Don\'t Read If You\'ve Already Read MM\'s Hand To Talk About
 

The hand below is reposted from yesterday's "Hand to Talk About" by Mason Malmuth. I'm concerned that some of the "hand reading" was influenced by results. So I edited the post taking out the turn and river play by Mason. If you DIDN"T read Mason's post, please take a stab at putting the "very good player" on a hand. And if you did read it, take a stab trying to remove any influence on your thinking based on the play of later streets. Try to include a range of possible hands and assign probabilities or some sort (very likely, not so likely is OK).

Mason wrote in yesterdays post:

"Here's an interesting hand I played earlier this evening. The game was $30-$60.

Three players limped in including a very good player in the middle. I called from late position with KsQc. Both blinds played so six of us saw the flop for one bet each.

The flop was KdQh7s. It was checked to me and only the good player called.

The turn was the 3h."

The good player now checks.

Once again, what possible hands do you put the good player on?

~ Rick

Question For Mason Malmuth - I Want To Cross Post Again
 

Mason,

A few years ago I cross posted part of the the infamous "pair of fours" hand on RGP (4c-4d). This became one of the most hotly debated hands ever and ended up in your third book of poker essays (Poker Essays, Volume III, page 184).

Do I have your permission to cross post the above post on RGP? To avoid the usual RGP rancor, I can take out the reference to the fact that it was you on button (just say it was "a top player" or "a player who plays in the S&M style"). I'm very interested in fresh opinions on this one and RGP has some good posters (e.g., Howard Lederer and Vince Lepore).

Regards,

Rick

PS A few weeks ago I couldn't find this old thread using Google's Advanced Group Search. Can anyone else help here? The lead post would be posted under my name and would include the hand 4d-4c or 4c-4d or 4c4d or 4d4c or 4d 4c (you get the idea [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ).

Re: Don\'t read my answer either as I talk about the turn
 

Well, I have read the earlier thread but when I read the earlier thread, I stopped after the flop action to put the good player on a hand and the most logical possibilities are AJ, AT.

I specifically discounted a King, a Queen, JT or a set. I have read Mason's response to my post in the other thread where he says that I am shrugging off the possibility of a set too quickly. I don't agree with him on that one. Sure, he could have a set of sevens but it seems highly unlikely. I'll put him on the possibility of a set if and only if he checkraises me on the turn.

With respect, I think that Mason is shrugging off the possibility of AJ/AT too quickly on the grounds that a good player will often bet in this spot with those hands. I also see that he mentions a pair of Queens as the good player's likely hand. I don't understand why the good player would bet AJ but not say QJ on the flop. I also don't understand why the good player would fold QJ on the turn. I would have thought he would be in pay-off mode all the way given that Mason's bet is from last position and the rest of the field has dumped.

Re: Don\'t read my answer either as I talk about the turn
 

skp,

I left for the pool and by the time I got there I realized I forgot my pool key. So when I come back I can't resist but to check the forum. Anyway, it's good to see you post when your are not likely at the office. I like a level playing field [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img].

You wrote: "I specifically discounted a King, a Queen, JT or a set. I have read Mason's response to my post in the other thread where he says that I am shrugging off the possibility of a set too quickly. I don't agree with him on that one. Sure, he could have a set of sevens but it seems highly unlikely. I'll put him on the possibility of a set if and only if he checkraises me on the turn."

Without going back to your other posts I agree that we should discount the king and queen (most likely QJs or KTs). A good player will usually bet the flop in this spot rather than check call.

After reading your other post I've tried to put myself in the spot of the very good player (I'm not sure I'm very good anymore now that I'm pushing 50). Anyway, I agree that with a JT I'm betting the flop at least 67% of the time or so.

"With respect, I think that Mason is shrugging off the possibility of AJ/AT too quickly on the grounds that a good player will often bet in this spot with those hands."

Me too. The texture of the board won't win him the pot often with a flop bet. And with Mason on the button he figures to get a free card more often then not. Why not take it? OTOH, a bet might take Mason out and get him a free card on the turn. (As an aside, I've been in a lot of spots lately where I've taken a card off on the flop with an inside straight draw against one remaining opponent with very short odds knowing I'd likely get a second free look at the river because the flop bettor doesn't have much follow through on the turn.)

DanZ in the original Mason thread thinks the turn check is right even if you put your opponent on AJ and AT. I'm having problems with that.

"I also see that he mentions a pair of Queens as the good player's likely hand. I don't understand why the good player would bet AJ but not say QJ on the flop. I also don't understand why the good player would fold QJ on the turn. I would have thought he would be in pay-off mode all the way given that Mason's bet is from last position and the rest of the field has dumped."

I absolutely agree.

Back to the pool ;-).

Regards,

Rick

Re: Don\'t read my answer either as I talk about the turn
 

heh...I am at work...I almost never post from anywhere else.

Re: Don\'t read my answer either as I talk about the turn
 

"DanZ in the original Mason thread thinks the turn check is right even if you put your opponent on AJ and AT. I'm having problems with that."

Well, I think I understand Dan's point. Assuming that AJ will fold to a turn bet, you may want to keep him in by checking. 4 cards get you in trouble, 3 cards get him in trouble. Of course, his trouble costs him only 1 or 2 big bets while your trouble costs you 5 big bets i.e. the 4 big bets in the pot and the one big you will lose on the river. But much of this will be made up on all of those occasions when he will call you on the river with his Ace high after you show weakness by checking the turn.

Checking is totally wrong against a passive unthinking player because (a) he may call the turn with AJ and (b) he will not call with AJ on the river even if you check the turn and bet the river. But a good player is likely to checkcall the river with AJ and may bluff or checkcall with AT.

That's why I said initially that checking the turn may be the slightly better play when you look at this situation in isolation. But I like betting to camoflauge those times when I bet the turn with a much weaker hand than top two. Also, the good player may at times, simply pay off on the turn and river with AJ. I would do that at times and I dare say that playing in that fashion would not make me a bad player.

Peripheral point:

On the river, if an Ace comes and the good player bets, Mason should raise. This is because the good player may well just have AJ or AT as we suspect. If he happens to have 77, he likely will not reraise as Mason has played the hand like he just made Broadway.

On the other hand, if a Jack or Ten comes on the river and the good player bets, Mason should just call. This is because the good player may well have the nuts based on what we suspect he holds; alternatively, he may make it 3 bets with 77 figuring that Mason may have just made two pairs with QJ, QT etc.

...damn, I am getting very little work done:-)

Re: Don\'t read my answer either as I talk about the turn
 

skp,

Good post.

You wrote: "..damn, I am getting very little work done:-)"

Does that mean you are getting paid in "ostensible dollars" [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

` rick

Re: Question For Mason Malmuth - I Want To Cross Post Again
 

Rick I believe I found the link you were looking for...

Mason's 4/4 Hand

Please let me know if this is the one.

Regards,

Re: Question For Mason Malmuth - I Want To Cross Post Again
 

Jimbo,

Thanks - that's it! I went back to Google and re-searched and also found it. I must have entered the hand in the wrong format or entered the wrong hand.

Regards,

Rick

Re: Question For Mason Malmuth - I Want To Cross Post Again
 

Jimbo,

I had a little time to kill so I reread that old RGP thread. Note how great players such Daniel Negreanue and Abdul Jalib were on completely opposite sides. I

In that long thread Stephen Landram noted in this subpost http://tinyurl.com/ecez that I should have attributed the original problem to Mason. The reasons I didn't were explained in the thread. From what I gather, it is OK to cross post as long as you note the source of the original problem.

I've decided to cross post tonight and link to the 2+2 thread so everyone is aware of the source.

Regards,

Rick