40-80 hand, can I overcall? (long)

It was my first time playing 40-80, definitely higher than I can afford on a regular basis, but I felt like taking a stab at it. The game was good, and anybody with any sense and patience would be able to beat it.


I'm on the button with AQs. UTG limps (loose player, plays too many hands, regardless of position, but he drops early and is of no consequence in this hand). After UTG limps, middle position (MP) raises. MP is one of the solid players at the table...he's not overly aggressive and limps more often than raises pre-flop. The only previous hand I had seen him raise pre-flop was AK and KK. But I had only been at the table for 45 minutes, or thereabouts.


After MP raises, all fold to me on the button with AQs. Against many in this game, I'd three-bet it here, because most had very loose pre-flop raising requirements. However, MP, did not fit this description, so I just smooth called. The big blind and UTG called, and we took the flop 4-handed.


Flop: Q 6 4 rainbow (one spade, but of little consequence).


BB and UTG check, MP bets, and I raise. BB now check-raises (3-bets it), UTG mucks, MP calls two more bets, and I call. In retrospect, since MP didn't cap the betting, I feel like maybe I should have.


Turn: Q 6 4 6 (rainbow).


BB comes out firing. My first thought is that I was hoping that he was on Q4, and 3-bet his 2 pair on the flop. MP called, and I went into "deep-thinking" mode. I really didn't know where BB was...my first inclination was that he flopped a set or 2-pair, and of those, I can now only beat Q4. He is a tricky player, and would easily call with that from the BB. He could also conceivable have something along the line of 75s. Or he could have pocket 6s. I really didn't know.


But that was the least of my concerns...MP called, as well as calling the 3 bets on the flop. He clearly does not have AK or JJ, He has a queen or an overpair, period. So I asked myself "is MP the type of player that would raise preflop with KQs?". He would raise with AQ from MP, but then I was only hoping to chop...I could only beat him if he has KQ, and lose to any other possible holding.


Given this, I layed down my AQ...was this weak tight? I mentioned earlier that this is bigger than I normally play, but the money really didn't matter to me... I was not playing scared.


Well, a blank (a 9) comes on the river, and both check. MP says "I just have a queen", and the BB replies "your kicker must beat mine". MP shows KQc, and BB mucks. I kick myself for laying down the winner in a huge pot, where I knew that I could have been ahead when I layed it down.


Any thoughts? Was this weak-tight? Would have any of you capped the flop, hoping the turn gets checked to you? How many of you would have 3-bet preflop? (I really struggle to do this with anything less than AK, even with the button).


Your input is greatly appreciated.


Worm

Tough hand. It is hard to play against players who like to overplay their hand.


Preflop, I like your cold-call with ace-queen suited rather than three betting. The middle raiser acted after another player ahead of him limped in so he is supposed to have a legitimate raising hand like AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, AK, or AQ. Against many of these hands you are dominated and being suited just allows you to call.


On the flop, when you raise with your top pair, top kicker and get check-reraised by the big blind with the middle player calling two more bets back to him, I would assume I was beat by at least an overpair. The big blind is supposed to have two pair or set in this sequence. I would call hoping I have three outs.


On the turn, how can you call? The middle player is supposed to have an overpair in this sequence and the big blind could easily be full. I would fold just like you did.


Obviously the middle player is not a solid player at all. He must have had queen-jack or worse.


Are sure this was $40-$80 and not $4-$8?

Before we insult our opponents Jim, let's do some hand reading to figure out the hands we're against:


The flop is Q - rag - rag. It is very unlikely someone has 2 pair here. Sure, it's possible, but not likley.


The BB 3 bets on the flop. This would be weird if he had a set - with a bet and raise ahead of him, we would get to raise someone on 4th most of the time. You are not on a free card raise. This most likely means he has a queen, and is trying to knock out the MP and his presumed AK. We can guess from this that if the BB has a queen, his kicker is J or smaller, this is not necessarily true, but with an overcard kicker, he would not have to play so fast.


Now the BB bets out on the turn. The MP calls. The pot is huge. The MP has something. It could be an overpair, but why would he not raise to knock out or charge an AQ if he has KK? This is not likely. He could have exactly aces (3 ways). Can he have QQ? Well, BB probably has a queen, so no. Can he have a Q? Sure. There's one queen left for him. He could have KQs (1 way), KQ off (3 ways) or AQ (3 ways).


Would this player raise with KQ off against a loose limper? Maybe. depends on his position and the players behind him. Let's say he does this 1/3 of the time. So we have 3 ways you lose (aces) 3 ways you tie (AQ), and 2 ways you win. Given the pot size this adds up to an easy call - you are a 3-2 dog, but getting paid 2-1. If the BB does have AQ, now you are almost certain to split - it's will be either 2 or 3 ways.


I am all about precise hand reading, but when the pot gets this big, and there is not compelling evidence you are beat, you should see it through. I do not think this evidence is compelling enough. It would be different if you could be caught in a jam on the turn -but you have the button.


BTW, if you had called, and they both check to you on the river, you should bet.


Why anyone would not raise a too-loose and weak player from MP with KQs is beyond me. This is good play. An ace in you hand is not necessary to make a raise correct, especially if you like to keep your hole cards to yourself.


Good luck.


Dan Z.

Good analysis, Dan. I recall there is a problem in Mason's poker quiz in Card Player's Magazine with the similar idea. What might a 3-bet check_raiser on the flop could have? Most likely, he does not have a monster.


I'd cap the flop, take advantage of my postion to control the betting, another advantage of this cap is it would take the guess work out of the later rounds. If they both check to me on the turn, I bet, and that could well be the last money I put in the pot.

A few comments.


First you need to realize that when someone makes it three bets cold on the flop as the BB did here, he is usually looking to knock players out. This usually, but not always means that he has a medium strength hand as opposed to a great hand. Thus fear of a set should go down not up. If he just calls the two bets he is more likely to have a set. So this implies that your AQ may be good.


As for the MP don't you think that if he had a hand like KK or AA he would raise the turn. (He might call with QQ but that hand is less likely since you have a queen locked up.) Many players will raise. This plus your analysis above indicates that AQ is a likely hand for him. Now if you knew that he had precisely AQ you would certainly want to raise him given that you have AQ. If he folds you come out way ahead.


Thus I think it is fairly plain to see that while this was a tough hand to play, the best play would be to raise the turn. Of course you will be beat sometimes since this type of hand reading is not 100 percent accurate.

Dan:


I made my post before I read yours. You have it right.


Mason

"Any thoughts? Was this weak-tight? "


I have a buddy that once told me that it would take a bulldozer to get him off top pair in situations like this. He may be right. A lot of weak players will inappropriately push mediocre or weak hands. your read on the MP player was definitely incorrect. If he raised preflop with a Qx and then called all the way to the river he is definitely not solid.


But none of this was the driving force for your laying down this hand. You "over thought" the hand. Why? I'll show you why. "It was my first time playing 40-80, definitely higher than I can afford on a regular basis, " Believe it or not if you had played 40-80 because you were on tilt rather that taking a shot you would have won this hand. Ironic isn't it but because you were trying to play good (great?) you misplayed the hand.


Vince

"I would assume I was beat by at least an overpair. "


Jim,


I wish I could have gotten a bet down as to what your response would be.


Vince

I can't talk about anything after the flop because I haven't been in a situation like yours for years.


I think this hand is a good example of the benefits of punchy, late-position preflop play that extends beyond the usual reasons.


By calling, you allow the initial raiser to maintain momentum. By reraising, you rip it away from him. It's that simple.


I'll be utterly results oriented and try to predict the play of this hand after you reraise prelop.


First, the BB might fold. But let's say he calls.


On the flop you put in the maximum, period. If they check to you, you bet, and reraise if they check-raise. If they bet, you raise, and cap it if someone three-bets.


Now you're home free. You will get to the river if your hand is good, most likely with them check-calling all the way. They simply must fear AA or KK or QQ, or even a small set. If someone can play back at you on a later street after all that flexing, looking at a Q-x-x rainbow flop, you'll be looking at a set or an overpair, that is, if you decide to payoff, which you don't have to.


If you feel like checking the river for whatever reason, fine. But it's YOUR choice now. It is THEY who must struggle with what to do when you bet the river.


In general, and I know this doesn't apply exactly to your hand, I think cold-calling two bets on the button against a lone raiser (no limpers and no caller behind him) is a fundamentally flawed play, whatever the cards, but especially with a real hand. Add a limper, and the situation is not significantly changed.


Sieze the lead, put pressure on the blinds, not just to get them out, but to start the narrowing-down process by knowing what sorts of hands they would enter with when facing three bets.


Make them lean toward checking to you on the flop. If someone bets, super. It usually means the bettor is counting on you to help blast out the other guy. Oblige.


That the initial raiser might have AK or AA or KK or whatever is a non-factor to me. That's because a read of that accuracy after the flop, to such a degree of accuracy that you could fold top-pair top-kicker, is impossible without putting some pressure on somewhere along the line, so why not do it preflop when so many other happy things result from the same play?


But let's say it's a super duper rock who raised preflop, the kind of rock that is almost non-existent. I could see cold-calling ONLY if you are planning to fold on the flop if the fop comes 2-2-2. And that would be a rare situation indeed, one in which folding preflop would be a reasonable play.


You can't have both. You can't wimp out preflop for fear of a monster, and then get giddy when you flop a queen. That's because the raiser still has the same hand that you feared enough to merely cold-call his raise.


And if his raising range is wide, then a preflop reraise is called for, just on hand strength alone, not even counting all the other things above.


This is a prime prime opportunity, wasted by one word, "call."


Tommy

"I think this hand is a good example of the benefits of punchy, late-position preflop play that extends beyond the usual reasons."


If he played this hand perfectly anywhere it was preflop.


Vince

Eeeaaaack.


I agree with your hand reading analysis; there is reasonable chance Hero's hand is good. I would like to add that hero has 5 outs getting about 5:1 to call, which is no EV disaster.


If MP has KK and its good, then the tight player on the button who almost surely has AQ is only drawing to 3 outs, since a Q gives you a loss to the BB. If MP has AA then Button is drawing about dead. Many MP with KK will flat call, especially those as described, and I don't see a problem with that. When you combine this with the unlikilhood of of a selective MP raising with KQ to start with, then it sure looks like hero is more likely beat than not.


If hero raises nobody is going anywhere, and although I tend towards aggressive action I don't see how a raise does much good. You'll get just about equivalent action on the river when they check it to you, and you save a raise or two when beat.


I'd call figuring to put one more bet in on the river.


- Louie

Thank you. But if you cap the flop to take control, you will be giving up a lot of profit. You will knock out hands you don't really want to. You will also get your clocked cleaned if you are beat, and may get raised off your hand if you are tied or against a goofball. You do not need to play this hand to the hilt on the flop - that's why these hands (2 cards queen or higher) are so nice.


To rekindle one of my favorite topics, this is why KQ is significantly better than AJ. And in a semi-tough games, I will drop the AJ but not the KQ pre-flop.


Good luck.


Dan Z.

Oops. You are getting 9:1 to call, plenty enough to outdraw KK. Now that may not be enough to justify a call against the who variety of hands that have you beat, but when you combine that with the fact you MAY have the best hand right now, its plenty.

Did you consider folding pre-flop? It's not a good thing to start wondering where you are in a hand after investing 5 SB.

You've gotten a group of terrific players responding, but it might have been better had you withheld the results so as not to influence (even subconsciously) the replies.


Some thoughts:


-If BB flopped two pair, which is unlikely given the flop, Q-4 now becomes more likely than Q-6 or 6-4 given the 6 on the turn.


-In a 40-80 game, the BB 3-bet on the flop screams out "good but not great hand that needs protecting." It might mean 6-4s, but at that level, K-Q or Q-J is a more likely hand.


-With a hand that could beat A-Q, and possibly with A-Q, I would think MP would raise on the turn.


-Cold calling a raise pre-flop is usually wrong, IMO, with any hand. Bump it or dump it. Since MP probably felt the same about UTG as you did, he may well have been trying to isolate with a weaker hand than he would normally raise with, so that, plus the fact that you had the button, would weigh down on the bump side of the ledger. Your hand became very tough to play in large part because your call pre-flop allowed them to put pressure on you post-flop. Tommy's analysis of how things would have played had you 3-bet pre-flop is excellent and not results-oriented. If you didn't want to 3-bet with A-Qs, then fold it.


-Don't play in a game where you're playing scared money. I know you said it wasn't the money that caused you to fold on the turn, but might you have 3-bet on the button in a smaller game and then kept popping on the flop? Wasn't it at least in the back of your mind that you would have to put in $80 to see the pot down (as opposed to two bets)? A bigger game than you can afford on a regular basis is a bigger game than you should be playing at any time. I know some believe in "taking a shot" but it's tough to play your best game at uncomfortable stakes.


Very good post.

Tight player raises and you have AQs. Lets count hands. Before the flop, MP will raise with KQo or better, specifically AA(3), KK(6), QQ(3), AK(12) for a total of {24 hands that have you seriously dominated}, and AQ(12), JJ(6), TT(6) for a total of {22 hands you about even money}, and AJ(12) and KQ(12) for a total of {24 hands YOU can beat}. Yes, you are an over-all even money, your position makes you a slight favorite, and his general passivity negates the power equity he has in his hand distribution.


But that's ONLY if he WILL raise with KQo in his position. Given your description, its MUCH more likely he'll raise with LESS hands than MORE.


AQs is definately NOT an automatic play in this spot. Given your description, "fold" is worthy of consideration. Don't let the apparent power or looks of your hand influence your play.


- Louie

Again the reason to raise is that you might get someone with the same hand as you to fold. Of course, if you are against people who would never fold an AQ in this spot then the raise loses value. But notice that our poster was able to fold AQ for just a bet. If this is the case, why couldn't many other players fold it to a raise.

This is actually an important point. Assuming that you are beaten by an over pair may in fact be correct. (But my analysis below seems to contradict this.) If not here then in other situations this could easily be the case. But that doesn't mean you are suppose to fold. The reason you don't fold is the fact that there is a lot of money in the pot. Thus if you thought for instance that there was a 70 percent chance that you were beaten you have an easy call.

Mason,


I think if the others are good card readers, they could conclude that you do not have anything better than AQ - you did not 3 bet pre-flop, which would be almost mandatory with a big pair. you also can't have a set, there's only 1 66 and 3 44's out there, and it's a lousy idea to play them in this hand (pre-flop).


So if you give your opponents credit for these reads, there's no way they lay down an AQ. Your raise may get a lesser Q to fold, which is ok given the pot size (but if they pay off on the river, you want them in), but it may also get you 3 bet putting you in a very tricky spot.


Mason, am I giving the opponents too much credit? Thanks.


Dan Z.

"If he played this hand perfectly anywhere it was preflop."


That's what I love about this game. It's the only arena I know where an opinion is routinely deemed as absolutely wrong.


Tommy

Wow...I was surprised to see this many responses.


PreFlop - There are some here who advocate "pump or dump" (i.e. Tommy Angelo), and as I said in my post, I do sort of feel like I should have 3-bet...but as Louie and Andy have said, cold-calling may have been the thing to NOT do. But then there's Vince, saying that of all of my botches, that was the one thing I did right. Clearly, in this situation "it depends" (but of course).


On the flop - Perhaps I should have capped, although that would scream that I have either AQ or was slowplaying an overpair. In any case, it would have shown that I had a strong hand. Clearly this would be a small price to pay for winning the pot :)


On the turn - I thought I was beat, so I dumped it. Of course, what I failed to consider was that the pot was huge, and definitely merited a call. This point was reinforced as I got to enjoy MP (seat 6...I was in seat 9, facing seat 6) stack up the chips at the end of the hand.


My biggest error was not realizing that BBs 3-bet did not mean a monster, so much as a crowd thinner. For those of you who pointed that out, many thanks. I was not playing with scared money, but my unfamiliarity with this play (at a 9-18 or 15-30 table, when I see this, it is usually much more respresentative of a monster) cost me.


Thanks for the ton of helpful responses.


Worm

The answer to your question is yes and no. There are a few players who may think (and read) this well and against them you may certainly be correct. That's why if you raise the turn and get reraised you don't have an automatic fold either.


However, against many player, even at the $40-$80 level I wouldn't give them credit for this level of sophistication. Not everyone reads these forums.

"It's the only arena I know where an opinion is routinely deemed as absolutely wrong"


If you consider the source of the absolutely wrong statement then you must determine that he is abolutely right because two good absolutleys, now a days, are hard to find.


vince

"Assuming that you are beaten by an over pair may in fact be correct."


Perhaps we have a "semantico pobleme". Assume means "to take as granted or true". Some folk, and I include Jim, have a tendency to act on these assumptions.


"Thus if you thought for instance that there was a 70 percent chance that you were beaten you have an easy call."


Assume does not mean %70. It means "I lose, he got big pair, bigger than me". When Jim assumes this his tendency here on this forum has always been "Me go bye bye now, folde my cards"

But that said you are correct in your analysis as usual. The assumption is that there is a chance, good or otherwise, that I "may" be beat by an overpair. Now you adjust your play (tactics) accordingly and proceed.


Vince

You are correct. Perhaps a better way of stating it would have been to say "There is a moderately high probability that you are beat." That means 70 percent right on the nose.