AQs hand

Very loose passive 5-10 hold 'em game.


I have AQs (spades) in the cutoff and raise four limpers to $10. Both blinds call and we take the flop seven ways. Pot: $70.


Flop: 9c 7d 4h


Everyone "checks to the raiser." I check.


Turn: [Qc] 9c 7d 4h


Small blind bets $10. Three players call. I raise to $20. Everyone calls. To the river four five handed. Pot: $170.


River: [2d] Qc 9c 7d 4h


Checked to me. I bet $10. One caller, who mucks.


Did I push this one too far against too many players? Should I have just closed the betting with a call on the turn to see what develops on the river; was there too much of a chance I did not have the best hand? What about the river bet with a lone pair against four opponents?


Mike

You played fine. The most questionable play was your bet on the river against 4 opponents. But with the way this board came there is no reason to believe anyone has made two-pair or better. Plus you are against players who are likely to call with a worse hand. So I like your bet on the river as well.

I think you played it perfectly on every street.

I think you should have bet the flop to try to thin the field. These are the kind of hands that, when you do hit your A or Q, you lose to 2 small pair or a gut straight or runner-runner flush from a player who shouldn't have called in the first place, but got a free card to see on the turn. Even if they all call, I think you are getting excellent odds to win the pot.

Think about what you're saying. The only way your logic would be correct is if someone who flopped a pair with an ace or queen kicker would fold for one small bet. This doesn't seem likely. And as for losing to a two pair hand that doesn't include an ace or queen, someone would have to call a turn bet with a pair. Would someone willing to call a turn bet with a small pair (after another overcard hits and the preflop raiser bets, no less) ever fold their pair on the flop?


Clarkmeister is correct in his assessment of the hand, although I don't think the turn raise is quite as obvious as he does.

What if one of the reasons for raising the turn is to take a free showdown on the river if a dangerous two pair card or king hits?


Mike

I never said it was a bad turn raise. I just thought it was a close decision. If a better hand would check to you on the river then the turn raise would be especially good. Just keep in mind that with the way you played this hand, your opponents should know exactly what you have. Most players won't check a set or an overpair on the flop (or semi-bluff raise a turned nut flush draw), and, because of this, will assume that you won't either. So the only question to them becomes whether your kicker is a king or an ace. This makes it more likely that your opponents will play perfectly on the river.

That's a great point and much appreciated. I certainly would not check a set or overpair on the flop.


However, I doubt that I am getting raised on the river by a better hand unless it is a monster. My opponents are simply not that observant.


Mike

Sorry I havn't responded sooner--Michael described this game as VERY loose/passive----I was thinking about hands like 2-3c, 2-4c that may drop on a flop bet, but by getting a free card they would have a flush draw on the river. The 2-4c would actually be drawing to a flush, but would win the pot with 2-pair. I agree that in a loose game. if you couldn't get these hands to drop, then betting wouldn't make much sense. However, in a normal game I still think you should bet the flop----Thanx for the response.