Someone threw me curveball

Re-reading bootswild's post, I realize that he was not preoccupied with fold equity: "Everyone called as I expected."

Since bootswild has apparently not read SSSE, and my original post was misleading. I'm going to quote SSHE's passage on little offsuit Broadway hands to justify my disapproval of bootswild's raise.

As Xhad has so judiciously pointed out, his raise is an even worse move if he considered the table too be "the tightest poker game I think i've ever played in".

I can't sleep anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Little Offsuit Broadway (AT, KJ, QJ, KT, QT, and JT)

These hands are marginal and playable only under favorable circumstances. They tend to make weak top pair hands, the same as the little suited Broadways. Without the advantage of being suited, though, these hands are not very profitable. They play best in an unraised pot against a few, loose opponents. Tight opponents tend to limp in with hands like AQ, AJ and KQ, hands that dominate the little offsuits. So consider who has already limped in before deciding to call.


Interestingly, ATs should be raised from the small blind.
The odds of making the flush by the river are only 15 to 1, yet the opportunity of winning a massive pot against many opponents justifies a raise.

Even when the flush is missed, as will happen nearly 2/3 of the hands, the presence of a flush draw allows more latitude to play the hand aggressively. You will pick up bets when no one has a good hand.

P.S. bootswild never explicitly mentionned his hand was offsuit. I just assumed it was, as it is the convention not to put any indication when the hand is offsuit. Wouldn't it be funny if it was actually suited? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[JackThree]

[ QUOTE ]
I was on the SB with A10. It came to me unraised with 4 other players in the hand. Sensing weakness I decided to raise, because I had been projecting a very tight image the last hour (folding to blind steals, playing few hands). Everyone called as I expected. The flop came rainbow undercards, and I fired according to the plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

you [censored] rock

I still can't sleep, so let me pontificate some more and gleefully plagiarize SSHE. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

bootswild has two overcards to the flop, but not all overcards are equal, so we must analyse the strength of his hand.

<ul type="square"> [*]<u>1) There are many opponents.</u>

Overcards are a draw to a medium-strength hand, top pair. Unlike draws to big hands like straights and flushes, overcards quickly drop in value as the number of opponents increases. Against one or two opponents, [...] unimproved overcards could still be the best hand, especially if they include an ace. [...] Against more than three, you will very often not have the best hand, and you may not even if you hit your draw.

There are two problems with having many opponents.

1. The chance that you are "reverse dominated" increases. Reverse domination means that one of your opponent flopped a pair and his kicker matches one of your overcards.

2. The chance that someone will make a big hand increases. Even on a ragged board, top pair is the best hand far less often against seven opponents than against three.

In bootswild's game, there were "4 other players".
[*]<u>2) There are no backdoor draws.</u>

"There was no flush, or obvious straight showing"
[*]<u>3) One of his cards is itself vulnerable to an overcard.</u>This is not mentionned in SSHE, but he could pair the Ten on the flop and still lose to a paired King or Queen on the river.
[*] <u>4) The board is ragged.</u>

"The flop came rainbow undercards".

This helps his overcards in two ways. First, top pair is more likely to win when no flush or straight draws are available. Second, ragged board are less likely to have hit his opponents, assuming this is "the tightest game ever". But, since bootswild raised pre-flop, one could also argue that his opponents are more likely to believe that he missed the flop.[/list]We have now determined that bootswild has a marginal* draw. Should he check or bet the flop? Let us list the things to consider.

1. How big is the pot? Large, 8 SB

2. How likely are his overcards still to be the best? That is, how likely is it that all his opponents missed the flop? With 4 opponents, it is unlikely.

3. How strong is his hand? Marginal

4. How likely is betting to win the pot immediately? Unlikely, against 4 opponents.

5. Is betting likely to improve his winning chances significantly even if he does not win immediately? Yes, players are excpected to fold, since this is "the tightest game ever".

6. Is betting likely to buy him a free card on the turn if he wants it? No, since he is out of position.

This analysis leads me to argue that bootswild has a marginal hand that he should check. This conclusion is based mainly on the number of opponents he is facing. Others may disagree.

Should he call if bet into? The pot will be large, but his overcards are weak. He may already be drawing dead. I would fold, but others may disagree. Some may peel one and see the turn. It all depends on the number of players still in the hand and the pot odds.

* Marginal draw: A draw that will sometimes win, but it either has few outs or is particularly vulnerable to redraws or drawing dead. It may have to be folded if the pot is small, and the circumstances appear unfavorable. Generally, the turn should be seen if the pot is large enough, though. Betting should be considered if it improves one's winning chances.

You have 2 overcards to the flop. With no backdoor or flush draws, your 6 outs can only be counted as 1/2 outs.

With only 3 outs, you do not have the odds to continue after the flop.

Based on the number of outs, here is how I would play the hand.

Pre-flop: Complete the SB
Flop: Check/Fold
Turn: Check/Fold
River: Check/Fold

I may be wrong. If anyone disagrees with me, please post your criticisms.

[Skipbidder]

You are playing in the tightest game you have ever seen, four people call preflop, and you raise from the big blink with ATo? I do not like it. There is a high probability that you kicker is no good in this game. You might be drawing to three outs if you hit your ace on the flop. If you had ATs, then maybe the raise is okay. I really dislike it under the conditions you have stated.

I don't understand what "sensing weakness" means in the "tightest poker game" you've ever played in when four people call preflop.

You've missed the flop and bluffed into four players? Don't like that either. I'm likely check/folding this hand personally.

Your opponent might have been planning on raising and stealing the pot from you later in the hand (hoping you were on AK and missed). When he turned his pair, he decided to start just catching bluffs instead of trying to buy the pot away from you. On the river, he stuck with his assessment that there was a significant enough chance that his little pair was beating you. He may or may not have been right to do so in theory, but if he was wrong, he wasn't wrong by much. You might well play AKs the same way. (He shouldn't be putting you on something like ATo, because you shouldn't *have* ATo for the way you've played the hand.)

I think I should have been more descriptive of my evaluation of the table. Not only was this table very tight in their hand selection, but everyone there would let you know when they held two stong cards with a pre-flop raise. At one point in the game, the table had 13 consecutive pots of less-than-or-equal-to $2.50 (specifically a pre-flop raise which stole SB and BB).

Do you think my assumption that everyone else held mediocre hands - small PP's, QJ, K10, 98s - was too presumptuous? It just seemed so strange for everyone to suddenly limp. I wouldn't put it out of the question for me to have had the best hand heading into the flop.

[Xhad]

Even if you do have the best hand (which is not certain), your edge is very small. You are not giving up much if you check because most of your wins come from flopping top pair, which is easier to protect in a smaller pot.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I should have been more descriptive of my evaluation of the table. Not only was this table very tight in their hand selection, but everyone there would let you know when they held two stong cards with a pre-flop raise. At one point in the game, the table had 13 consecutive pots of less-than-or-equal-to $2.50 (specifically a pre-flop raise which stole SB and BB).

Do you think my assumption that everyone else held mediocre hands - small PP's, QJ, K10, 98s - was too presumptuous? It just seemed so strange for everyone to suddenly limp. I wouldn't put it out of the question for me to have had the best hand heading into the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this also lend itself to the concept that on an undercard flop it would likely hit someone who just limped in? Thereby making your flop bet questionable?

b

[bernie]

The Ace is the tough out to hit as he could be reverse dominated if he hits it. He'd rather have the T hit.(board depending)

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe my read on him was wrong however, because when I left the table he was down to $10

[/ QUOTE ]

Him being up or down in the small confines of a session doesn't really mean anything. What if he was way up when you left? Would that mean he's a great player? Not at all.

b