I know I got lucky w/ the best hand but....

I was reading a thread in the General section about "is hand reading really important?" and it got me thinking about this hand I played a week or two ago.


20-40: first limper: weak/loose (WL); second limper just coming back up to 20-40, trying to play tight/aggresive(TA)-bright kid; I raise w/ K-K, maybe get a call from one of the blinds, I don't remember and I don't think its relative at this point.


Flop: 8-4-2 rainbow---checked to me, I bet WL calls, TA check-raises---I'm almost positive that he has a set---it's not like me to so exactly put someone on a hand, I usually put them on a range of hands and play accordingly. I call, WL calls.


Turn: K-spades, check, check, bet, WL calls, check-raise, reraise, WL folds after a few moments of deliberation, TA calls.

River: A-spades, TA calls w/ his set of 8's, WL would have made the spades. Woo Woo!! nice pot, got the flush out and made the max.....


My problem is: should I ignore my read if the hand plays out differently, I will always either 3-bet the flop or go for a raise on the turn in this situation, EXCEPT that in this spot I was convinced that there was a VERY GOOD chance that TA had a set. I think I might have only called down if a blank came on the turn(he still could have A-8 or 9-9 and be looking for info and I might make more if I just let him bet my hand) and river, does any suited card on the turn force me to try to raise out WL? If the turn had been a different spade and TA bets and I don't raise WL out, WL wins, but then I never DID have the best hand anyway, as it turned out.


So, results aside, DID I have a moment of weakness, would my probable play of this hand been disasterous if I don't hit the perfect turn (I'm flashin' back to my post "Should I have three-bet the turn?" flopped a set of tens for anyone who remembers or wants to look it up) and it comes running spades AND I'm not up against a set? Or, was my plan of action reasonable based on my read?


Thanks in advance for any replies,


Mike

I would have to reraise the flop; your betting so far doesn't have to mean you have anything better than AJs or KQs, so the kid isn't at all out of line to check raise you with almost any pair. Your read of a set has to be based more on some subtle intuition than anything else at this point, so you might as well reraise here and clarify the situation a little more. If he reraises back, or waits to check raise the turn, then you can maybe lay down and credit your intuition with saving you a bet or two, but I think you are giving him a little too much credit to fear a set right away.


On the turn, I don't think there is any need to raise out WL because of the flush draw -- first of all he should be unlikely to have picked up the flush draw, and second of all he shouldn't fold it if he did. Since you think you are behind anyway, there is no need to lose a lot more chips trying to chase out a draw that probably isn't there and shouldn't leave even if it was. I think you got lucky here that WL actually laid down his flush draw, I don't know any players that I consider loose who would do the same.


The poor kid probably felt like going right back to 10-20 after this hand.

I hope this doesn't seem too argumentative, I really do appreciate the input, but....

The reason I will sometimes raise the turn in this type of spot(excluding my "read") is primarily to blast WL off a draw( I suppose that I might have mentioned that he sometimes "shifts gears" to weak/tight [nice game this guy's got, huh? /images/wink.gif ]) or top pair and make TA pay more. You're right and most of the time I WILL 3-bet the flop but I think I got caught up in my "read" and the fact that I KNOW I'm gonna have a tough time layin' this hand down(see my response to your above post about "necessary evils") even if I get more evidence that I'm beat by TA. NOW who's weak/loose /images/smile.gif ? You're right again, WL was wrong to fold, I realize that's part of how lucky I was in this hand.

BTW, the "poor kid"(a friend of mine) isn't so poor and he'll be alright as long as he doesn't get out of line (which he has a propensity to do); he WAS pretty upset about paying me off, but I probably would have done the same (again, see "necessary evils"), there was a microscopic chance that I was making this play w/ A-K.


Thanks again,


Mike

Mike-


Interesting hand. I see your point. TA is the type of player who would be more likely to bet out to protect his pair of eights, than to check/raise. There's also no draws out there that he'd want to build value on, so you put him on a set.


Still, I'd almost always 3-bet the flop. You almost can't lay down and the combination of 1). Getting rid of WL, 2). The fact you may still have the best hand, and 3). If not, possibly finding out for sure, all make it worth the extra bet (or two) on the flop. WL might drop for 3 bets (although I realize this might not be important if TA indeed has a set). But your 3-betting the flop might cause TA to go for a check/raise on the turn, which you now avoid (I think you could check the turn with KK (if a king doesn't come) with only an ace to worry about as an overcard. QQ,JJ,TT are much more dangerous checks.


You wouldn't have made as much this way, but you'd lose a little less when you don't spike the king. You also save yourself the pot if L1 continues (as he probably should have) when he picks up his backdoor flush draw. I think the key to this hand is that you can't lay it down, so you should play in a manner which is most cost efficient. I hope I'm not being results oriented. Just my opinion.

Kevin,


Wow, three-bet the flop AND check the turn to avoid the check-raise....you know, on one hand, I remember thinking that if TA(and no, it wasn't Eric, if that's what you were thinking) checked the turn, that I MIGHT just have checked behind him, that's how fishy this hand seemed to me. I don't know if he would have gone for the check-raise on the turn if he didn't think that the K didn't hit my likely A-K(after all, I did only call his raise on the flop), by the same token he might have given me the turn for free so that I could make a pair on the river(which HE maybe shouldn't do because of the "flush draw"). On the other hand, playing a hand like this one that way would almost never occur to me...I can take a free-card/induce a bluff with alot of hands: over-pair w/ flush draw(if I think I'm up against a flush), set(if I think I'm up against a straight or flush), top pair/marginal kicker w/ some other draw....but I don't know if I'll ever be THAT confident in my reads to play a hand like this that way, not that it's not an interesting idea. Thing is, so many players do so many silly things, most of the time, I think, you have to play certain hands in a pretty standard way. I keep thinkin' of the adage: when in doubt, bet without outs, check with outs--in other words don't give a free card when you might have the best AND a check-raise will confirm that you're beat; but, check to protect against possible check-raise if you're beat AND have outs AND potentially induce a bluff. While my two outs are better than none(obviously), in this situation, I was awfully close to no outs (if I was beat, which it turned out I had been) and probably should have played accordingly.


So am I good enough to three-bet the flop for a free turn with an overpair and no other draws? Gosh, I kinda don't think so. Though I used to be "good enough" to make this play with an over-card to my pocket-pair(people, even decent players, make this play far too often if you ask me).


I appreciate yours and others' thoughts on any of this, thanks,


Mike

I haven't read anybody's posts yet but this is my take on it. I'll read there's after. If your almost positive he has a set you can consider folding to the check raise. But you have to be really sure. I don't like to make these big laydowns without at least getting some more info. So i would rerasie the flop or call and raise the turn no matter what. If he reraises the turn he has to have the set and you can safely muck. This is only with this type of player. If i'm against a very aggressive guy that might reraise the turn without having kings beat then i would play it like you were going to originally. This way you are protecting your hand on the turn if its good and losing the same amount as you would if you just called down the turn and river.

"Flop: 8-4-2 rainbow---checked to me, I bet WL calls, TA check-raises--"


At this point I'd be entirely focused on figuring out if he has a set OR any pocket pair. Lots of guys would check-raise ANY pocket pair here in order to 1) figure out if the preflop raiser has a bigger pocket pair 2) figure out if the preflop raiser came in with two big cards 3) be able to get off the hand if the raiser pairs on the turn 4) show enough strength so that the raiser will lay down on the turn with no pair 5) other stuff too.


The only way I could be sure he had a set would be to show some more strength and meet strong resistence. This could be done by reraising the flop and then getting check-raised on the turn, or by smooth-calling the check-raise on the flop, raising him on the turn, and getting reraised on the turn.


Until one of those scenarios unfolds, I wouldn't be able to lay down, unless player profiling made me certain that the opponent would merely check-call-down with, say, 9-9, and that'd be a rare player indeed.


Tommy

Mike-


I am also more inclined to bet hands which if beat, have little to no outs while checking hands with outs. The question is, can you lay down this overpair for a simple check/raise on the flop? I'm no math expert, but I'd think you'd have to be close to 100% certain of your read. Can we agree that it's almost impossible to lay down for one more lousy bet on the flop?


Could you (or were you planning to), fold your overpair for another bet on the turn? You should probably still call here enough times even when you think you're beat. I would think to do otherwise, makes it corret for opponents to start check/raising you with all kinds of hands. Maybe that's a good thing that you can take advantage of... I don't know. I prefer to have people play predictably against me when possible. So now that you've called the turn some of the time, were you going to balance it out on the river by both calling and folding X percent of the time depending on the strength of your read? I think this would certainly be one reasonable way to play the hand. Is this what you had in mind?


The reason I like a 3-bet on the flop is that after being called and check/raised, you know that your hand is at the very least vulnerable if not already beat. I'd want to encourage the third player out of the hand, while still refining my read on the other guy (unless I KNEW he had me beat and I couldn't get a cheaper turn card). Like I said before, my games are much easier than yours. By 3-betting I could encourage many players who did have a big hand, to go for a check/raise on the turn. They're simple-minded like that. With AA or KK I'd avoid the trap. With JJ or less, they probably get me and I'd have to make a decision. With QQ, I might be more inclined to just call the flop check/raise and pop the turn if I felt I could fold to 3 bets. It would depend... and I think I'm starting to ramble now, so I'll stop.


My main point was that even though you strongly suspect you're beat, you have a very difficult laydown. You might still be best. You might need a free card. You might want the third player out. If you can manipulate your opponent into checking the turn, you can show the hand down for one more bet. btw- I'd always call the river, and almost always bet if checked to (assuming a typical player).

I didn't mean to give the impression that checking the turn is a standard play for me. I do think there's a breed of player who if they 4-bet, gives you a pretty safe fold. There's also the type who would almost always try for a check/raise (with a monster) after being 3-bet. Against others, I think betting the turn is best and even routine.

Kevin,


No way could I fold for the third bet on the flop, agreed. Or if he just bets out the turn ,if it's a blank, when I don't improve, this ain't pot limit. Almost no way I'm gonna check the turn, ever, with an over-pair w/ no redraw in this position, though, as I said, I think I remember considering it. Yes, I can lay-down the hand sometimes when check-raised on the turn (and definately if three-bet when I raise)but I don't like it. I'm probably likely to call more often than I should on the river if I call a check-raise on the turn, though I have no idea of the proper frequency of either, given my early "read." That's why I was prepared to just let him keep betting what was hopefully a worse hand or lose the minimum when I'm beat, while not depriving myself of my two whole outs(though I realize this is even more dangerous with a third player in the hand). Wow, this is getting convoluted, I'm starting to think I should quit playin', THEY WISH /images/wink.gif .


My turn to shut up,


Mike

"On the turn, I don't think there is any need to raise out WL because of the flush draw -- first of all he should be unlikely to have picked up the flush draw, and second of all he shouldn't fold it if he did. Since you think you are behind anyway, there is no need to lose a lot more chips trying to chase out a draw that probably isn't there and shouldn't leave even"


There is a reason to charge the drawing hand (maybe flush draw, maybe not). It has positive expectation and even tho' WL is correct to call, you are making his odds worse. It's not chasing out, it's charging him or getting to make a mistake by folding.

Tommy,


I ordinarily would play the hand exactly as you suggested. I guess that I'm not used to making such an accurate(as it turned out) read of this type, with so little information, this early in the course of a hand. I obviously didn't know what to do with it once I had it. I keep thinking that the small bet I save on the flop somehow offsets depriving myself the two outs on the river, but I'm VERY tired right now, and the math I've done right now(even in the best case scenario, that is including a call from one of the blinds preflop and WL going along for the full ride)shows that I'm losing money by not playing the hand as we both normally would when the guy has a set. I just got caught up in the situation of not wanting to muck the Kings and not wanting to do what I needed to do to find out if I SHOULD muck the Kings AND have it cost me only twenty dollars less than it would cost me to know for sure and keep the two outs. I can't figure out right now what that's worth in the long run, I'd guess somewhere between $10-$15, but whatever it is, next time I'll try to keep it in my stack.


Like I said I'm exhausted, and rereading this post wasn't even easy for me, hope I made some sense. Thanks again,


Mike

Great point.

The real question is, is it worth it to charge WL for drawing when you think you might be behind? On the turn, there are 15.5 small bets (7.7BB) in the pot after the kid bets out the turn (assuming the blinds folded preflop), so let's look at a few scenarios:


You call down and were losing to a set (the only way you can win is to spike the nonspade king):

EV = 1/44(+11.7BB - 2BB) + 43/44(-2BB) = -1.73BB


You call down and were winning (assume kid had 1 nonspade out with a pocket pair and WL folds if he misses the flush):

EV = 34/44(+11.7BB - 2BB) + 10/44(-2BB) = +7.04BB


You raise and were losing to a set (assume kid reraises with his set, and then you call down (of course, you raise the river if you make the nonspade king), and WL folds if he misses the flush):

EV = 1/44(+19.7BB - 5BB) + 43/44(-4BB) = -3.58BB


You raise and are winning (assume kid had 1 nonspade out with a pocket pair, and WL folds if he misses the flush):

EV = 34/44(+14.7BB - 3BB) + 10/44(-3BB) = +8.34BB


So, if you are ahead you win an extra 1.3BB by raising instead of calling down. On the other hand, if you are behind the raise costs you an extra 1.85BB. So the question is how certain should you be that you are ahead before making this raise? We can answer this by assuming the probability you are ahead is X (making the probability he is losing 1-X), and then solving for when the EV is > 0.


So, what we want is:

X(+1.3BB) + (1-X)(-1.85BB) > 0


Which leads to:

X > 0.587


So, you should be almost 60% sure that you are winning in order to make this raise profitable. There is of course some noise in this calculation as you can't perfectly predict your opponent's betting, and the kid could have substantially more than 1 out with something like 89s. But this figure should be somewhere in the right ballpark, regardless.


Anyway, the main point of all this EV stuff was to show that Mike shouldn't raise to charge the flush draw unless he thinks there is a good chance that he is winning. In this scenario (the turn is a nonking spade instead of the Ks), Mike seemed to think he was losing with some certainty, so the raise is definitely not the way to go.

" .. (making the probability he is losing 1-X), .. "


Of course I mean that 1-X is the probability that you are losing.

Coilean,


Thanks for doin' all the math, I'M very impressed. It's pretty unlikely that I would have gotten all that right.

You're right, normally I would have been more than 60% sure that I was ahead, were it not for my "read."


I'm just curious, and obviously you don't have to do it unless you're super-motivated, but what about Tommy's suggestion below, about three-betting the flop (which is how I would most often play) and facing a checkraise on the turn as opposed to really just calling down after the flop.


I absolutely don't expect you to do this, but like I said, if you're really super-motivated....


Either way, thank you very much for all of the input,


Mike