Debtable one..

[1800GAMBLER]

$200 buy in, 1/2 all stacks the same. 6 handed.

UTG folds, next does, i open call with 98s, loose player calls in, loose SB calls in, average tightness average aggression (BB) makes it $10.

I call, as do both others.

Flop:

4 8 2r

BB bets $12, i call, rest fold.

Turn:

6o

BB bets $20, i call.

River:

3

He checks, i check.

Comments? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[kelvin474]

If he's anything like a lot of the 1-2 players I face, he has two big cards and couldn't bring himself to fire at the river unimproved...

[Guy McSucker]

He's either pushing two big cards or has an overpair and bet small to keep you in, then lost his nerve on the river.

I don't like the preflop play at all. When you open-call you have no real idea if you can get paid off if you hit your speculative hand and you are out of position with what will most likely be a draw; and when you call the raise you must know you're behind and likely to face resistance, and you're going to be caught between the bettor and the rest of the field for the remainder of the hand.

Can't see anything wrong with the rest since BB didn't make a proper bet at any stage. Really you're just checking it down, more or less. Could it have been worth a big bet on the river? Or would you just prefer to see his cards?

Guy.

[1800GAMBLER]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't like the preflop play at all. When you open-call you have no real idea if you can get paid off if you hit your speculative hand and you are out of position with what will most likely be a draw; and when you call the raise you must know you're behind and likely to face resistance, and you're going to be caught between the bettor and the rest of the field for the remainder of the hand.




[/ QUOTE ]

That's one thing i didn't consider at all. Thanks.

I knew they were coming preflop, should have considered after that.

This is usually a straight forward muck but i started thinking why it is a straight forward muck. My reason was the preflop raise damages my implied odds. Then i realised that was wrong. Since after the preflop raise the pot gets bigger so the bet size also increases on the flop, so the implied odds are the same.

Now i've actually thought about it again it's a dumb move. Since if he's capable of pot betting on the flop i have to fold after his preflop raise i have to fold.

[ QUOTE ]


Can't see anything wrong with the rest since BB didn't make a proper bet at any stage. Really you're just checking it down, more or less. Could it have been worth a big bet on the river? Or would you just prefer to see his cards?

Guy.



[/ QUOTE ]

It was pretty easy to tell he has AK AQ at the end which i figured just weren't calling. Meanwhile i could put a long shot on him having 99 TT and got soft which would of course call.

[nicky g]

"My reason was the preflop raise damages my implied odds. Then i realised that was wrong. Since after the preflop raise the pot gets bigger so the bet size also increases on the flop, so the implied odds are the same."

Not really. Before you had the chance of winning up to $200 for a $2 investment (assuming you're the only two players). After calling the raise you have the chance of winning around 190, having made a $10 investment. Your impled odds have gone down a lot.
If the stacks were unlimited, then you could argue that your implied odds hadn't changed.

[1800GAMBLER]

All the stacks rarely go in.

[nicky g]

In a 100x BB game? I find that surprising (it only takes a couple of pot-sized bets). OK then that makes a difference but you still have cut down somewhat on your theoretical implied odds, as they will occasionally go in.

[Che]

"BB didn't make a proper bet at any stage"?

This is my first post here at 2+2, but I've done some lurking and I'm always fascinated by comments like this one, especially when we don't know what the opponent has. I look forward to the day when my skills have developed to the point of making such judgments, but I've only been playing a couple of months so I'm afraid this time is far in the future. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, in evaluating your comment, I asked myself this question: Is there a situation in which I would make the series of bets that the opponent made?

In other words, would I ever make a pot-sized raise against three limpers, 3/4 pot bet the flop, 1/2 pot bet the turn, then check the river given the board cards in question.

I wasn't able to come up with any definite "yes" answers, but a "maybe" would happen if I had an overpair or an AK-type hand and:

1. The river 3 put a three flush on the board (don't know since suits not given), or
2. I thought the opponent might be holding a 5

In either case, I'd probably bet again since a flush is very unlikely and a 5 is almost unthinkable (in my novice opinion).

So, while I agree that the play of the hand as a whole is odd, I'm not sure why none of the bets are proper and I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning as to why they are not proper.

(Note: I am not trying to criticize your claim. I am merely trying to understand the thought process that leads to the claim.)

[Paul2432]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, would I ever make a pot-sized raise against three limpers, 3/4 pot bet the flop, 1/2 pot bet the turn, then check the river given the board cards in question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your math is faulty. With four players at $10 each there is $38 in the pot (assuming $2 rake) on the flop. Then $12 bet is less than 1/3 of the pot. Similarly, on the turn there is $61 in the pot (38+24-1). Here the bet again is only about 1/3 of the pot. Generally, with a hand like AA or KK which is what you are trying to represent you would bet about the size of the pot or more on the flop and turn. Holding AK you should bet the same (if you bet), hoping to force a hand like 98 to lay down.

Paul

[Che]

Yes, my math was definitely faulty. So much for that math minor... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Also, thanks for the explanation of what the opponent should be trying to represent if he chooses to bet.