A Poor Read

20-40 HE. I was not involved in this hand, but I think my poker

acquaintenance blew this big time, but he vehemently disagrees with me. A live one limps and my pal raises with pocket Kings.

The small blind calls and the limper reraises. My friend calls.


The flop comes 7h 8h 5c. Check, check, bet, call, call.


The board on fourth street is 5c 7h 8h 9c. Check, check, bet,

call, raise, fold (my friend), call.


A two of spades comes on the river. AQc (limp reraiser) beats

ATo. My friend folded the best hand on the turn.


My friend says the live one is capable of having anything in

this situation. He could have pocket Aces or any hand with

a Six and the small blind very well may have a straight, two

pair, or a big draw. My take was that the small blind had a draw

because all he did was check and call the whole time so it's

difficult to put him on a big hand. As far as the live one, well

yes he's a live one, but they also have some degree of predictability. I would interpret his limp reraise as a big

pocket pair or Ace big suited. Even live ones don't limp reraise

with pocket Sixes or K6s. My friend should have recognized this.

My friend also should have been aware that the board on the turn

had two flush draws plus multiple straight draws and the live one

very well might make a play at the pot especially if he was factoring in that my friend was a tight ass and was capable

of laying a hand down.


What does everyone think?


Bruce

I agree. Your friend was not challenged on the flop, so a bluff is definitely possible on the turn. Since he did not reraise pre-flop, the winner of the pot would probably put him on AK or AQ figuring to win the pot with a check raise on the turn if a blank hits. The fact that any 6 makes a straight helps his bluff.


I assume the river was checked down since the A-10 probably would not call a bet and maybe vice-versa?

Check, check on the river, precisely.

If your friend feels like he has to fold for a check raise on the turn, he should probably check the turn and call on the river. I agree with you though, that the live one is likely to be pulling a move with so many draws available on a scary board, and that he shouldn't be limp reraising many hands with a 6 in them. And the SB should have been the one to check raise the turn if he had already made a straight.

I would refuse to believe that the limp-reraiser had a 6. Pocket 9s I might believe. I'd take my kings and reraise the turn and if he showed me a 6, I'd inwardly laugh, knowing that my lost bets would eventually be coming back with interest.

Well the guy can't be a total live one since he made move on 4th street that won him the pot. Once your friend bets he pretty much has to fold to a raise against the majority of players.

When your friend was facing his first decision on the turn,

he was telling himself that if he gets raised he is just

going to lay the hand down.


This is a fine play if your against weak straight forward

opponents.


A very common characteristic of over-agrressive opp's is

to semi-bluff very often. (By the way , Im not so sure how live this opp was. He played his hand very well against the

circumstances you described)


Against more aggressive opp's you don't want to bet with

the intention of folding as often. Either check and hope

to induce a bluff on the river (usually hu). Or bet with

the intention that based on past plays of your opp, you

don't necessarily mind a raise and will just call him down.


I suppose with the extra SB calling all the way, your opp

felt as though his hand was more protected from a bluff,

and he didn't want to give a free card.


It's hard to put him on a 6, but it's also hard to blame

your friend if that was the first time the opp did this

to him. Sometimes you lay down the best hand. That's poker.


With a 4 str on board, the risk of being check-raised by

2 players, a million draws on the board (someone could have had a str flush draw), and facing an ultra-aggressive opp, maybe your friend should have just checked. Then bet the river for value.


Its really a tough call in my book (Advanced Holdem for CreamPuffs). Its a good sized pot for 3 players, you know your up against at least 3 Aces, 4 str cards that will let your opp's split the pot with you (or in this case take the whole thing),possible flush draws, possibly beaten already, possibly

can get bluffed out.


So my final choice is that he should have checked the turn,

with the intention that he was balancing his strategy and

showing his opp's he is not always going to be vulenerable to a

check-raise. If he bets the river for value (not sure he would get paid off here) all is not lost.

The only time you would bet and fold in this situation is if you knew with a great degree of ccertainty that the checkraiser has got you beat. If you think that you can't have that certainty, then you should check or bet/call raise. Here, given that the sb did not checkraise (he is more likely to hold a 6), I would certainly call the live one's raise. I may have folded to the sb's checkraise.


Also, the live one's play on the flop is not consistent with him holding a 6. How could he possibly just checkcall the flop after having 3 bet preflop if he has a 6? Surely, he would continue to represent real strength on the flop when he has a hand that ain't much yet but could turn out to be something. I mean, no live one with a 6 is going to play the flop passively after having limp reraised preflop.

I know this sounds crazy but I might have reraised on the turn. The main thing I'd be wondering is, would the small blind merely call my turn bet with a hand that beats me, and would the live one slowplay AA on the flop? Those are player dependent things of course, so let's assume the answers and no and no.


Next question is, am I going to call the river if I call the turn? Answer, yes. So this becomes a classic case of raise the turn and maybe check the river, except that it happens to already be two-bets on the turn. The existence of the small blind in the hand, with, as we presumed, a hand less than KK, and the likelihood that the SB has outs that are probably sufficient to call one bet at a time, but not two cold on the turn, all lend favor to reraising the turn. Another bonus is that I am drawing dead to a straight, so let's say I three-bet the turn, the SB mucks, and the live one makes it four bets. If I can be sure enough that he has a straight to fold, then I'm out three BB's, just like calling him down, except that I blasted out the SB, and put the live one to a test when he doesn't have a straight.


Some of the best three bets on the turn are made with hands that are drawing dead. Not sure if this hand qualifies, but it's something to consider.


Tommy

I think that it makes more sense to just call the turn because if a flush comes on the river and the caller bets you can probably muck it.


Shawn

Excellent points. Three betting the turn in this situation makes

a lot of sense. I can't put the limp raiser on a Six. The player who I am worried about is the small blind. He certainly

is drawing to beat me and trying to blast him out makes a lot

of sense. I would doubt at this point that he has a made hand based on his passive play. The funny thing is the small blind

would have never folded in this spot. Forget about pot odds and how many bets he may have to put in. That's just the way he plays and why he is such a nice opponent. I think this hand illustrates how important reading hands is. Secondly I think the live one played this hand like a champion. Trust me, this player

is live and real live, even though he played this hand skillfully. Live ones can on occasion play well and the live one was exploiting the tight predictable play of my friend. My friend plays way too tight. Yes, he beats the game but is not a big winner and he is pretty ABC and the live one was able to take

advantage of this and get him off the winning hand.


Bruce

"I think that it makes more sense to just call the turn because if a flush comes on the river and the caller bets you can probably muck it."


Let's say the cards are face up to be sure I understand. The small blind shows a flush draw on the turn. If he hits the river, you fold. On the turn, you can charge him one bet or two bets to draw. You'd charge him one bet? Really?


Tommy

Tommy mentions three-betting the turn. I did a three-bet on the turn recently with a hand I was pretty sure wasn't best: I had Ac8c in the BB, 3-4 callers, no raise. Flop comes A-rag-rag, one club. I bet and get two callers, including the SB. Turn comes another club, lower than an 8. I bet, two folds, SB check-raises me.


Now, not only am I committed to seeing a river card, but I'm probably committed to seeing a showdown, just for the size of the pot. But I've got at least nine outs, probably 12, and maybe a bunch more if he's got two pair without an ace (which I deem the most likely scenario). So I use Tommy's logic, and three-bet. He calls. That also clarifies my situation in that if he bets the river and I haven't improved, I can fold with a clear conscience.


Needless to say, a non-pairing club hit the river, he checked, called, and went moderately berzerk. They all thought I was a lunatic, which clearly has EV in its own right.


I don't know that I've ever made that play, but even without the river card I got, it felt really solid.


Regards, Lee