30-60 party

[The Truth]

Here is a hand I watched a 2+2er play earlier while we were at same 30-60 table on party. I have no stats on the villian in this, the other 2+2 might.

Hero is SB AKo

2 limpers, hero raises, bb and both limpers call.


Flop comes 5d 3s 6s hero has no spade

Hero bets, bb folds, utg+1 calls, other limper folds.

Turn brings a 7d

hero checks, villian bets, hero calls.

River brins the Kc
hero checks, villian bets, hero calls.

My question is this, if the king doesnt hit the river, does hero still call? I imagine if the board straights hero calls too, so he is getting odds to draw to straight or a pair. Also, why not bet the turn on this drawy board.

[na4bart]

Hero knows that villian knows hero doesn't have a 4 or 98 therefore heros only option is to check the turn. River check is also correct. It is the only way to earn an extra bet if hero does indeed have the best hand.

[WillMagic]

I think there is a more obvious question that must be asked.

Why is our 2+2r check-calling this turn? I'd love to hear some sort of rationale.

Will

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero knows that villian knows hero doesn't have a 4 or 98 therefore heros only option is to check the turn. River check is also correct. It is the only way to earn an extra bet if hero does indeed have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to check out the micro-limit forum. There are some things you might pick up there.

Will

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero knows that villian knows hero doesn't have a 4 or 98 therefore heros only option is to check the turn. River check is also correct. It is the only way to earn an extra bet if hero does indeed have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to check out the micro-limit forum. There are some things you might pick up there.

Will

[/ QUOTE ]

What, you came up with a witty response, so you posted again? That's just mean.

I thought the original reply (viewable in the above quote box) was right on. At this limit you can you can apply the "he knows that I know that he knows...." type thinking. It is a damn good play to raise this flop against a tight player. AND knowing that you have a rep as a tight player, you must be aware of the possibility that players will raise with no hand/no draw on flops like this. I'm not saying that you HAVE to call down with AK every time, but it is not the worst play in the world IF you are known as a tight player AND you are up against a good player who is aware of his opponents.

CSC

[WillMagic]

First off, I hadn't read his reply before making the first post. So it was off-the-cuff witty, which is far better than five-minutes-of-contemplation witty.

In all seriousness, I do apologize for being mean, and I think I rushed my analysis of this hand....check-calling isn't atrocious, just not great. Betting is definitely superior.


Checking the turn with the intention of calling a bet does a number of bad things: it gives a free card to any sort of overcards or flush draw, or combination of things in between. Realize that this is going to comprise a large part of villain's range, as getting 9-1 flop odds he's going to call with a wide range of hands.

It gives up this to see the showdown two bets instead of three. (because, of course, if our hero could lay down to a turn raise, then check-calling becomes really atrocious.) Well, what's that worth? If our limper raises the turn...he doesn't have a one pair hand. He's got a straight, a set, maybe two pair, or he's semi-bluffing/flat-out bluffing. Against this range, putting in an extra bb isn't that bad. Giving a free card to villain's range, however, IS quite bad...a possible mathematical catastrophe.

Will

[URMeowed]

What's wrong with completing the SB and check mucking the flop?

Meow.