Commerce 20/40 NL Hand

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
How much time would you take before you push all in, or raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

On TV they usually wait like 30 seconds I think.

It was supposed to be a nice payday, but I only got half of what I was owed. The villain did not pay me off with his K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

[LetYouDown]

[ QUOTE ]
It was supposed to be a nice payday, but I only got half of what I was owed. The villain did not pay me off with his K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he didn't have it or because he laid it down? If he laid it down, you must have a ridiculously obvious tell of some kind.

I don't know what his hand was exactly, but he most certainly did have the K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. I do not have any rediculous tell. The more I think about it the less I am amazed about his fold. I could not have made that play with anything else so it is a sensible fold, but it was still a great fold. He told me he almost flat called my 1,500 bet.

[Jeffage]

Uh...no. Think about the action for a second. Villian raises the river to 5k with 4 hearts on board. Now his opponent, after a hollywood pause, comes over the top for 6k more. If there is a straight flush possible and your opponent, who was in the BB, is not a drooling moron, he MUST have it with this action. I can think of a lot of better things to do with $6,000 than waste it by calling here. And I'm sure the very good player could to.

Jeff

[cero_z]

Hi Jeffage,

[ QUOTE ]
Uh...no. Think about the action for a second. Villian raises the river to 5k with 4 hearts on board. Now his opponent, after a hollywood pause, comes over the top for 6k more. If there is a straight flush possible and your opponent, who was in the BB, is not a drooling moron, he MUST have it with this action. I can think of a lot of better things to do with $6,000 than waste it by calling here. And I'm sure the very good player could to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for injecting some reason into this thread. No good player is paying somebody off in this spot without some crazy context that might've set him up; OP is super-fortunate to have gotten the 5K raise out of him. What does Villain think: OP will pay him off 5K with the Qh on a 4-flush board? My best guess is he's trying to represent a big bluff, and doesn't really expect to be paid off anyway, so why not go big with the "nuts?" What a rude awakening he must've gotten.

Also, I really doubt all of these folks who are saying they'd bet the turn big; I think most of you would check-raise right here. It's easy to say now, though, when you know he has the 2nd nuts. What if he had 2 pair? Then you might be willing to check in the hopes he'd fill up.

[gomberg]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I really doubt all of these folks who are saying they'd bet the turn big; I think most of you would check-raise right here. It's easy to say now, though, when you know he has the 2nd nuts. What if he had 2 pair? Then you might be willing to check in the hopes he'd fill up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet out on the turn there a vast majority of the time (I also posted that before seeing results). I may bet 1/2 pot instead of full pot, but with deep stacks and the villain in position, I think you get a call against a set. You're only losing value vs. 2-pair or a pure bluff - but you have a chance to win a huge pot against a set / K flush, which is what you aim for.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I said above that I thought villain was going broke either way. That was 3:00 a.m. I think the important point is that IF villain is capable of laying down the K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] then he's going to need just as many bets to confirm he's behind regardless of whether you check-raise or lead the turn.
Scenario 1: You check-raise, he calls. You lead river, he raises (probably), you reraise he folds. 4 bets are made.
Scenario 2: You lead turn. Villain raises you reraise, he calls. You lead river, he (almost certainly) just calls. 4 bets are made.
I think the only real difference between the size of the bets is whether you will bet more leading out on the turn than villain would if you checked, but that's hard to tell.
So I guess my point is if villain's capable of going broke here, he'll go broke regardless of what you do. If he's capable of laying this down, roughly the same amount of money is going in before he's certain he beats.
Still, it's possible I'm wrong. If I am, it would be in how I describe the river action in scenario 2. If villain is raising the river despite the 3-bet on the turn, you get a chance to bust him. I would say that this is more likely than him raising the river in scenario 1 (which he did) AND calling your final raise. Since you would need both of these things in scenario 1 to happen to get in that 5th bet whereas you need the more likely scenario of him putting in a raise on the river in scenario 2 to get the fifth bet there, leading the turn and 3-betting is still better.
I know this is all guesswork...does anybody disagree with my assumptions of which scenario is more likely to get villain to go broke?

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was supposed to be a nice payday, but I only got half of what I was owed. The villain did not pay me off with his K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he didn't have it or because he laid it down? If he laid it down, you must have a ridiculously obvious tell of some kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a pretty easy laydown.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was supposed to be a nice payday, but I only got half of what I was owed. The villain did not pay me off with his K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]
Because he didn't have it or because he laid it down? If he laid it down, you must have a ridiculously obvious tell of some kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a pretty easy laydown.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reading this hand and FoxwoodsFiend's hand one after the other makes for some very weird reading.