Hand to Talk About

[Ginogino]

Garland:
I agree with your analysis -- plus one very likely family of hands that Mason's up against are pinning a good part of their hopes on a flush draw (supported, in their minds, by Mason's check on the flop -- lol). Why not give these hands a chance to make their flushes?

Gino

[GuyOnTilt]

Obviously your plan was to raise the turn and hopefully take it down there, but what if the SB had bet and the BB had called the turn? Do you still stick to your plan and raise?

GoT

[mike l.]

you like the flop check, others dont. im just saying i dont think it matters much either way EV wise in this case. i usually bet the flop, why let a free card come off?

but checking for deception and because there's a still a good chance your hand is best and will either remain so or improve (or appear to improve) is fine as well.

so im criticizing (probably incorrectly) anyone who is taking much of a stance for either position. mason will end up saying that the flop check/turn raise is good here because it represents a monster. against any sort of thinking opponent it doesnt really do that, most higher mid limit players just bet the hell out of their hand whether they hold the nuts, are betting thin, or bluffing or semibluffing. so mason's check and then raise just seems weird to the average thinking opponent, but not necessarily like a huge hand.

we wouldnt be reading this hand to talk about had the river blanked and bb checked and mason checked and the bb showed his KJ and mason mucked, which is precisely what i suspect wouldve happened.

[elysium]

hi mason
great post. that is exactly how to play this hand. i would have bet the flop without thinking. clearly though, the correct way of handling this whether you hit the nut draw or not, is to check the flop.

assuming that you have the conditions needed to make checking down the flop a viable option, i think we can also safely assume that calling any bet or raise to you on the flop, is an equally viable course of action that you would likely have taken here, although calling a raise isn't etched in stone, and neither would reraising be. but we will assume with relative certainty that on the flop, when the action gets to you, you have already decided that you are not primarily interested in building a big pot or getting a free-card. so the first questions then would be; what motivated you to check-down the flop? was it the texture of the board or was it field conditions? and to simplify that, we will also assume that your image is listed under field conditions. this way, when we answer these first questions, we can then focus on just two issues; first, how the flop decision manipulates the size of the pot downward giving you a better opportunity to get heads-up and increase your number of outs. and secondly, how your opponents will respond in the turn in both instances in which you either hit or miss your draw. we will set the validity of the A aside unless you get heads-up. we will assume that heads-up you have a value bet. we can never know, however, whether you would have considered your A pair good in a 3-way. that's too far reaching and would be in the near proximity of where you draw the line between analysis and head ache.

now i've got to go back and look at the questions. yeah.

whew.....

o.k., to make it easy for everyone, me too, i'm just going to leave all those questions, serving a duel purpose, hanging up there for reference, and give my general opinion the questions about which i have taken the time to answer hopefully with one of the above questions. so the above questions can function both as a guideline for the newby, and rhetorical answer for the expert.

for our purposes, we will safely assume that one or both of mason's opponents are capable of making a sizeable lay-down. that goes toward field conditions. just want to get it in clearer.

when we look at this situation from all the various angles, it is readily apparent that checking down the flop is correct. the coordinated nature of the board is such that it self-contains aggression. by that we mean that the suggestive texture of the board hinting at a possible nut flush draw will forever insure each player without the A of suit, that he may be trailing behind a more powerful holding, unless the board pairs. even then, any player without a flopped set has little hope of improving to beat the possible powerhouse draw. since the made nut flush may already be in its possessor's hand, only the holder of the A of suit knows for certain that he is not up against it. therefore, if a single bet is made on the flop, the opponent showing the greatest amount of strength will also necessarily be representing a made powerhouse as one of his possible holdings that must be taken into consideration. if the field is solid/ tight down to good/ average, then the first bettor entering shoulders the representation of a powerful made hand. this is very advantageous, however it is also dillemic unless the initial bettor shouldering this powerhouse representation, albeit not his only possible holding, also has the high suited card. it's dillemic because if the first bettor shows weakness any time thereafter, he cedes control of the hand over to whoever plays back strongly against him. essentially, if the first bettor on the flop weakens at any time, he makes it that much easier for either of his opponents to wrest away his advantage all to himself. quickly therefore, the first consideration he makes is that if he bets, even if he is not against a made powerhouse, he might likely be up against the A of suit. the problem with that, of course, is that the A of suit knows that neither of his opponents holds the possible nut made hand, while neither of them have this same knowledge. if first position bets, he reasons, he will only make it easier for the A of suit to take control of the hand. that in itself doesn't make betting untenable. however, when that risk is juxtaposed with the additional risk of other lesser hands of greater or lesser strength than his having a high incentive to make drive-out raises, and other various strategical raises and reraises, based on actual or representative strength; raises made by card-holders whose aggression can only be contained by the A of suit, or made powerhouse, he quickly realizes that he doesn't have the ability to contain the aggression because only the A of has the knowledge to do so, something that he doesn't have. finally, what is worst of all for first position, the A of suit knows that he doesn't know. so it is the strong possibility that his opponent knows that he lacks knowledge that, at last, makes his decision for him. he realizes that his best alternative is to check and represent a SP of the nuts.

mason takes notes.

the MP opponent faces the same dillema. the only difference here is that now first position has taken an action that represents the slow-playing of a made powerful hand. the MP checks representing a slow-play of the nuts.

mason takes notes.

before we continue, assume that at this point in the hand, mason hasn't peeked at both of his hole cards. let's assume that he has only seen the A of suit. i think that might bring this picture into sharper focus. keep that assumption with you, but alternate back and forth between his knowing and not knowing his second hole card. you can see how very similar both situations are. you can even see that whether he has a made nut flush, or the draw to it, his play in either of those two situations is virtually the same on the flop.

mason knows that his opponents aren't slow-playing. this knowledge gives mason a made powerful advantage. firstly, mason avoids the destruction of his implied odds. he knows that his most valuable tangible asset in this hand will be those times his draw completes. by checking, mason's positive expectation skyrockets. mason knows that if he bets, his opponents will not raise. he knows that, instead, they will call to prevent mason from making a reraise. they have thought through the significance of a prospective reraise, and have both decided against allowing it. mason knows this. mason's opponents would rather that mason checks. a check by mason prevents either of these two opponents from raising, and since neither one knows whether or not his counterpart will raise, mason's checking prevents his counterpart from raising. so both prefer mason to check.

they'd do better if mason bets.

you see, if mason checks, the lack of action by his two opponents now represents, if it didn't before, something mason wants it to represent; the slow-play. when mason checks, both opponents are compelled by the chain reaction of forces set in motion by the arrival of the turn, to make a bet. each one knows that his bet on the heels of what each one now can consider a slow-play, or missed check-raise, will contain the aggression and/ or win the pot. by checking, mason gives them counterfeited turn leverage; the opportunity to take control of a weak field; and an opportunity to prevent the aggression from raising their small draw or small made hand, out of the pot, by giving them an opportunity to represent the A of suit nut made flush, something whose probability mason has driven down. mason's implied odds skyrocket when he checks, not because his opponents will call when he bets, but rather because they will bet with hands mason can easily fold. why? because now mason's turn raise, after so much flop weakness, tells his opponents that he has the improbable A of suit. since mason's check-down on the flop, coupled with the turn's arrival, put forces to play that make it highly probable that the turn will come to mason in the preferred made to order 'check, bet' form, mason knows exactly what to do. if it comes in the less likely 'bet, call', mason again knows what to do. if it arrives 'check, check', mason again knows what to do. this remember, before the turn card is exposed.

if a Q or J lands on the turn, mason still stands to fair better having checked down the flop. he can less expensively fold rather than calling 2 cold, and of course he can more safely call 1 bettor on his right because the check-raise is less likely. if it does come down to that scenario, in whatever variation, since there are many hands that could be raising on the turn that mason can beat, his odds of not drawing dead go up because those bets may be coming in as a result of flop weakness. here, we get into the netherworld of when is it better not to know the status of your opponent's likely hand strength because knowing that status reduces the liklihood of your being in the lead or taking down the pot. does mason want to know that he is up against full-house? only if the number of other possible holdings make your read of that full-house a favorite that is insurmountable by pot odds. then, betting on the flop would be correct because then the information on the possibility of the full-house can be valuable. does that condition exist here? yes, i think it does. so, in fairness, i think that on our minus side of the column, we need to include this particular scenario. usually, the read of a boat won't supersede pot odds in this spot. we can't exclude that possibility here though. but usually, your read of a possible boat will not alter your determination to see the river. you will still usually be getting correct pot odds to do so. and i believe that not knowing, in that instance, actually enhances your odds.

so, from every vantage point except one; those times the turn produces a Q or J, and the betting action is such that mason's call doesn't close the action (by the way, if his call closes the action, he will always be getting correct odds, thus we can modify the minus in the column a little), mason improves his implied value tremendously by checking down the flop, as well as his opportunity to use maximum turn leverage and take down the pot. if we took the time to discuss the advantages checking down the flop gives mason those times he completes his nut draw, we would exceed our timeline.

to recap, it is better to check-down the flop because it allows us to maximize the tremendous advantage that we hold on the turn when we couple our knowledge with turn leverage.

ding.

mason's check-down on the flop also significantly increases

[Lori]

I am assuming from this post that we can work backwards to find out the playing styles of the blinds.

I also feel this is the point of your post.

Unfortunately, my Limit skills are not up to that, but by assuming you played correctly I feel we could deduce how the blinds are playing and solve this problem.

Lori

[lil']

Again, maybe I get too simplistic at times, but when I don't have a made hand, I like to win the pot sooner rather than later. The exception might be if I have a big draw.

[karlson]

Mike,

You're probably right that it's close. But

[ QUOTE ]
most higher mid limit players just bet the hell out of their hand whether they hold the nuts, are betting thin, or bluffing or semibluffing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This clearly isn't 100% good strategy, right? So better mid-limit players can both defend against this strategy, as well as deviate from it themselves.

So we should look for ways to mix up our play, especially if moving to tougher games. Some "mixing it up plays" are clearly just terrible, but I think the consensus of this discussion will be that this is a good one to have in your repertoire.

[Depraved]

[stripsqueez]

this thread is out of control

if mason hasnt played for 3 weeks or so the most likely explanation is that he stuffed it up and should of bet the flop not that the planets were in alignment a few moments before the hand was played

if i am to assume mason is a great player and never makes mistakes (the latter being a silly assumption) please tell me before i reply

i might post a hand where i raised UTG with 54o - if i neglected to tell you all that i never made a mistake you would all tell me i was mad - you can and should do anything at the poker table - thats an easy statement to prove

i really dont think it matters much what the conditions in this game were - i'm betting the flop 95%+ of the time - the rest of the time i'm proving i can do anything

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Zeno]

I like the way you played the hand and would have done the same thing, sincerely (though dependent on knowledge about the blind players perhaps). I have seen others respond as above on some of your other 'Hand to talk about' posts and get viciously flamed.

I want to have that same opportunity at least once and I do not want to waste this golden opportunity, especially since I am lackluster about contributing or posting anything meaningful. By the way, was it or was it not significant that you were not reraise by at least one of the blinds preflop?


Well played, well done. Congrats.

-Zeno