$15-$30 Hand

I am in the cutoff seat with the Kd-Tc. It is folded to me and I open with a raise. I normally dump this piece of cheese but I think it is a good stealing hand. The button and the small blind both fold. The big blind, a solid pro, 3-bets. I call. There is $100 in the pot and two players.


The flop is: Ks-4d-4c


The big blind bets. Rather than raise, I decide to just call. If my opponent was 3-betting preflop with QQ, JJ, TT, 99, 88, 77, AJ,AQ,AT,or some other hand without a king or a four then he has very little chance of beating me and I want him to keep betting my hand for me. If my opponent has AA,KK, AK, KQ, or KJ then I minimize my loss by calling rather than raising. There is $130 in the pot.


The turn is: 2h


My opponent bets. I call. There is $190 in the pot.


The river is: Ac


My opponent bets. I call. My opponent wins with the As-Jc for a pair of aces at the river beating my kings.


Obviously, I would have been better off raising the flop bet which is what I normally do. Despite the poor result, how bad was my play here?

i think raising the turn here and then checking behind on the river is the best play in this case. if he 3 bets you on the turn you can fold with ease and unless he has a monster or improves on the river he will check to you on the river, sometimes with better hands then yours like KQ.


youve got to put in a raise with top pair/lame kicker at some point heads up/steal situation, although the flop is probably not the place to do it if you are looking to get reliable info from your opponent.

I think that this is the kind of situation where you want to let the other player know just where you stand from the beginning. I would raise the flop and bet the turn if checked to you. Any reraise could allow you to throw it in. You let your opponent take control of the action, when in fact you had the best hand and position.

Jim-


Having any misgivings about not raising the flop because your opponent went on to spike a 3 outer, is being result orientated IMO- Given the pot size, I think you want AJ to put in a bet on the turn, which he did. Mission accomplished. Well played on your part.


On the river, you have to call his last bet often enough (IMHO), so that he can't steam a hand like QJs through you every time. I don't think you should always call the last bet however, and this is probably another one of those "it depends", situations which are so prevelant in poker.

"youve got to put in a raise with top pair/lame kicker at some point heads up/steal situation," ...


I'm not so sure I agree with this. Jim is either way ahead or way behind. Why does he HAVE to put in a raise? There were by my count 5 bets in the pot on the turn. Not enough to be worried about his opponent catching 3 or less outs (with a king/worse kicker or a hand like AJ or TT, etc.) And those times when he is beat, he loses less $$.


Also, Jim is now in a position make another bet on the river when his opponent does not improve. Either by calling a coninued bluff, or possibly even getting paid by ace-high after his opponent checks and Jim bets.

The key to this hand is that there were no likely draws on this board. Also, with a pair of kings, there is only the ace to worry about as an overcard falling.

Jim,


I will sometimes play this hand exactly the way you did. I don't

want my play to be totally predictable. On the flop you are either in great shape or bad shape. An aggressive player may

play back at you if you raise the flop and you still won't know

where you are in the hand. Sometimes I will raise on the turn

and sometimes I won't. I really don't think it makes that much of a difference. Had the Ace not gotten there on the river you

would have probably won one more big bet. It's real easy to

become results oriented, your opponent did after all hit a three

outer. The more deceptive in general you play your hand the bigger a pot you will win, but you will also lose more often when

they do get there. It's a balancing act, but I see nothing wrong

with your play. Your opponent lead the flop and turn against a

tight player with Ace high. How smart can that be? What did he

think you had when you called the flop?


Now if I had a hand like pocket Eights with this board than

I clearly think it is correct to play more aggressively either

raising on the flop or better yet on the turn and trying to

make your opponent lay his hand down. In this situation you have

to assume your opponent may have a bigger pocket pair or he is drawing to six outs.


Bruce

Like Bruce I will sometimes play the hand as you did, and sometimes raise on the flop or turn.


The key is to realize that even against a "solid pro" your hand is vey likely to be best in this steal situation. If your opponent is very weak tight or rockish, the three bet can scare, but otherwise, assume you are best. For this reason, I think raising the turn is the baseline best play for this hand. In steal situations you really need to randomize your play, so sometimes you just call and sometimes you raise earlier.


In response to Kevin J., who is in favor of generally just calling, I would say two things. First, he seems to think that the many possible 2 or 3 out hands will usually fold if you raise on the turn. In these steal situations, opponents will often still call with AJ or QQ. In addition to a king you could sometimes raise here with a lower pocket pair (again mixing up your play), and your opponents will know this. Thus you make a lot more money from these hands if they call the turn and again on the river. If you think you actually may be behind, you can check the river and it costs you the same amount as calling down.

You never really gave the BB any chance to lay down his hand...yeah he could ck'n fold the flop or turn but he is a pro who nore than likely knows you and he is moving on you after you moved on him.


Give him a chance to drop with a rz on the turn. On the flop he has to play back at you if you rz since he has 2 cards to come and you are good enough to swing with a mid pp or lesser holding. Rz'n the turn says you are willing to sling more than the normal amount of chips therefore he can feel good about folding.


Really a 3 outer isn't what he is thinking either..he figures you for mid pp or less so if he hits an A or J he might be good.


As for letting him bluff the rvr I think that will be rare if he doesn't hit his card since he swung twice and you were there for both...he will ck/f or maybe ck/cl if you are a great actor /images/smile.gif

Just my 2 cents + interest worth,

Lance

Suppose you knew that he had AsJc, wouldn't you want him bluffing when he only has three outs? Furthermore, if he had something like two queens you have him bluffing when he has two outs. On the other hand, if he has a hand better than yours you don't want to put in extra money.


This is simple straight forward reasoning. The idea that you have position and therefore are suppose to be raising when you like the flop is just plain wrong.

"I think that this is the kind of situation where you want to let the other player know just where you stand from the beginning. I would raise the flop"


no. heads up possible steal cutoff raise vs 3 betting preflop blind you are looking at two players who are fired up and ready to outplay the other for that little pot. it becomes an ego thing. raising here on the flop means nothing and the bb is likely to 3 bet it with his ace high and then bet the turn. so raising the flop will gain nothing, except possibly run hero off his hand.

"I'm not so sure I agree with this. Jim is either way ahead or way behind. Why does he HAVE to put in a raise? There were by my count 5 bets in the pot on the turn. Not enough to be worried about his opponent catching 3 or less outs (with a king/worse kicker or a hand like AJ or TT, etc.) And those times when he is beat, he loses less $$."


there's more to be gained here by raising the turn then just keeping the bb from catching his 3 (or possibly more) outs. a turn raise here also might kick bb off an equal or better hand (KT, KJ). it shows that hero will play strong in these heads up steal scenarios on future hands and if you try to push him off his steal you will have to pay multiple bets to see him down.


plus that raise on the turn is the last money jim puts into the pot: if he is reraised or bet into on the river (without improvement) he folds. he checks behind on the river.


i think this is the strongest line of play in this particular case.

(n/t)

Jim, sorry he got there on the river, but Mason appears to like how you played the hand, mucho consolation there!


In the unlikely event of your opponent checking to you on the turn, I'm assuming you were going to bet (please correct me if I'm wrong), what was the plan if you were then check-raised?


Once two solid pro's pay 3-bets preflop (heads-up)and then get thru the flop action, I'm assuming this hand is going to the showdown. Would you agree that is the normal conclusion to this hand? (unless one of you has really gotten out of line with total trash hand)


ps.Do you think Bob C. would have put in a raise here somewhere?(postflop) Congrats on your collaboration by the way.


pps.Is it maybe better to try and steal when your opponents behind are not so tough, or did you just think this was a good spot anyways.


hillbilly- I guess that enough questions for now (heh)

Mike 1.-


(With all due respect) C'mon! You don't really think the bb is going to fold top pair here do you? Jim described him as a solid pro. No solid pro worth his salt, is gonna to throw away a better hand here- heads-up- against a potential steal raise.


I'd like the turn raise more if Jim had TT, 99, or even AQ. But with a decent chance of him having the best hand (and if so, leaving his opponent with few outs), I still don't see any compelling reason for him to raise.


I do agree with you about defining play/image for the sake of future hands. But this can be accomplished by raising the turn in other spots (like TT, 99) as I suggested.

"plus that raise on the turn is the last money jim puts into the pot: if he is reraised or bet into on the river (without improvement) he folds. he checks behind on the river."


Perhaps what's more important is that if Jim raises the turn, he lets his opponent fold a hand which is drawing thin. By calling, he likely makes an extra bet.

This comment might not apply to this particular opponent but the best reason for raising on this flop is to "tie him on": to force him to decide early about whether to continue with an ace or underpair that is possibly the best hand, which can mean tying them on for one or two big bets, or whether to show weakness in the face of a small-threat flop. In other words, by raising the flop you're encouraging them to flee from an apparent folding error, small though mildly humiliating, into a much bigger one of calling or 3-betting with a dominated hand. It also increase the chance of you getting 6 bets after the flop where you'll only get 3 if you just call (unless you end up losing). I don't think the change of you being beaten on the flop enters into it much. Against weak-stubborn, tenacious or suspicious opponents I think the raise is much better, maybe depending what he's seen from you.

If my opponent checks, I am betting. If I get check-raised, I will be in quandary, but against this particular player, I would fold. However, it would be very unusual for him to play the hand this way based on what I have observed. Normally, I would expect him to fold on fourth if he checks and I bet. If he check-calls, then I would probably not bet the river but just show down my hand since I don't believe a worse hand will call or a better hand will fold.

Chris:


I like your explanation because it really does depend on your opponents. Kiddos.


Dugie

Kevin,


Try looking at it from the BB's perspective.


"If I 3-bet when this guy steals preflop with any reasonable holding, then follow with bets on the flop and turn, only good things can happen. I win every time the flop misses him (60% or greater), I win some of the time when he has a piece but my piece is better, and when I lose, I lose the minimum because he never raises me. In fact, I can get a free showdown against all but his very strongest hands by following this line of action."


I think that checking the flop is fine as long as Jim raises the turn, for all of Mike's reasons. You have to make this move with top pair crappy kicker as well as with 10s, 9s, etc. Otherwise the BB will KNOW that you only make moves with less than top pair and will play back at you. It won't take much observation for the BB to catch on to the call to induce a bluff with a mediocre hand strategy. Mixing up the play is key, but while raising the flop, raising the turn, and calling down are all viable, I think that raising the turn should be the "standard" play in this situation.


Besides, there is *nothing* wrong with taking it down on the turn. Also consider that by raising the turn with the goods, your raises on K high boards with 10s and 9s will give your opponents fits when they have Qs and Js or some equivalent.

I never meant to imply that raising the turn is a bad play, but on a couple of your points....


"I win every time the flop misses him (60% or greater),"...


This isn't true, at least not against me it isn't. I don't have to necessarily hit a flop to give you some play. I only have to believe I may have the best hand or I can get you to fold a better one, either now or on a later street.


"I win some of the time when he has a piece but my piece is better,"...


True, but why wouldn't this apply equally to both of you?


"and when I lose, I lose the minimum because he never raises me."


This is not true. You'd lose the minimum if Jim were to have raised at some point and let you off the hook so you could fold your 3-outer, but as it is, you are losing the maximum by continuing to bet HIS hand with your nearly hopeless hand.


"In fact, I can get a free showdown against all but his very strongest hands by following this line of action."


Ahh, but you don't get a free show down. At least not in this hand. When you check your AJ bust, Jim will surely bet. You're gonna have to call at least some of the time assuming Jim bluffs with proper frequency.


"Otherwise the BB will KNOW that you only make moves with less than top pair and will play back at you."


But I don't only raise with less than top pair. I also raise with monsters, near monsters and monster look-alikes. Play back at me? If you insist... /images/smile.gif


"It won't take much observation for the BB to catch on to the call to induce a bluff with a mediocre hand strategy."


Actually, calling (or raising) can have the effect of stopping a bluff, whereas checking is more likely to induce one. In this case, you're right. But you sometimes have to call for other reasons than inducing a bluff, so I don't see how this helps the BB.


"Besides, there is *nothing* wrong with taking it down on the turn. Also consider that by raising the turn with the goods, your raises on K high boards with 10s and 9s will give your opponents fits when they have Qs and Js or some equivalent."


Again, I'm not saying that raising the turn is a bad play. I'm not even saying it shouldn't be a common play. All I'm saying is that we should all think about other ways in which a hand might be played. If not, we are likely losing profit somewhere. Good luck.

Fair enough. My general response is really targeted at what I perceive as a very non aggressive trend on this board. Many posts on this board are simply so passive that I feel the BB would be making a correct play regardless of his holding, and simply happened to run into a rare situation where the flop nailed his opponent.


I think we agree that as long as calling is part of a strategy that also includes raising some reasonable % of the time, then it is completely viable.

Jim,


Great thread. I miss the forum when I'm busy and feel guilty that I'm missing something important.


I like the way you played for the reasons most of the others mention. But against a somewhat skillful regular opponent who will make adjustments to this pattern I believe you have to mix it up with a raise some of the time. But if it is close to the "first or last hand you play" against this opponent or group of opponents your play is best and mixing it up loses value.


Regards,


Rick


PS I started a now worn out Civil War book thread for my Christmas list on the "Other Topics" forum. If I'm not mistaken, you have a lot of knowledge. Do you have any favorite Civil War books to recommend?

"Normally, I would expect him to fold on fourth if he checks and I bet."


Will he bluff the river or checkcall the river if you check back on the turn? If so, consideration should be given to sometimes checking the turn with your pair of Kings (i.e. because giving free cards is not that big a concern when you have a pair of Kings and are up against just one opponent). But I agree that generally, you should just bet and take the pot.


"If he check-calls, then I would probably not bet the river but just show down my hand since I don't believe a worse hand will call or a better hand will fold."


If you bet the turn and he calls, I think that you should bet again on the river just about every time an Ace doesn't come off (and sometimes even when an Ace comes off). Your preflop raise was from a steal position. I simply cannot believe that your opponent will not call with a worse hand on the river. Many times, he will call with any pair and sometimes he will even call with Ace high. If he can be counted on to fold a pair on the river when you bet your pair of Kings, you should be able to rob him blind on all other hands when you don't have anything. Just bet and he will fold.

The problem is that this player 3-bet preflop and then led at me on the flop with me calling. In this sequence, I don't think he would check-call on fourth with a hand that could not beat kings-up. Of course, this all depends upon the particular player and your image with him and their image with you and so forth.