Lock hand with the nut low?

I had 22 in the big blind and four of us saw the flop for two bets. The flop came Q-10-10 rainbow and everyone checked. The turn was a queen (Board: Q-10-10, Q.) I was first to act. I bet, the preflop raiser raised, the other two folded, I reraised, and he folded.


The opponent is not a winning player, but only because he sees too many flops. He's good otherwise.


When I reraised the turn, I figured him for one of two precise groups of hands:


1) quads

2) a hand he would fold if I reraised


Then later, I got to thinking that he couldn't even have quads! Could this have been a spectacularly high-expectation bluff? Given the pot size, if we can conclude that he would fold, say, 90% of the time, wow ...


Let's look at it through the other player's eyes. I think it's safe to say he didn't have AA or KK or JJ, since with any of those hand I'd expect him to bet the flop.


So that leaves him with a stone cold bluff-raise on the turn, or an ace. If he had an ace, which is what I think he had after thinking it over, his turn raise makes a lot of sense. If I have an ace, which is likely given that I called a preflop raise, and because I typically bet out on the flop with trips and top pairs and such, then he gets the best of everything by raising the turn. It's a safe raise because it's unlikely that one of the stragglers would have slowplayed a queen or a ten from last or next to last seat. And his turn raise puts TWO-bet pressure on me, because if I call the turn with an ace, I have to call the river too, and he can rightly presume that I'd muck an ace right there on the turn. And if I do call him down, we split. It's a freeroll turn raise for him.


If I have a queen or a ten, and he was planning to call me down with ace-high on the turn and river, his turn raise costs him no money if he's figuring to confidently fold if I reraise him on the turn.


I don't think he could have quads because with either of those hands, with two players behind him, and a guy betting out on the turn who isn't going to go goofy with a ten OR a queen, I think he would have just called my turn bet hoping someone else stayed in and/or hoping I bet the river.


Whadya think? Nut low, and a near lock?


Tommy

Well Tommy if you're that good....I'm done bluffing you :-)

Nice play!

"I figured him for one of two precise groups of hands:

1) quads

2) a hand he would fold if I reraised"


Funny how often that comes up. Either the guy has basically nothing or a colossal monster.


Your logic seems unassailable. With a single Q or a single T he bets the flop. With QQ or TT he merely calls your turn bet. Your thought process was one level up from his.


I suppose he might have had quad tens and raised hoping you'd re-raise with a Q, but it's always wrong, I think, to put someone on quads when another explanation is even remotely possible.


By the way, you didn't have a lock for the low. Someone else might have also had a 2 and you would have had to split the low with him.

He's better than that good.


One more thought: the flop was Q-T-T and no one bet. We can look for all sorts of reasons why they didn't, but the most obvious one should be the one that is paramount: no one had a Q or a T. Tommy operated from this assumption and then, when raised, reconsidered and came to an appropriate conclusion at once (despite his claim that "later he "got to thinking."


You'd better order your fruit plate early in the evening when Tommy's in the house, they'll probably run out.

He may also think he has a freeroll with a hand like AJ or AK and you have a smaller suited ace - his pairing wins, and your pairing is irrelevant.


Nice hand. If he did have such a hand, I am not sure he shouldn't just call to prevent what happened. I think a call from him looks a lot scarier than a raise.


Dan Z.

Great read on the player. You certainly have the ballz to play back at the right opponent at the right time...

Good read and you are right: In these situations, he either has a monster or nothing at all. You don't say whether there were players still in the hand to the left of the raiser. If there were, it's almost a cinch that he ain't got nothing.


BTW, he erred huge in putting in such a raise against a thinking player. He can get away with it against weak players mind you. If he had an Ace, he should just call particularly given that the lowest ranking card on the board was a Ten as you could easily be drawing dead with a hand like 98 suited or something. Maybe, the bluff raise makes sense if the board was QQ33 as now you could be bluffing and still get there on the river with your 98 etc.

"If he had an Ace, he should just call particularly given that the lowest ranking card on the board was a Ten as you could easily be drawing dead with a hand like 98 suited or something"


Actually 98 isn't drawing dead against an ace with a board of Q-Q-T-T. But I know what you meant.

He would be drawing dead if the other guy had AK but you are correct in that when I gave the 98 example, I wasn't thinking about that. Nice catch.