Lots of action: a hand-reading excercise.

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
if you lost to quad 2s then it's the poker gods getting back at you for raising 22 UTG at our 2+2 2/4 table back in March and flopping quads against JSD's AA [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hah, that was a great hand but, believe me, the poker gods have more than exacted their justice in the interim [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Did I really raise that one pre-flop? Come to think of it, I did, didn't I? By the way, that happened AFTER the 2+2 table, when we all sat down together and tore up that $2/$4 game (unless I flopped quad 2s twice that day and just don't remember it).

OK, here are the results:

I, surprisingly, had 99 for top set on the flop. The late position player, who came on strong on the flop but went into call-down mode on the turn, had 55 for the flopped second set. The under the gun player who passively absorbed a ton of action on the flop then went nuts on the turn had 22 for flopped bottom set, rivered quads.

What I think makes this hand interesting is not that the quad twos put in an appearance but rather which hand they showed up in. After the ferocious flop action, having UTG suddenly come to life on the turn was confusing. The turn seemed like a blank to me, yet this opponent who had called a zillion bets on the flop was suddenly becoming aggressive. Usually, I would put UTG on the flopped or turned nuts but 68 under the gun calling two cold twice on the flop seemed unlikely. Still, he played the turn like the nuts and I was close to being convinced.

When the river paired the deuce, I figured my hand was good. I was a little worried about the late position player because I didn't put him on a draw. The way he played, I thought he had a big hand but when he failed to bet out or reraise the river, I figured his big hand had to be 55 or an overpair. The last place I expected to see 22 was in UTG's hand. I just didn't give serious credit to the idea that anyone could believe they were "slow playing" 22 given the flop action and my obvious show of strength on the turn. If 22 were going to put in an appearance, I expected it to be in LP's hand.

This hand was noteworthy to me because it is rare that I am thrown so far off by a player's action. I try to keep an open mind about what my opponents might be holding, even when it seems unlikely, but in this case I almost completely dismissed the one holding that could beat me on the river. I'm just glad there is a cap because I would have put in a few more bets on that river if I had been given the chance.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I completely agree with that check. You can almost be sure someone will bet with that many limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my belief, as well.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
My guess is that lefty limped with 77, 55, 22 or 6c8c. Ac9c is out for me because of his raise on the turn together with your "straightforward not strong" read. I lean to 68c because that gives him more incentive (13 outs to a strong hand) to call the flop cold. That would explain him raising the turn with a made staight. I would have to ask myself if he's the type of player who'd limp with a hand like that from ep - or would he only limp with a small pair?

I also guess that your lp preflop raiser has a decent overpair that he is hoping will hold up. I don't put him on a flush draw because of his calling down on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your thinking is similar to mine. I was playing multiple tables so I didn't have a pinpoint on UTG's limping standards but I thought a pair was more likely than 68s/o.

SpaceAce

[x_Gamblor_x]

quack quack