Caught the straight when semi bluffing. Action...?

[Wayfare]

Half the responders like the Q9o min raise out of the small blind.

Was the "semi bluff" made on the turn when you bet $1 into a $8 pot? What are you trying to do here, get raised the pot and have to fold?

I really dislike how this hand was played all around, and I am astounded that so many people have jumped to it's defense.

[poolshark]

I see all the points being made about the $1 bet on the turn. It is definitely a wrong move for the reasons that people mentioned - folding equity etc.
But thinking on an nth level - it might not have been that bad. I am not sure how well I would be able to explain this - This is a strange charasteristics of a low limit NL table - some players just LOVE to keep you in and see you betting. That was the villain's problem. He might have thought - you have a good hand - like a pair and you don't think he has the trips. the fact that you bet the $1 on turn - probably says that now you are checking to be sure that he has trips or not - so he does the reverse - tell you he 'doesn't' have the trips - by not raising - remember he still thinks you have a pair or PAIR (pun!) - so he sees no danger of letting you bet and go for your '2' outer. Little does he know that he paid respect to the wrong guy - and whoa - it worked.

So nutshell - I like the play if you know he has trips and puts you on a pair - hence he doesnt want you to fold - but would rather have however little he can squeeze out of your bluff bet or second best bet. Turns out - that 'little' was your whole stack! and yes - he didnt even take it!

GOOD JOB

[thatpfunk]

I definetly wouldn't raise out of position with Q9o.

sheesh. You're making things way to hard for yourself.

Edit: I just read the other responses. I really question how well those who agreed with the play here are doing in this game. Bluff? Sure, its a great idea, but not out of position and then following through with weak bets to hit a runner runnner? 6-max is 6-max, but it doesn't give you the excuse to just play hands like crap and then justify the means because of the end. In this game players TRY to give their chips to you, there is absolutely no reason to play like this.

[amoeba]

unless your post was sarcastic, no, just no.

I doubt the OP had such a good read that he put villain on trips no T kicker.

you are saying the turn minbet to disguise your gutshot draw as a pair. You think the villain really puts you on a straight after the river? Hero had gutshot draw and needed as cheap a river card as possible. Any decent turn bet from villain does not give hero odds to call. Now, the question is whether most of the time he gets a cheaper river card by check calling, minbetting like he did, betting 1/3 to 1/2 pot, betting full pot, going all in.Unless if he had a fantastic read on villain in which he knew he would not raise, the minbet is the worst idea out o f these options.

I mean its like saying preflop I hold 98s HU out of position against a player I know to hold AA. I'll minraise preflop hoping AA does not reraise. By minraising, I disguise my hand as marginal above average hands like AJ, KQ. Then I'll hope I flop trips, 2 pair, straight or flush and bust him. This is a retarded line.


Sorry, this hand was played horribly. Stealing out of SB with limpers with a minraise is already retarded. Bluffing on the flop can be somewhat justified. bluffing on the turn is retarded.

[poolshark]

[ QUOTE ]

Hero had gutshot draw and needed as cheap a river card as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my point. First of all - I didnt mean to say that he made a fantastic read - I used a bunch of "Ifs". I just analyzed what went on in villain's mind. By betting $1 - I think Hero might have unintentionally gotten the cheapest river possible. If he checks - Villain should bet more than 1. Because of the $1 bet - villain just continued his slow play-let the bluffer bet move. and hence the cheap river.
I hope you don't think i am applauding the move - I am just saying he unwittingly bought a cheap river which hit for the good implied odds.

[amoeba]

yes, unwittingly got a cheap river.

If he had a read that villain likes to slowplay his big hands then this move can actually be somewhat justified. At least more justifiable than the out of position preflop minraise.

In this instance though, I believe hero didn't put the villain on trips but was thinking that villain was calling with a pair of 7s and hero probably believed a 9 or Q were also outs on the river.

I wonder how he would have played it if on the river a 9 or a Q came down instead of an 8.

[Wayfare]

It's just that it won't get accomplished by a min-raise.

I would guess that min raises are not optimal EV plays 95% of the time. This is easily one of those cases.

[OldLearner]

Thank god for the excellent posters in this forum like WAYFARE, BK Cornelius, schwaza (and several others whom I don't mean to offend by omitting here). You guys know your stuff and its great that you guys contribute in the small-stakes forum.

Some of the "others" (like those that like the line taken in this post) give advice "like" the experts but are really giving some horrible advice.

[cianosheehan]

Ok, I know alot of you dont agree with raising out of position with Q9o. But as someone pointed out, you cant always just wait around for the monster hands. This is just the way I play. Unlike limit at these levels, there doesnt have to be a set formula to playing the game, I think you have to take chances with your starting hands to get some action going. Maybe thats not seen as good play, but it is what I am doing at the moment. Maybe in a few weeks I will play differently, I dont know.

The bet on the turn was a protective bet. I wanted to see the river as cheap as possible, as I had a suspision villain was slow playing. I just thought that had I bet higher, villain would bounce back at me and maybe force me to fold. Had I checked, villain MAY have checked, but he also may have thought the action I was giving him was drying up, so he may have made a move on the turn.

Had the river not made my hand, I would have given it up. Thats what I do alot at the moment on these tables. If I think my opponent has something, Im just not going to continue with the bluffing. I'll check, and if he wants to make a move for the pot with nothing, then fair enough. At these levels table image is not important. And the risk you put into taking a pot like that is not worth it IMO.

I thought the important part of this hand was the river bet. And the fact that the action up until this point allowed me to make such a big move and get away with it. To villain Im sure it looked like a desperate attempt to steal the pot, and he probably thought it was an easy call.
Thanks for all responses

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I know alot of you dont agree with raising out of position with Q9o. But as someone pointed out, you cant always just wait around for the monster hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with your Q9o PFMR as well. Yes you can just wait around for monster hands. Position matters a lot more as well, it wouldn't be half as bad if you played it this way from the button.

Plus, there's a lot more marginal hands that are worth playing than an offsuit two gap.

If you find the table folding to your preflop raises, then you can mix it up but this rarely happens unless you have at least 3x buyin. Otherwise you can just get up and find a softer table.

[ QUOTE ]
This is just the way I play. Unlike limit at these levels, there doesnt have to be a set formula to playing the game, I think you have to take chances with your starting hands to get some action going. Maybe thats not seen as good play, but it is what I am doing at the moment. Maybe in a few weeks I will play differently, I dont know.

[/ QUOTE ]

"This is just the way I play" is just a poor excuse that you want to play however you feel like. That's fine by me.

[ QUOTE ]
The bet on the turn was a protective bet. I wanted to see the river as cheap as possible, as I had a suspision villain was slow playing. I just thought that had I bet higher, villain would bounce back at me and maybe force me to fold. Had I checked, villain MAY have checked, but he also may have thought the action I was giving him was drying up, so he may have made a move on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The villain would've check raised you if he planned on it. A $1 bet into an $8 pot is equivalent of checking in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the important part of this hand was the river bet. And the fact that the action up until this point allowed me to make such a big move and get away with it. To villain Im sure it looked like a desperate attempt to steal the pot, and he probably thought it was an easy call.
Thanks for all responses

[/ QUOTE ]

The river bet was a good move, because you don't see someone betting a gutshot -> OESD very often.