brierish type laydown? from me?

not meaning the subject to be a putdown, i actually have much more respect for brier's writings now that im trying to tighten up my game a bit and expand my knowledge and respect for other people's approaches to the game.


this hand was in a 9-18 game i played last night. players are generally weak passive. im one from UTG and after utg limps i raise with AA. folded around to the button who is an okay somewhat tight player, she cold calls, the bb calls as well (a decent player).


the flop is K88 with 2 diamonds, i dont have the ace of diamonds. checked to me, i bet, the button raises, the bb cold calls, and now utg makes it 3 bets. utg is an old man who is not quite a rock, but certainly passive as all get out. i think for a second and then lay my AA down figuring im up against an 8 and diamond draws.


what do you think?

makes sense to me Mike, it appears you are playing a 1 outer against trip 8's ( as the ace of diamonds, if not already in someone's nut draw hand, will likely fill the flush for someone)

well the Ad is a great card for me because then i fill up when someone makes there flush. remember the board is paired, making my two outer draw better than if it was not.


incidentally that's the exact card that came on the turn after i folded on the flop and the button and bb called the utg 3 bet.


bb bet out, utg called, and button folded. same thing happened on the river blank. bb made a queen high flush and utg showed us all an upsetting hand: KTo. i guess my read on him was completely and totally wrong. F**K! i think button would have usually called to the river with any 8 so i guess she just had a pair and my AA was good on the flop. i really feel like this was a disasterous mistake and i should have called.

Good lay down!

Laying down AA in this situation is the personification of the "weak tight" description given to so many players who will fold premium hands when faced with aggression by other players.


Too many players (myself included!) will too often put their opponents on the best reasonable hand when faced with aggression. In this case, an 8 for flopped trips. I don't know if I would have check-raised with a KT but I definitely would have at least bet the flop into a pre-flop raiser.

I think the most over used adjective in poker is weak-tight. Calling two bets cold when a tight player raises you and a passive player 3 bets is loose-weak. I'll let you call down and see the 8 on the river 9 times out of ten (the tenth time you'll lose to a flush).


Nice laydown Mike. Don't be results oriented.

Assuming that somebody has flopped small or medium trips 9 times out of 10 is going to cost you a lot of money if you keep folding premium hands like AA.


I wouldn't have called anybody down. I would have re-raised with what is likely to be the best hand. How many hands can a tight old man call a pre-flop raise with that includes an 8?

The fact that strikes me is Mike saying that a very passive player 3 bet him. It doesn't matter if he's tight or not. When passive players spring to life I find that it's best to avoid them, especially with two more betting rounds to go. Aces are not a free trip to the showdown, and learning to lose less with your good hands is a valuable lesson.

of course you are correct. The Ad is a great card for you as it fills you up with second nuts. (only pocket 8's being better) and I wrongly assumed the Ad was likely in someones hand already given the action on the flop.You did describe your opponents as passive, not tricky. (you might want to re-evaluate your reads on them) If you truly decide to play on I think the move was to cap the flop, not just call.


But what are the odds of the Ad or case ace falling on the turn or river? I still say the laydown was the prudent choice.

where were you when you played this hand? I recently played a game at the mirage where a certain player always raised or threebet when he had top pair, regardless of his kicker or whether there was a pair on board. He would also follow through with a raise on the turn, again regardless of the board.


Pat

it was in bakersfield, ca.

It sure looks like you are playing two outs after showing all that strength and getting raised and reraised on the flop with three opponents and an open pair on the table. Since a two outer is about a 23-to-1 shot, you need to win a $400+ pot to justify hanging around. In a $9-$18 game, it is unlikely the pot will be this large. Furthermore, you could call both raises only to have it raised again thereby costing you another $9 to take off a card resulting in you paying an additional $27.


You could do some math calculations here by assuming that you are playing two outs X% of the time and that you are in the lead (1-X)% of the time. The (1-X)% of the time you are in the lead, estimated how often your hand will hold up. For any reasonable range of X%, I believe the calculation would show an negative ev by hanging around.

"For any reasonable range of X%, I believe the calculation would show an negative ev by hanging around."


i think you are right and that's why i made the fold in the first place. shame on me for getting all results oriented.


many thanks to all of you for your thoughtful responses.

Why are people so quick to assume Mike has just 2 outs in this hand? What are the odds that somebody has flopped trips when a pair is on the board? Especially, when it's a middle card like 8. I'll see if I can look it up in Petriv's book (just bought it today).


If you were UTG with a King (AK, KQ, KJ, or KT), wouldn't you consider check-raising a pre-flop raiser who is more likely to have QQ, JJ, TT, AK, AQ, (or some other legitimate pre-flop raising hand) than AA? If I were UTG, I probably would have led out with a bet but check-raising is an option to drive out any weak draws.


The raise from the button is a classic attempt to buy a "free" turn card with a 4-flush. You certainly shouldn't be folding because somebody has a four flush. In fact, they could both have had four flushes.


Of the three reasonable rasing hands these two oppenents could have (4-flush, trip 8s, and Kings up), the trip 8s has to be the least likely holding.

Dynasty, while what you say is true, you need to understand that we are not dealing with random probability anymore but conditional probability. Given the strong betting action on the flop with an open pair on the table in the face of a preflop raiser means that the likelihood of someone having trips goes up dramatically. While it is possible that BOTH the raiser and the reraiser are doing something strange, it is unlikely. It gets back to how large is X% when someone has trips versus (1-X)% when neither player has trips.

Neither of these players is doing anything "strange" from my perspective. It wouldn't be "strange" for UTG to be check-raising with Kings-up or the button to be raising with a four flush. These are both plays which are not only reasonable but could also be considered strong plays to drive out better hands or better draws. The button (presumed four-flush) is trying to buy the "free" turn card and increase the size of the pot in case he makes his hand. The UTG (presumed Kings-up) is trying to protect his hand by forcing everyone behind him to call two bets cold as well increasing the pot with what he considers the best hand.


What about their play do you consider "strange"? Their play seems both logical and strong to me.


X% when someone has trips has to be low enough to call/raise with an overpair when the pot is this large since you are likely to have the best hand and everybody is chasing you.

I think it would be strange for the under-the-gun player to be check-raising(actually check-reraising) with kings up in this situation. First of all, he cannot have AK since he did not raise preflop so if he has kings-up he would have to be worried about the presence of a preflop raiser behind him who could easily have ace-king. Second, you have another player who raises a flop bet made by the preflop raiser on a king-high board. Suppose the under-the-gun player has a hand like king-queen or king-jack suited. How many players do you know who would not bet a flop of king-eight-eight but make it 3 bets when it is bet and raised back to them? I submit that if you were to ask a reasonable number of players how they would play a decent king under the gun in this situation, most of them would bet the flop and very few of them would 3-bet when it is bet and raised to them.


While it is possible that the button could be raising on the flop with a flush draw, again I think it is unlikely. First, he has to have two diamonds in his hand and presumable they would have to be two big diamonds or two medium connecting diamonds to have called a preflop raise. Second, the flop is king-high with an open pair on the board so why would he want to raise when he is drawing? He is unlikely to win the pot outright and he may not win even if he hits his flush. Again, ask a reasonable number of players how they would play a draw in this situation. I suspect most of them would call and not raise.


Again, I think the combined probability of BOTH players making these unorthodox plays is quite small. One thing is for sure. If someone has trip eights they will be raising and reraising in this situation with a large pot already created by the preflop raise.

No matter which one of the three players perspective you look at the hand from, you are always stating concern about being beaten by a better hand.


In the case of the UTG with the possible K, you say "so if he has kings-up he would have to be worried about the presence of a preflop raiser behind him who could easily have ace-king" (or simply a better kicker)


In the case of the button with the possible four-flush, you say "he may not win even if he hits his flush".


And of course, in the case of our hero with the AA, you applaud his fold.


Your thougt-process is much too negative. You're consistently thinking about being beaten and not thinking about getting maximum value out of you winners.


This goes beyond being prudent and starts becoming pessimistic and self-defeating.