Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

Ok, 75-150 and this was a pretty interesting hand. I wasn't gonna post it, but the Blumper talked me into it. Good action game. Very loose player completes with an ace up (one ace dead). Folded to me with (Q,5) Q and I go ahead and hit it one more time. Guy next to act coldcalls 150 with a jack up (jacks are live). He is a decent player but is getting buried in this game and has gone in a number of times. He's got chips in front of him for this hand though. Anyway, folded back to the ace who reraises to 225. I curse myself and call, and the guy with the jack now caps. So I'm thinking he's rolled. Great. We both call.


4th Street

Villian A: (x,x) A 2

Hero: (Q,5) Q Q

Villian B: (x,x) J 9

Well, looky here, I caught my miracle card. I go ahead and bet 150 and both call.


5th Street

Villian A: (x,x) A 2 3

Hero: (Q,5) Q Q 7

Villian B: (x,x) J 9 10

I bet, both call.


6th Street

Villian A: (x,x) A 2 3 4

Hero: (Q,5) Q Q 7 2

Villian B: (x,x) J 9 10 Q

I could have used that queen. Arg, this is a tough spot with me opening the betting. But I bet 150. Both call.


Let's plan for the river. What is our plan if we improve? What about if we don't? Any other streets are up for grabs too (partic 6th). But on the river, if we boat, we bet I assume. What about if not?

This may or may not be interesting...

Jeff

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

If I bet 6th without much hesitation...I auto bet 7th w/o looking at my river card.

If I hesisitated on 6th, I hesitate, look at my card, and bet.

It will be hard for the A234 to raise you with a higher possible straight and you behind. You just have to hope you don't get raised by the 9TJQ. Anyway, if 9TJQ really did have rolled Jacks, which it sounds like he could have, you don't have to worry too much. Yeah he has lots of outs, but he might not raise hit straight outs...might.

I bet because I couldn't make the fold. I also think your "bet, raise, 2-back to you scenario might happen here"

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

I think you are giving away a lot of value if you do not bet 6th. Even if you do happen to be behind you have a lot of outs to improve.

I cant see myself folding this hand to a raise if I don't fill up so I would advocate check/calling if you don't improve.

If you do fill up then bet and hope to 3 bet.

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

It seems betting out UI is right. It'd be helpful to know some of the dead cards... any 8's or K's dead? But anyways, I think he's unlikely to raise even with J's full, since he will probably drive out the overcall and face a 3-bet if you have Q's full. But it depends on the opponent, I guess.

So, unless the opponent's style gives me a reason to do otherwise, I'd bet out without checking the river card.

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

I think you should bet the river because with such a big pot, people tend to play much more passively on the end. Also, the fact that you are betting into 2 scary boards will make your opponents think you are full. If you check it then they will certainly bet a straight and you have to call. But if they have aces up or 3 jacks or something they might just check behind you and you'll lose a bet. If you get raised in this spot you should be able to get away from this hand unless your opponents are super tricky.

If you fill the river check raising is an option, but i'd prefer to bet because aces up or even trips will probably check behind you.

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

[ QUOTE ]

It will be hard for the A234 to raise you with a higher possible straight and you behind. You just have to hope you don't get raised by the 9TJQ. Anyway, if 9TJQ really did have rolled Jacks, which it sounds like he could have, you don't have to worry too much. Yeah he has lots of outs, but he might not raise hit straight outs...might.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is well put. IMO opinion you should be betting 7th here regardless of if you improve or not.

Mike Emery

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

Arguments could be made for betting no matter what. On the other hand, one could argue that Jeff should checkraise no matter what.

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

if you get raise unimproved?

New info to pass on.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could have used that queen. Arg, this is a tough spot with me opening the betting. But I bet 150. Both call.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a cake bet here on sixth. The only way I see you're behind is if villain 1 has precisely (A 5) A. Pocket kings for player B, while possible I suppose, is still unlikely.

Now for the cool new info I just discovered......

*As an interesting sidenote I just was reading "The art of spelling", by Marilyn Vos Savant. This is the woman who writes for Parade magazine and to my knowledge still holds the record for the highest IQ ever at 223. I found it pretty cool how the book opened up with a story about a man who got "villian" tattooed on his arm. Later on a friend pointed out that the word villian was spelled villain. This made me laugh because I spell this word incorrectly every single day on here along with every other 2+2er who spells villain "villian". But Jeff.......shame on you, dont you write for a living? At least I have an excuse in that my degree is in business. How have we all been spelling this word wrong for so long? Not that I give a shiit, I just think its amusing. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Mike Emery

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

I'd like to hear the argument for check-raising no matter what.Could you explain please?

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to hear the argument for check-raising no matter what.Could you explain please?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's pretty clear we're up against rolled up jacks and split aces. Additionally they both have straight possibilities. However, it is unlikely Hero is going to get raised even if villain B makes jacks full. As previous posters mentioned, villain B would probably call and go for the overcall from villain A rather than risk being 3-bet by a better full house. And villain A is only going to raise if he makes the miracle aces full.

So initially it seems like bet no matter what, and 3-bet if you fill if villain B raises (what if villain B calls, and then villain A raises?).

The idea behind the checkraise is that villain B will bet trip jacks if checked to. Originally I thought this would be the case because after the dead queen and the river check, he might not give Jeff credit for trip queens anymore. I no longer believe this, though. He might think you have trip queens and are scared that he filled up, or that either of the players hit a straight. However, if he does bet trip jacks, villain A calls, and then Jeff raises, how can Jeff have any hand except for queens full? Jeff thought that he might be capable of laying down jacks full. I'm not convinced of this either, but this was the idea.

Essentially the river decision comes down to (a) will he raise jacks full, (b) will he bet trip jacks or a straight if checked to, and (c) will he ever fold anything better than trip queens to a checkraise. If (b) were true I would say the best play is to bet with just trip queens and checkraise with queens full. However, I think the smart safe play is to bet either way.

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

Ok, I have to go into the shower, but one interesting thought I just had...if I bet the river blind, won't my opponents think it's likely I went into the river with just trips and not a full house? After all, if I had a boat, why would I want to scare either of my opponents - I want the call. If I bet blind, it may give the impression I don't want to miss a bet but I also don't want to get raised. This could prompt Jacks full or a straight to raise me on the river. Just a thought...I haven't really thought it through yet though.

Jeff

Re: New info to pass on.....
 

Mike, you don't know how to spell straight either.

Re: New info to pass on.....
 

I hate the work "argument" (spelling?)

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

The only really interesting street here is the river, imho, although I'm sure you found the Q on fourth pretty interesting at the time. Having just gone through a 100BB downswing followed by a 200BB heater, I'm sure the guy with rolled jacks was loving that Q on fourth. When you are running bad it seems like stuff like that just keeps happening. When you're running good, of course, no one makes anything, you fill on fifth and they call you to the river. Anyway, my play on the river in these games is to bet when I either can't call a raise or when I can. Here, I think your trip Qs are going to be beat if you're raised, but the pot is too big to fold. So I probably just check it unimproved and bet if I fill. It's close though, since the guy with the jacks is likely to just call if he fills and if he doesn't (which is more likely) so you're getting an edge on that bet. But the other guy might raise with the str8 if he rivers it or hits a full.

Re: Blumpkin Told Me To Post This 75 Hand - Enormous Pot
 

i haven't read the responses yet but my gut reaction was to bet the river. they gotta be thinking you're rolled up or something so its gonna be hard for a straight to raise you on the river while lots of hands that would make crying calls against you that you beat would not bet themselves.

Re: New info to pass on.....
 

[ QUOTE ]
*As an interesting sidenote I just was reading "The art of spelling", by Marilyn Vos Savant. This is the woman who writes for Parade magazine and to my knowledge still holds the record for the highest IQ ever at 223. I found it pretty cool how the book opened up with a story about a man who got "villian" tattooed on his arm. Later on a friend pointed out that the word villian was spelled villain. This made me laugh because I spell this word incorrectly every single day on here along with every other 2+2er who spells villain "villian". But Jeff.......shame on you, dont you write for a living? At least I have an excuse in that my degree is in business. How have we all been spelling this word wrong for so long? Not that I give a shiit, I just think its amusing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Get a job Sir. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

RESULTS
 

I wussed out and checked the river when I didn't hit a full house. I was getting beat up, but that's really not an excuse for weak river play here. The guy with the Jack bet, the other guy folded and I paid off just in time to look at a rivered jacks full. He did indeed start rolled up. I wonder if he would have raised the river had I bet - would have been interesting.

As for the checkraise idea, I admit it's a little out there. But Blumpkin explained my thoughts about it very well - it actually might work better if I checked blind here and then raised when it came back to me no matter what. With that much money in the pot, it may appear that I must have a full house to make this raise bc I want callers. So it's POSSIBLE though not hugely likely that villian might lay jacks full down. This is a pretty big gamble but it would only have to work like 9 or 10 % of the time to be worth it. Not to mention, some of the time I will river a boat of course. As Ethan said, betting is the safe, standard play.

If you have it near you, check out SCSFAP's advice on river play - I personally don't (and I don't think I'm alone here) do much of what they advocate. That is, my river play is very straightforward and I don't remember the last time I checkraised the river on a bluff or what I figured to be the worse hand (in stud - this comes up a bit more in hold em). Just an idea and something to think about. More comments welcome.

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

Nice post.

Re: RESULTS
 

I like the c/r river bluff much better when you have something like a big pair that didn't improve but you've bet every street and the other guy is likely value betting with two pair. If you c/r it will appear you have made at least a bigger two pair, and probably that you had two pair and have filled. It's not entirely logical, but I think it's more likely an opponent will lay down two pair than a full house. I doubt I'd EVER lay down jacks full if you c/r in this hand, even though I'd be "sure" I was beat.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
check out SCSFAP's advice on river play

[/ QUOTE ]

From memory the river advice is very confusing. It is confusing because it advotaces several different things depending on what you have and what you think you're opponent would do with his potential holdings.

Bet out with Aces up to get a call from Ks up
Check raise with bare Aces to fold Ks up

etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.

Re: RESULTS
 

I've yet to play in a game that any of the advice mattered because peoplw who fold on the river were going to fold anyway because they didn't hit their 2pair. I've yet to see anyone laydown something like 2pair even vs an obvious flush. If there are weak tighties on the river I've yet to see them.

Re: RESULTS
 

Very true, I don't think I know if I've seen anyone fold Ks up or better on the river when there was only 1 person to beat.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what poker is all about. The paragraph is possibly the most amazing analysis I've ever read in a poker book.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think that's more an issue with the game and it's infinite number of river scenarios to be discussed than the chapter itself? I mean, you could probably right a ton on river play alone and I think they were just trying to get you to think in the right manner, about the right type of things and scenarios.

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I know if I've seen anyone fold Ks up or better on the river when there was only 1 person to beat.


[/ QUOTE ]

I admit this is not a likely occurrence. But, honestly, how would you "know" if someone did this? You think they're going to talk about their big laydown after the fact or show it?

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

The hand histories? I know quite a few sites show the losing hand and quite a few of those don't randomize the downcards.

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
The hand histories? I know quite a few sites show the losing hand and quite a few of those don't randomize the downcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyway I just wanted to add that I just started learning stud in the recent past after being a fairly proficient LHE/NLHE player. I found most of 7csfap pretty basic and uninteresting. The section on river play was by far the most though provoking part of the book. I was sad while reading it because I knew it would be a long time before if I could ever get someone to fold the better hand on the river, but the idea is pretty sexy. I'm at work right now but I think there was a section about multiway rivers and I thought a lot of that stuff can be applied in the game I play at 3/6-/6/12

Re: RESULTS
 

Hand histories don't show a hand that was FOLDED. So of course, you will never see for sure if someone actually mucked a surprising hand to a river checkraise. Not saying this happens often, but still...

Also, I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't suggesting a checkraise would work in an Internet game - people are much more hesitant to make big laydowns online than they are live in my experience, but I think a play like this can work in the right spots live. Of course, most of the time, you are going to be called and feel foolish, but selective use of this play CAN be profitable (not saying it would be here, it was an idea).

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
I found most of 7csfap pretty basic and uninteresting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thoroughly disagree - I find the book very comprehensive and many of the concepts were (and still are) eye opening to me. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I don't FULLY grasp everything in that book and reread it often. If it is so basic for you, I suggest moving up pronto - you are probably more of a natural stud player than me and should crush the bigger games.

Jeff

Re: RESULTS
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
etc etc That paragraph has too many if statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what poker is all about. The paragraph is possibly the most amazing analysis I've ever read in a poker book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean it like "whine the book is sooo complicated it has too many if statements"

I meant it like "Damn, blumkin, you have too many black chips in front of you".


I do think the paragraph is good because it gets across the point of how complicated the river anylsis can be.

Re: RESULTS
 

Gah I was an idiot with the folded comment, my bad (sorry long night at work). I thought 7csfap was going to be much better from all the good reviews I saw here and elsewhere, but I felt dissapointed after reading it. There just wasn't that much info on stud specific concepts from 4th street on. The book was a giant 3rd street hand chart which is very important of course, but I was able to deduce most of this with general poker knowledge. The specific topics section after was the real meat of the book for me and I felt like there could of been a lot more said on each of the topics. I was really dissapointed with the SH section as well. I really felt like the other 2p2 books were much better. I have a pretty good understanding of general poker knowledge/theory and had been playing stud for a while before I ordered it so my opinion is probably a little skewed.

Re: RESULTS
 

While there is some excellent material, I also feel SCSFAP is pretty over rated (not to mention dated). But other than the Chip Reese chapter of SS, it's as good as there is. I suspect that if stud were more popular, you'd see better books coming out. I actually had an offer to write a stud book, but turned it down because the advance was low and projected sales were not good.

Re: RESULTS
 

RAISE TO GET IT HEADS UP!!