Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not sure how I misjudged it. Are you saying that in your experience that when all draws miss on the river, UTGs bet into fields of 4 10% of the time?

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? He doesn't have to bluff 10% of the time for your call to be good. Of the three players in the pot, you only need 1 to be willing to play with less than top pair. After the turn gets checked through, ANY of these are possible:

- the bettor is bluffing
- the first, unknown, caller, is willing to call with less than top pair
- the second caller is is willing to call with less than top pair


Any time any of these events occur, your hand may be good. You're getting good odds on your call so it doesn't have to happen often for the call to be correct. So call.

You may argue that the 2nd caller having less than top pair is unlikely, and I'd agree. But the aggressive player taking a shot or the first unknown caller calling with a pair both seem perfectly plausible to me.

Additionally, to put UTG on a bigger hand than yours that doesn't contain an ace, you have to believe he checked two pair or a set on the turn despite having the lead. Of course, anything's possible, but it seems to me that most players bet hands this strong with many opponents and a rapidly growing pot, so you should discount this option significantly. Now it looks more likely that he just hit his ace, and the first caller simply has some pair he wants to showdown.

my 2 cents.
eric



PS. You wrote
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I think you misjudged this one. Both the bettor and the first caller can be ace-free, so there are plenty of hands that you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two sentences, and yet, they contradict each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

But these sentences are not contradictory at all. Perhaps if I'd have written that they both can have a hand without an ace that you beat, it would have been clearer?



PPS... did either caller have a hand that did not contain an ace? If the first unknown called with an underpair, the whole debate would crystalize and calling would be obviously correct.

[lil feller]

Hi Josh,

I think your analysis is very insightful, and while I agree that being able to accurately analyze these sorts of situations is important as you move up in limits, I think in this particular situation you're making some assumptions that might not be warrented.

First, the HJ is unknown, and you can't know anything about his raising standards, his flop cold calling standards, his turn checking standards, or his river calling standards. You also can't assume that he's paying attention to what anybody else in the hand might have, or what the action means. He's not you, he's just some random guy at a 30/60 table. It's entirely possible, and not that unlikely, that he has something like 77 or 88, and saw 2 over cards and didn't want to bet the turn, but wanted to call the river, just because the pots so big. I think ruling out that possibility, and limiting his range to only a big Ace is assuming too much.

Second, without knowing more about UTG's post flop play I think its impossible to accurate assess how often he bluffs here. In some of yours responses to this thread you argued repeatedly that UTG can't be bluffing more than 10% of the time here, since that river card looks like it hit everybody and there's a 4 person field to bluff through. This player sees 38% of his flops, indicating his situational analysis skills preflop obviously need some work. Why would you assume that his postflop analysis skills are any better. I think its possible, certainly more than 10% possible that UTG is either betting a smaller ace (doesn't have to be Axh, a 38 VPIP is capable of limping with any ace), or a whiff with a "der, only way I can win is to bet" mentality without really thinking about the situation of chance of success.

I believe the only assumption you can safely make is that the button has a big ace. IMO all the uncertainty involved in all of your assumptions pushes this close decision towards a call.

Ultimately its that 10% number that this decision revolves around, and it sounds like, in reading a lot of your responses, that your applying your analyatical standards to UTG, this is likely a mistake. I also think its important to remeber that people don't always do stuff for any particular reason while in a poker game, I know i've been called by KQ on an Axxx board more then once in the Party 15/30 game...

These are just some thoughts, hopefully you'll respond with some of your own.

lf

[elindauer]

Outstanding. Pat yourself on the back for this summation.

-eric

[Victor]

hi josh,

i think el diablo has eluded to this but i am not sure. i have not seen anyone else explicity say it yet. but, just bc the callers call does not mean they have an ace. remember the reason we play poker: bc other players do not play correctly.

[andyfox]

But they surely have a reasonable chance of having an ace when they call. That being the case, that raises the chance of the bettor having a hand that beats Josh. Not saying it means Josh should fold, just saying it should be considered in his thinking.

[bernie]

hmm.

Checkraise the flop if you want players out. You're not protecting anything by betting here. Even a c/r given the pot size may not do it, but I think that's better than betting out. You're betting into the least aggressor preflop with the likely raise coming after 2 callers.

[ QUOTE ]
River is an offsuit ace.

I check and start licking my chops, thinking the button 3-bettor will bet his AQ and I can checkraise and do a little dance.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to go for the overcalls behind you on the river instead of shutting them out if the button bets. Who's folding a better hand here? AK surely isn't folding here after going through that wave of chips to get there.

I'd call this river. You think UTG has A9? He could have AJ and not raised preflop. He isn't checking the turn with a set or an overpair.(neither is anyone else) The calls behind UTG you could very well have them outkicked. As you mentioned, the button could have AQ or AJs.

b