How Would You Play This Hand?

[David Sklansky]

In a nutshell a call is right to save money if beat, induce a river bluff if he has the bare ace of spades, and to get paid off (or win a bet from him) on the river, from hands that will often fold a turn reraise. Those things are more important than preventing a card from coming off to beat you. This isn't a limit game.

[Nick B.]

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell a call is right to save money if beat, induce a river bluff if he has the bare ace of spades, and to get paid off (or win a bet from him) on the river, from hands that will often fold a turn reraise. Those things are more important than preventing a card from coming off to beat you. This isn't a limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying David, is that sometimes calling to induce a bluff or lose the least, is better than reckless aggression?? What a concept!!

[SCfuji]

One of my biggest tournament leaks when I began playing this wonderful game last year was the fact that I lost many chips and chairs to unraised pots preflop. I use much more discretion today in pots taken unraised. I would take the line that would cost me the least number of chips to showdown this hand, as Ax suited is a popular hand in limped pots.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell a call is right to save money if beat, induce a river bluff if he has the bare ace of spades, and to get paid off (or win a bet from him) on the river, from hands that will often fold a turn reraise. Those things are more important than preventing a card from coming off to beat you. This isn't a limit game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I would assume we would have to have a very solid contingency plan for the river, depending upon what fell.

A spade or a paired board might keep us in the game against the nuts. A blank might bust us. Are we reconciled to this when we call on the turn? Or do we still think we might be getting away?

The fact that you're saying the right play is calling to save chips when we are behind must imply that we can still slither away on the river.

Unless, of course, you're saying that it is not a foregone conclusion that he'll be slamming us hard on the river because he does not know the strength of our hand. I mean, you could be saying that we save chips on the turn by not inducing him to play back at us, AND he might be more inclined to make a fairly moderate value bet on the end (again, because he does not know just how strong we are).

Obviously, we always have to guard against getting busted. But maybe we don't always have to assume that's precisely what will happen if we don't have the best hand.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]


Unless, of course, you're saying that it is not a foregone conclusion that he'll be slamming us hard on the river because he does not know the strength of our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably won't bet big on the end. Two possiblities: The board pairs or it does not.

If it pairs, BB has to be worried about a full house. He may make a small bet or check call.

If it does not, he has the nuts still and would like to get paid off. A small bet, say T10,000 offers a good price to call. Since the BB could easily have a hand other than the nuts here, Hero has to call with a lot of reasonable hands.

One of the points I originally made was that if you call down, you will most likely have at least 100BB left in the worst case. Calling on the turn really does not put your tournament at risk, nor does it even really risk crippling you. (You may end up below average, but 100BB is a lot to work with.)

[mr_jmac]

Hey,

Why do you think our opponent has any two cards? It is very clear that he does not have any two cards.

Later,
JM
[ QUOTE ]


Could you explain your reasoning for just calling here. I would think that if our opponent has "any two cards" that the possibility of him having two pair or a set, would be higher than the possibility of him having the nut flush (also possible he has a smaller flush). Given that possibilty, just calling, in the long run, opens us up to playing like a calling station, allowing our opponents to draw out on us when we may very well have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[grandgnu]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey,

Why do you think our opponent has any two cards? It is very clear that he does not have any two cards.

Later,
JM

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everyone and their brother limped into this pot, we cannot put our opponent on a specific hand. He has made no actions pre-flop to give away his holding, since it didn't cost him anything additional to see the flop.

After seeing the flop our opponent could have a smaller flush draw, could be on a straight draw, might have flopped two pair, a set, top pair, etc.

Just because THIS time around he did have the nuts with an ace-high flush against our King-high flush, doesn't mean the same thing will happen everytime.

I still think my line of reasoning was perfectly viable, that our King-high flush was the best hand at the time and our opponent might have an opportunity to outdraw us if we only called. I was wrong......in this situation, but I still prefer my play in the long run than Davids.

Then again, I'm not a poker pro, so what do I know?

[mr_jmac]

I think a straight draw is unlikely. Calling a pot-sized bet with 4 players yet to act behind him with a gutshot draw is not a play a tough player would make too often.

Our tough opponent's play is not consistent with flopped two pair or top pair. And if he flopped a set I don't think he would have played it as described. Although they are possible these hands are not likely.

So, it is clear that when making our decision on the turn you cannot say our opponent has "any two."

Also, one of the main illustrations of this hand is that in no-limit poker even if you think your hand might be the best, it is not always correct to reraise and prevent your opponent from outdrawing you. You should ask yourself how can I make the most money from this hand. Sure, there will be a percentage of the time where our opponent will outdraw us and win the pot because we didn't reraise on the turn. That doesn't make reraising correct.

[ QUOTE ]

After seeing the flop our opponent could have a smaller flush draw, could be on a straight draw, might have flopped two pair, a set, top pair, etc.

Just because THIS time around he did have the nuts with an ace-high flush against our King-high flush, doesn't mean the same thing will happen everytime.

I still think my line of reasoning was perfectly viable, that our King-high flush was the best hand at the time and our opponent might have an opportunity to outdraw us if we only called. I was wrong......in this situation, but I still prefer my play in the long run than Davids.

Then again, I'm not a poker pro, so what do I know?

[/ QUOTE ]

[lastchance]

I don't see a set or 2p not raising on the flop because someone's gotta have a draw, and you do need to knock it out.

I bet he has the turned flush 80-90% of the time, and you can't reraise that at all, either getting a baby flush to fold or running into the nuts.

Against 2p and a set, the times you get paid off by a value bet on the end make up the times you lose the pot to the board pairing.

[JustPlayingSmart]

Hero's opponent in this hand was Richard Brodie. I was reading his blog at www.liontales.com and found a description of a hand that was very similar to the one David described in the OP. His blog is usually a pretty good read, and it gives you this hand from the other player's point of view.