Mirage 10-20: Drawing with a gut-shot and an overcard

[Tyler Durden]

classic

[Dynasty]

By pure accident, I came across the thread from a few months ago which intially made me think about this type of situation. Stork had posted a hand played by David Sklansky from his book Sklansky on Poker in which a similar situation occured. However, in Sklansky's hand the pot was much bigger and he had a backdoor flush draw.

Here's the link:

Sklansky's hand

I'm not sure there's anything significant in that thread. The debate is much shorter and essentially the same as in this one.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
I wasn't hoping. I was hand reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

[ QUOTE ]
EP1 could have anything. He limped pre-flop and the checked the flop. There's no way to read that. But you don't have to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't A5 or A2 qualify as anything? What would he do with such a hand if it is 2 back to him? Seems like you do need to read him.

[ QUOTE ]
After four players check the flop to him and only one player left to act behind him, you can expect a typical player to bet many hands including 99-66, middle pair, or bottom pair. There's little to worry about this opponet having an Ace.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't a "loose, losing player" play A5 or A2 (suited or not), giving him the bottom or middle pair he is likely to bet? Couldn't either of the loose, losing players in front of him have such a hand? Is a loose, losing player going to fold A5 or A2 to the raise or a 3-bet?

[ QUOTE ]
The Cutoff is the easiest to read. He does not have an Ace. There is essentialy 0% chance that this opponent failed to raise pre-flop with AQ. His flop raise on this ragged board will usually mean top pair/good kicker. Although, he could do it with a set as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would he limp behind all those loose, losing players with A5s or A2s? Would he raise it in this situation? If you considered the possibility and eliminated it, that is one thing, but you didn't seem to consider it, which is a mistake.

I agree it is highly unlikely you are against AQ, but you don't need to be against AQ for your ace to not be an out. You explained how you weren't worried your kicker because the better kickers would be folding, but you didn't seem to consider the A5 or A2 hands. If you considered that possibility and still felt you could make the call (or 3 bet to get them out) that is one thing, but to fail to consider those hands isn't hand reading, it is hoping.

[34TheTruth34]

all the 3-betting discussion is just crazy talk

Personally, I think 3-betting here is better than calling. But I'd still fold first. I agree with you and all the others that said to fold. I just don't think the odds are there to play on.

[slider77]

I actually think the play makes sense. The caller on the flop is the wildcard, so you could probably make your effective outs scaled down to 6 outs maybe to account for the chance another A is not an out.

I think this hand is a case where palying against better predictable palyers is easier. An online 1/2 game, no way you could make those assumptions. Any of the 3 could have AQ - and Ax is a possibility for the flop caller.

[D. Andrew]

Interesting. Some think you played it well by calling 2 cold, others think you played it poorly by calling 2 cold. Then you have me who thinks you should bet the flop.

[MD_]

[Allan]

Dynasty,

I'm still slightly confused on why you think 3 betting is best. Giving that you are reading that your ace outs are good why do you need to three bet in order to get an Ace better kicker out? If in fact someone has one of your needed aces doesn't that swing your play to a fold as one of your outs gone swings your odds into -ev territory? I'm also struggling to understand why you need middle or bottom pairs to fold.

Thanks,


Allan

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Giving that you are reading that your ace outs are good why do you need to three bet in order to get an Ace better kicker out?

[/ QUOTE ]

A read can always be wrong. 3-betting to drive out second and third best hands, (including bigger Aces) also serves the function of protecting you when your read is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm also struggling to understand why you need middle or bottom pairs to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

The final board in this hand provides a perfect example. I hit my Ace out but if middle pair had stuck around to see the turn, it would have made trips and won the pot.

[Mike]

I can see where you and JTG51 are coming from about better investment. But think what this hand will do for future action... Anyone paying attention is going to think just like most of the posters. Dynasty had no business in this hand and they will give him lots of action for the near future.

How many times have you had two free rides in the BB only to scoop a pot with a hand you wouldn't play with a gun to your head? Most players don't seem to notice it was a blind hand unless you mention it, they just see you playing junk.

I agree it was shaving after shaving, but it won and I am sure generated future action?