Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

If you had the As, how does your thought process on the hand change? Does your hand get better because it has the backdoor flush, or worse because it reduces the likelihood of someone else going all-in with a flush draw?

I never played the $109s. How often do you see fishy chasers, i.e., will BB ever have As2s here? I assume QsJs or JsTs are possible... But how often will you see a call here from someone holding any two broadway spades? Or from crap like KTo?

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Wow. That's really not what I'm thinking. What's the range you used?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pairs, suited aces, suited broadway cards, and KQ. If you want to include a range of hands that would allow him to make two pair or a straight, then you will be ahead even more often if he is willing to call with a flush draw or only top pair occassionally.

There are really only 6 combinations with which he would check-call here and be ahead: TT,88, and 66. There are at least 18 hand combinations that he would have a good chance of check-calling that you beat.

Irieguy

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pairs, suited aces, suited broadway cards, and KQ. If you want to include a range of hands that would allow him to make two pair or a straight, then you will be ahead even more often if he is willing to call with a flush draw or only top pair occassionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. You gave him KQ as a *call* on this flop? That can't be right. Are you saying that you gave him a range of hands PF and then checked which of those you're ahead of on this flop? That works, but obviously your odds have to be greatly reduced because he called a big bet->all in sequence.

What happens if you give him this range?
AQ-AT and Ax [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
JT [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], J9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] etc. (two one gapper or connected spades from KQ down to 75)
AT, JT-T9 and J9o (giving him no credit at all)
TT, 88, 66, T8, 86
KK-JJ, 99

I think this is a much more realistic range, and you're definitely not 75% against it.

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Wait. You gave him KQ as a *call* on this flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you have to start with a preflop range of hands to be able to calculate what percentage of the time you will be ahead vs. his likely calling hands post flop. You have to give him all KQs preflop to be able to include a King-high flush draw + 2 overs as a potential calling hand post-flop. He won't always call with that hand postflop, but I weighted it for him to call 50% of the time.

Irieguy

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

Oh, okay. That makes more sense, but I'm still not sold on what he has to have to call this. That statement of you being ahead 75% is just not right in my experience.

Also, FWIW, I think T8/86 check the flop, too.

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Also, FWIW, I think T8/86 check the flop, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but you can't include those hands in your preflop cold-calling range can you? If you do, then there will be a host of other hands that may check-call post flop... so you'll still be ahead the lion's share of the time.

Irieguy

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

On the first few hands I can include a whole bunch of hands (yes, down to 86), but what I don't agree with are that he will call this exact sequence with most of them.

A fish/LAG/really really good player (as if) can call off 7% of their stack PF with a T8-ish or 97-ish or 86-ish hand, but they won't often call a bet->all in sequence with JT *diamonds* or J9o or even KT. A lot of that trash folds this flop.

I just don't see it.

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

The results of this hand are as follows:

I fold, because I am sure that at least one of them has me beat, and if not that I am a dog to win the pot. The pusher shows 88 for middle set, and the caller shows J9 offsuit for an open ended straight draw. So I was behind, and made a good laydown.

BTW, the turn was an Ace and the river was a duece, so I would have sucked out, but I still felt good about my laydown.

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

[ QUOTE ]

So I was behind, and made a good laydown.
laydown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your laydown was only as good as the *chance* that you were behind/ahead, not because you ended up behind or ahead. Saying your laydown was good b/c one of your opponents had a set is similar to saying that your laydown was bad because an A showed up on the board later on (it just doesn't sound as dumb).

From the analysis by posters much more experienced in higher buyins than myself, it seems like the decision is *quite* close and a pretty damn strong argument can be made for calling. Still, as the general consensus from strong players was to fold here, I'd take more solace in that than the fact you were shown a set after folding. So, yeah, your decision was solid but not necessarily for the reasons you seem to imply in your post.

Yugoslav

Re: Recent 109 hand that had me stumped.
 

I took solace in the fact that I made a read that I was behind or at best had a good chance of losing the pot, and folded, and that it seems as though this read was right.

I was not implying that it was a good laydown because I saw a set, I was implying that it was a good laydown because my read was right and people generally agreed that it wasn't a bad place to fold. I am definitely not the kind of player to look at results. Trust me, I wouldn't have cared if one of them showed AT and the other showed KT, and I would have won regardless, I still felt good about the fold.