the hand from hell

[2283]

Ultimate Bet No-Limit Hold'em, $.25 BB (10 handed)

MP2 ($10.40)
MP3 ($4.95)
CO ($14.35)
Button ($5.65)
SB ($21.35)
Hero ($15)
UTG ($18.90)
UTG+1 ($6)
UTG+2 ($76.50)
MP1 ($9.50)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls $0.25, MP1 folds, MP2 calls $0.25, MP3 calls $0.25, CO calls $0.25, Button folds, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: ($1.50) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(6 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero bets $1.5, UTG+2 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, CO calls $1.50, SB folds.

Turn: ($4.50) A/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, CO checks.

River: ($4.50) 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
Hero bets $3, CO goes all-in for $12.60. 2283
calls.

Final Pot: $28.70
<font color="green">Main Pot: $28.70, between CO and Hero.</font> &gt; <font color="white">Pot won by CO ($28.70).</font>

Results in white below: <font color="white">
Hero shows 9c Ad (full house, sixes full of aces).
CO shows 5h 6h (four of a kind, sixes).
Outcome: CO wins $28.70 </font>

[AJo Go All In]

well here's a question. why are you betting into 5 players out of position in a small pot with no hand?

[2283]

dont you mean "bluffing" 5 players? heh.

i bet because i figure pocket pairs reflexively raise to protect their boats from overcards and aces just call, as this is a tighter table for these stakes. then i see what the turn brings and decide whether to encourage any callers to fold. failed to plan for quads though.

[mistrpug]

I had a similar (but worse in my opinion) hand from hell. Live NL game, UTG with AA. I limp hoping to get it raised back to me. Instead, practically the whole table limps. Flop is KKK. I bet with the second nuts and get raised. Luckily the person with the 4th king has some bad tells and knew she did in fact have it. I was able to keep my loses there to a minimum luckily.

[Samiam888]

In a live game, I feel pretty comfortable with my full house. Online, damn near every time there's trips on the board, the quads are there....

Knowing that there was no raise before the flop, there's a pretty fair chance that the 6 was out there. You've got to move garbage hands out... That's what pre-flop raises are for!

--Samiam--

[2283]

[ QUOTE ]
there's a pretty fair chance that the 6 was out there

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont agree with this. people play some junk, but the odds that a 6 is being played, even limped in late position, with this board are really, really low. i would expect to see the quads maybe one time in 15-20 from someone not in the blinds.

[ QUOTE ]
You've got to move garbage hands out... That's what pre-flop raises are for!

[/ QUOTE ]

so i should start raising A9o from the BB to avoid this type of situation??

[Samiam888]

Again, LIVE, sure, expect it to be one time in 15-20. Online, though, it's a lot more frequent than that.

And this isn't even taking into account the dramatically higher incidence of trips on the board online...

Sounds like you are just stuck, though. You don't want to raise the A9o (which is reasonable,) but the dude with the 5h 6h played you like a Stradivarius -- he let you bet right into him. Prolly felt like XMas to him, especially when you called the all-in...

--Samiam--

[tubbyspencer]

I’m sure I’m being dense here – I have no reason to believe the converter isn’t working properly. But I can’t figure out the math here. It looks to me like there’s $20.10 in the pot, and our Hero has to put in $9.60 to call it.

He calls.

Why, therefore, is the pot on the end $28.70 instead of $29.70?

[2283]

i meant online.

i dont believe there is a higher incidence of trips on the board online than live. i think that's a misperception of yours brought on by the fact that you play many more hands/hr online than live. i believe that the shuffling online is as essentially random as shuffling real decks. they go to a lot of trouble to make the deals as random as possible.

[ QUOTE ]
but the dude with the 5h 6h played you like a Stradivarius

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont really see another way to for him to play it other than to give me time to hit something and go allin by the river.

when the only hands im losing to are pocket aces or a six, i have to call. for one thing, most flops fall with no players playing a six, even when six people see it. so when three of the four sixes in the deck are on the board, the probability that someone not playing from the blinds has the last six is very low.

[tewall]

People will play suited 56, 67, A6 with abandon, and there's also a chance 46, 68 and K6 will be played.

You're right that the probability is low someone will be dealt one of those hands in a given deal, but given the way the hand was played, it's not so unlikely that someone has a 6 on this particular deal.

Why did the guy call the flop, check behind on the turn, and then go all-in on the river? Because he was afraid of losing his victim and the river was his last chance to get paid off. He didn't want to show any strength. The pot is laying you slightly better than even money to call. I think in this sequence the guy probably is not bluffing, but it's a tough decision.

Betting the flop was O.K. It's a scary board, and as you point out, it's not likely someone was dealt a 6. Betting may take it down right there if no one has a PP or the 6, and you can thin out the crowd to increase the odds that your bare Ace will win.

One you pair on the turn you shouldn't bet again. No one with a worse hand will call you, and no one who's behind you can beat you, so there's no reason to protect your hand. So your turn check was good.

Similarly there's no reason to bet the river. You should expect to win in the neighborhood of 55 to 60% of the time you are called when you bet on the end. You have nowhere near that chance of winning if you are called.

Checking allows you to induce bluffs from worse hands, increasing your gain. If someone overbets the pot, it's easy for you to get away from your hand if you want.

So recapping, the play of the hand was fine except for the river, where the call was a bit quesitionable, but the major mistake was the bet.

[tewall]

I wasn't paying attention to the math at the end. I was assuming the all-in was making it close to even money, but it looks like you were getting much better odds than that, so your call decision may be right, but I would still expect to be shown a 6 many times with this betting sequence. Not many players would be good enough to play a bluff like this (they would have gone all-in sooner)

[2283]

[ QUOTE ]
You should expect to win in the neighborhood of 55 to 60% of the time you are called when you bet on the end. You have nowhere near that chance of winning if you are called.

[/ QUOTE ]

but this is a special situation. if he has quads he's going in with that ace out there whether i bet into him or not. if i'm only losing to AA limped in LP or a six, im calling looking for a split or a ridiculous bluff. i would call even if he went allin after my check because of the likelihood than an ace would bet just because he's ruled out the quads.

so i have nothing to lose by betting the only thing that can happen is we go allin. the only reason betting is wrong here, IMO, is that it could increase the rake if he only has a ace and calls when he would have checked.

[Daann]

I agree with tewall that the only problem was the river bet. Your line up to the river looks like someone who has a low PP and is afraid of the Ace, so give the man a chance to bet if he has nothing or a lower PP. A bet by you deny them that chance.

[2283]

but i think he would generally need at least an ace in his hand to call my bet on the flop, so i dont figure on him making it to the river with nothing.

a lower pocket pair will almost always raise the flop unless it is maybe QQ, KK, or AA, which are hands that are almost never limped in LP. if he has QQ or KK there is almost NO WAY he's going to bet the river after i check with the ace out there. if i have a lower pocket pair, i have to fold. if i have an ace, i raise. almost any semi-reasonable player will see this and check it through.

[tubbyspencer]

OK. I forgot the rake (in my earlier post) – lol.

Let’s see. On the question of whether or not you call his all in at the end, I think the answer is fairly straightforward. You’re risking $9.60 to win $19.10. That’s roughly 2 to 1, so you only have to be ahead 1 out of 3 times to break even. Considering that you may be tied some of the time (when he has Ax) you don’t even have to do this well. So the question becomes, what are the % chances he has you beat vs. he is tied with you vs. you have him beat?

He beats you w AA, 67, 56 all semi reasonable possible hands – but he probably would have reraised on the flop w AA.

He beats you with A6(I think a lot of people would play that here preflop – at these limits) and with K6 and any other garbage that has a 6 in it.

You tie when he has Ax (where x is NOT 6)

You win with any other hand he has. I think the only semi reasonable hand he could have here is a Pocket Pair lower than AA. If he has garbage with a 4 in it(4x that is), he may(unreasonably) think he has you beat.

Other than that, he is completely bluffing.

You lose $9.60 on the end when you lose; you gain $4.75 when you tie; and you win $19.10 when you win.

So if the chances he wins are as high as 50%, ties 25% and loses 25% - you come out with an EV of +$1.15 by calling him. Therefore – if you can accurately predict that he beats you 50% or less of the time here – the call on the end is correct. The fact that he probably would have raised with AA pre-flop, and that it is one of only 3 even semi reasonable hands he could be playing, I think goes towards the argument that there is less than a 50% chance he has you beat – and that therefore you should call.

I’m just starting to do these sorts of calculations, so if anyone wants to check my math, I’d appreciate it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Tubby

[tewall]

Good job tubby, but do you think someone with a hand that doesn't have a 6 would play it call, check, raise all-in? Do you think there's a 1 in 3 chance of that happening? It would take a very good player to play a bluff this way, and a person with a small pair than the Ace would just call the river bet.

[tewall]

OK you've argued that the guy doesn't have a PP, because with a high PP he would have raised pre-flop and with a low PP he would have raised on the flop. So if he doesn't have a PP, what does he have? He must have a hand with an Ace or a 6.

If you check, you can see what the guy does. If he goes all-in, then you could fold because you have at best a split. If he makes a smaller bet, you can look him up. If he checks behind, you split it.

Given the only two hands he can have are one that beats you and one that ties you, what does betting gain?

(BTW thanks for posting this hand. It's very interesting. I think in general the best way to play these types of hands, with a scary board where you have something, is passively).

[2283]

[ QUOTE ]
If you check, you can see what the guy does. If he goes all-in, then you could fold because you have at best a split. If he makes a smaller bet, you can look him up. If he checks behind, you split it.

[/ QUOTE ]

i can't fold here. even with the $4 pot on the river i have to call $12 more because he would bet with the ace so much more often than a six. if he has just an ace, he can check behind because he doubts he can push me out.

[ QUOTE ]
Given the only two hands he can have are one that beats you and one that ties you, what does betting gain?

[/ QUOTE ]

the thing is, the one that beats me is almost never going to be there. if three sixes are on the flop, the last six is almost always going to be either folded preflop or more likely not dealt at all. if it were 3 face cards, it's a totally different situation.

the bottom line is that quads will almost always go allin on the river and i will always call with an ace here. so once we get to the river with these hands only one thing can happen, so there's no point in worrying about quads. if i can call any bet at all on the river i have to have an ace, and if i have an ace i have to call $12. he almost has to go allin.

so i bet the river because if he has quads im allin anyway and if he doesn't have them i can't really lose the hand. but since he will almost never call with less than an ace, checking will occasionally save me in rake because another ace could check behind. also i suppose he might, for some strange reason, hope i will call a small amount with a pocket pair so he bets small, but i dont see that happening. so checking may be better in the long run, but i dont think there's a real big difference.

[tewall]

His having a 6 is more likely than you think.

It's true that originally it wasn't likely because there's only about 6 hands he could have, a suited 4, 5, 7, 8, K or A (and 4, 8, K are less likely) but the question isn't how likely he was to have that hand to begin with, but how likely he is to have it now that the betting has gone call, check behind, raise all-in. What hand other than a 6 will play that way? If the chances are better than 1 in 4 that he has the 6 in this situation, you should fold. It appears to me you think you'll only be shown a 6 1 in 15 or 20 times in this situation. You'll be shown that 6 much more often than that.

But let's say you're right about calling the last bet, that he's less likely than 1 in 4 to be holding a 6. Checking is still better. He doesn't know you'll call in all-in bet, so even if he's holding a 6 he may not bet all-in, so you save money whenever he doesn't go all-in. You also make money by checking whenever he decides to bluff a worse hand.

You're right that it's not a big deal here, but the principle is a big deal. It's important to know which situations are more profitable to play passively. When there's a scary board, and you have something, but not the nuts, playing passively is generally the best way to play. That's one principle this hand illustrates.

Another principle is that on the river, if your opponent won't call you with a worse hand and won't fold a better hand, then you should check.

When is a bet good? A bet is good when a worse hand will call you and a better hand will set you all-in anyway (and you're committed to calling that bet). A common scenario for this situation is when your remaining stack is very small in relation to the pot, so by betting you make a little more by not allowing your opponent to check behind you.

[bdk3clash]

No offense, but if this is really a "hand from hell" for you, you should probably quit playing poker.

[2283]

[ QUOTE ]
What hand other than a 6 will play that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

a hand with an ace figuring theres no way i would bet the flop with aces or a 6 therefore he is "raising with the nuts." or a hand thinking i cant call because i dont have an ace because i checked, i guess. i've already said i really doubt someone is bluffing.

[ QUOTE ]
If the chances are better than 1 in 4 that he has the 6 in this situation, you should fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i understand the mathematical fundamentals.

[ QUOTE ]
It appears to me you think you'll only be shown a 6 1 in 15 or 20 times in this situation. You'll be shown that 6 much more often than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i said 15 or 20 times 6 people see the flop of 666 and the player in question is NOT in the blinds. that's what i meant anyway, and i still think it's true. i understand that the odds of his having a certain hand change as the betting continues.

[ QUOTE ]
But let's say you're right about calling the last bet, that he's less likely than 1 in 4 to be holding a 6. Checking is still better. He doesn't know you'll call in all-in bet, so even if he's holding a 6 he may not bet all-in, so you save money whenever he doesn't go all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

what i said was "if i'm calling any bet at all i have an ace, so i'm calling his allin." i still think it's true that the vast majority of opponents will see this and go allin.

[ QUOTE ]
You also make money by checking whenever he decides to bluff a worse hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a pretty good point, but it seems really unlikely to me that that would happen. if he called on the flop, he almost certainly has some sort of a hand by now, and that being the case he would not feel compelled to represent the ace on a bluff, he would just show down whatever he had. i mean, if he has like pocket 8s and thinks i migh have pocket 9s-Js he might bluff, but this seems pretty remote.

but you are right, it may be a little better to check over a long term. i dont really expect to be in a situation quite like this again, though.

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that it's not a big deal here, but the principle is a big deal. It's important to know which situations are more profitable to play passively.

[/ QUOTE ]

well i understood the principle when i played the hand, the reason i didnt follow it is because it doesn't seem to apply.

[ QUOTE ]
When there's a scary board, and you have something, but not the nuts, playing passively is generally the best way to play. That's one principle this hand illustrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think this hand illustrates this because i dont think this hand could have possibly turned out any other way, but that's my opinion. if we'd been 100-150BBs deep i never would have bet the flop in the first place, and i would have thought about folding the river.

also, if it were, say, a 9 or 10 instead of a 6, that changes everything.

[ QUOTE ]
Another principle is that on the river, if your opponent won't call you with a worse hand and won't fold a better hand, then you should check.

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought there was a better chance that he would somehow call with a worse hand than there was he would bet with a worse one, that's why i bet myself. if he had a better one, i was screwed anyway because the ace gave him license to go allin.

now, if i check and he somehow bets less than my whole stack, obviously i just call.

[ QUOTE ]
When is a bet good? A bet is good when a worse hand will call you and a better hand will set you all-in anyway (and you're committed to calling that bet). A common scenario for this situation is when your remaining stack is very small in relation to the pot, so by betting you make a little more by not allowing your opponent to check behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for going to all this trouble to explain this, i dont want to sound like a douche, but i am somehow making 10.5 BB/100 in my little games by generally playing by the principles youre talking about.

i post hands where i think i screwed up but i defend my play so that someone can argue me out of it. i dont mean to be arrogant, i'm just more likely to change the way i play if someone can convince me to change rather than just tell me to change.

thanks

[2283]

i guess you didnt make the connection between satan and the flop of "666."

[bdk3clash]

Touche. I am an idiot.

[tewall]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought there was a better chance that he would somehow call with a worse hand than there was he would bet with a worse one, that's why i bet myself. if he had a better one, i was screwed anyway because the ace gave him license to go allin.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he has a PP, you really think he'll call an all-in bet?


[ QUOTE ]
i post hands where i think i screwed up but i defend my play so that someone can argue me out of it. i dont mean to be arrogant, i'm just more likely to change the way i play if someone can convince me to change rather than just tell me to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you think you screwed up? Where did I just tell you to change? I made an argument which was based on the following:

1) You said you thought your opponent had a 6 or an Ace
2) If that's the case, then you should check, because he'll for sure call your all-in, but he might not put you all-in, so you may save a bit.

Other people besides you read these posts, so if I explain a basic point please don't take offence.

[2283]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has a PP, you really think he'll call an all-in bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, of course not. why are you talking about me betting allin? i just bet $3.

it might be true that he's more likely to raise a bet allin than to just go ahead and go allin himself, but i think the difference in the two is very minimal with the ace out there. at any rate, if it's true then maybe it is better to check the river.

[tewall]

Sorry, I got confused about how the hand went. You're right that there's very little difference between betting $3 and just checking.

I'm still interested in how you thought you screwed up. It doesn't look to me like you did anything wrong (unless screwing up means losing the pot).

[2283]

well i mainly meant that generally i post hands where i screw up, and then try to defend my play as best i can. i think if i check the river over the long run maybe i make a few extra cents or something, also my hand may not have been strong enough to bet into that many people on the flop. the cards being what they were, though, i was just going to end up allin once we saw the turn. i was genuinely shocked when i saw the 6 so i wanted to see what people thought.

[Daann]

On this table, he could have easily make a bet on the river with a low PP thinking it was good and you would call with 22 or something.

However as you think he is a reasonable player:
[ QUOTE ]
a lower pocket pair will almost always raise the flop unless it is maybe QQ, KK, or AA, which are hands that are almost never limped in LP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right here, so I would discount all those hands. His worst hand then contains an A (if he hasn't decided to run a bluff). So your river bet gains nothing, apart from at best a split pot and at worst your stack.

[tewall]

I liked the flop bet because it could knock out some hands that might have paired up, so that your bare Ace could win. Your best way to make money on the river is probably to induce a bluff, so the question is whether a small bet or a check is more likely to do that. And as you point out, if somehow someone does have a small PP they might just call a small bet. So I've come around to your way of thinking except for the 6 showing up. I think given the action as you described it, you're often going to see the 6. I'd say that about scary boards in general. The scare card tends to freeze the action, so if someone lights up, there's a good chance he's got it.

BTW I don't know if this was mentioned somewhere along this thread, but betting the turn is something to consider. The idea would be to make it look like a bluff, as most people with an Ace wouldn't bet the turn when one came up, so someone with a PP might raise you thinking you're full of it.

[2283]

[ QUOTE ]
You are right here, so I would discount all those hands. His worst hand then contains an A (if he hasn't decided to run a bluff). So your river bet gains nothing, apart from at best a split pot and at worst your stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

we've been over this from all angles, i dont think the river bet makes much of a difference.