

obviously it was a straight bluff of a king, i think i was mistaken by betting so little on the flop and turn. they were sort of 'feely' bets.

i wouldnt give me so much credit, if anything confused you, it was probably by mistake, i'm an occassional 2+2er and i'm about a tenth the skill of the average user here.

when the second king hit of course, i realized that i should have made stronger flop and turn bets if i was going to rep a king. i hoped that you would recognize me as a newcomer so i did what i thought a really bad player would do who played his king too weak and suddenly hit a third and got all excited - go all in!

my amatuer strategems have been stomping .50/1 shorthanded, and i sort of decided to try to experiment with a few of them regardless of the prestige of these SnG players. hope nobody is upset at my ... nonchalant play.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Senseless - good to see you were prompted to post. Welcome - hope you stick around! (Two new posters in two weeks from these tourneys - can't be bad!) As for anyone being upset - hell no! The bluff on the turn was a strong move and very nearly worked. You took a chance, it didn't work but it was a nice try.

Jon - my first reaction to the hand was 'God, I'm still playing - it must have been early!' /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Personally, I probably would have put in a raise to the weak-looking bet on the flop. You need to know where you stand with the King on board. Flat-calling on the flop and turn looks very much like you've got a reasonable hand you don't quite want to let go of but says very much that you don't like the King and it gives the opportunity for the bluff to be made. Hindsight is great but you had to think for an awful long time before making the (in this case correct) call.

However, my alternative play in this particular case would probably have cost you money compared to the actual outcome. I would assume in the face of a flop re-raise that Senseless would either fold or move in. If he folds you miss out on his remaining chips, if he moves in then you've got a similar judgment call to make but his action would then look very much like an AK play. Depending on how pot-committed your re-raise made you you might well have folded in the face of this bet.

My play is more aimed at general situations, rather than this specific outcome. Overcards to a pocket pair are horrible sights. Senseless' flop and turn bets do look weak and did string you along a bit - but it puts him in control of the hand. I've seen good players often use this tactic to slow-roll a monster and keep sucking players in for more chips so my preference is to take a stand earlier and give yourself a chance to avoid seeing more scare cards. It gives you a chance to get your chips in or get away from the hand depending on how you view the response.

One question, would you have called if the flop bet had been T500? I suspect you'd either have set him all-in there or you would have folded. You could still have ended up making the wrong decision on this hand but I think the calls on the flop and turn are 'weak' plays in general. You want to be giving Senseless the tough decisions, not letting him give them to you.

Sheriff (debaser)

[Poker Jon]

Sheriff,

Thanks for the analysis on that one.

I think that you are right when you say that I was giving Senseless the control of the hand the entire way through and that the play was slightly 'weak' in that sense.

The other thing I was trying to do was figure what he had when I was calling. Many players will fire at a flop like that, with or without a hand. If I raise on the flop and get re-raised, i'm sure as hell getting my ass out of the hand, and similar on the turn as well.

I think if I make that type of play often it will be -EV overall, but this time I had a feeling.

Thanks for posting as well Senseless - always nice to see new faces around the forums.

On a personal note, I actually think you played the hand pretty well, except for the turn bet.

Cheers Sheriff & Che for comments

Jon

[t_perkin]

I don't like you just calling him down here.

He could easily be on TT or possibly AK (although I would expect a stronger flop bet from AK), KK would (should) probably have reraised preflop but you can't rule it out.

He is a brave man bluffing again on the turn, AQ is about the only likely holding that he has beat that will fold, and he could be facing KK or TT milking him.

By the river I think you are both wrong. It is too risky to bet here in a SnG and it is too risky to call.

55 has been sucked in on a weak hand and QQ is calling along with an overcard on the board. If you are going to call down with QQ with a player behind you then you might as well just push in on the flop. The call down would be more acceptable if he was acting first.

Just some thoughts

Tim