10-25 NL at Foxwoods

[niwotyalpi]

My best guess for what its worth....

Pro has top 2

Kid turned straigh and rivered flush with Q 10 of clubs

Cant wait to see these results!

[swolfe]

cowboys vs fishhooks?

[Justin A]

Without looking at the other responses, I'll take a stab. Since you seem to know what the pro had, he probably called and very likely had the nuts or close to it. I'm going to put him on AQc, for the flush draw and the gutshot.

If I'm the kid, I bluff on zero river cards. Since this guy's a pro, he's either really got a strong draw, or he's doing an acting job with a made monster.

Justin A

[birdman6fo]

Pro has cowboys? Seems like pro is really going out of his way to ACT weak (card shuffling, holding them high like they are going in the muck, shoulder shrug before calling) which typically means strength. I don't think he would try too hard to appear weak and drawing if he actually had a flush draw as it would certainly kill any of his river action. Pro probably has a made hand so kid can bluff if a club or four to a straight comes on the river that doesn't pair the board. Just to make it interesting...kid has pocket fours?

[Loci]

Good post. As far as the young guns of 2004 go, if the kid has the goods, I go with David Williams. If he doesn't, John Murphy. The play seems to erradict for any of the crew. If the kid doesn't have anything, gets called, loses everything he has, and then cries about it, I go with Arieh. Considering that this guy wants to win every single pot, that's my preference. Is he better than me? Absolutely. Am I scared he'll read this and then make it his life mission to antagonize every single post I ever make? I'm not sure he can read.

Wow. I'm angsty.

Anyhow, I'm going to go with the pro having hooks for the boat and the gunner on the A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] w/10/J/Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] for the nut flush draw and either middle pair or gut shot draw with it.
Look forward to hearing the results!
E

[cero_z]

Hi guys,

Thanks for your responses. Nobody really got what I was getting at, though that might be my fault; it's difficult to convey exactly the nuances of the pro's bush-leauge act in writing. vector2's 2nd post came closest.

Here are my thoughts: what the pro is doing is acting weak, though not in the stereotypical way that means a monster. What he's trying to convey, in my mind, is "hmmmm...I have a K with an OK kicker or some similar hand, and you've raised me. I guess I'll pay off." Weak players often do this with such a hand, and good players know that they won't really pay off on the river, if you bet huge. So against a weak player, it's a sweet tell, because it's a license to buy the pot unless the top card pairs on the river, plus he just sweetened the pot by calling your turn raise.

What's silly about this situation in my mind, is that good players obviously won't pay off this way, when their opponents have thousands more to bet on the river. If they for some reason decide that their mediocre hand is good on the turn, they're going to raise and try to win it there, not put themselves in a spot where they have to call another big bet on the river with one pair. And most of the time, they'll just dump the hand immediately and not sweat it. This is a classic reverse implied odds situation.

OK, back to my read. Since this is the image the pro is trying to project with his little display, I feel confident he's on a draw. That probably means that he picked up a flush draw on the turn, since there isn't a good straight draw available. Or, he could have a straight and flush draw. Anyway, if I'm the kid and I'm bluffing (which he was), I would shut down for sure if a club hit, and would be hesitant to try a bluff if a Q or T hit the river. If the K or J paired, though, I would definitely go for it. Notice that this is exactly opposite of how I'd play against a weak player.

I use this ploy myself against weak players, when I've bet the nut flush draw and been raised. I act like I'm deciding whether to call with my "semi-strong made hand," so that in the event that they have 2 pair or something, they won't be thinking as much about the flush card helping me if it hits. But, I would never think of trying this against a player who I respect. I'm stunned that it worked in this case.

The river was the 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and the kid moved all-in. The pro called instantly, and the kid mucked before the pro even turned over his hand (that's how I know it was a stone-cold bluff). The pro showed Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], for a rivered flush.

The kid was embarrassed, and left the game immediately. I think he went to go catch up on some sleep--hint, hint.

[cero_z]

Hi turnipmonster,

I really like your analysis of the betting sequence. Your assumptions about the pro's raising standards were correct, I think--maybe not ANY 2, but ANY 2 "playable" cards. The bet on the turn is not consistent with a draw in many cases, but in this case, he wants to build the pot, in order to play a big one. I think the most important thing to realize is that by calling the raise on the turn, he knows he is going to play a big pot. Tough players don't usually try to play big pots with one pair, and that's what made my spider sense tingle in this case.

[vector2]

Very interesting hand. It's not surprising the kid bluffed the pot on the river considering the silly acting job the pro did on the turn, I'm just surprised he was dumb enough to bet all 6k. He should've just fired out 2k and mucked when the pro moved in. Also, I think JustinA called the pro's hand the closest. He said A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Oh yeah, one more point. Cero mentions that the action on the turn is not consistent with a draw - I would assume that betting out on the flop and then checking behind after picking up a gutshot and a flushdraw would be, but we all know that the kid would've automatically checked if any scare card came out on the river. In retrospect, I think the pro took perfect situational advantage by firing out a weak bet on the turn. A larger bet and the kid would've probably just mucked. There's $385 in the pot when the pro bets a mere $150 (less than 1/3 of the pot). Usually a bet like this is made with a monster hoping for a re-raise, but does anyone think that calling a re-raise that size is correct against a decent opponent? I would think that most players playing at 10/25NL and above would correctly put the pro on some mediocre hand + backdoor draw and automatically shutdown if a club, Q, or T hit the river.

[coltrane]

cero,

two questions.....(your second post in this thread is really good by the way)......

one is, what do you think the pro put the kid on when he checkraised the turn?.....

two, why do you say that if the K or J paired that that is a good bluff card?......is it because if YOU are the kid, after seeing the pro deliberate like that, you put pro on a flush/straight draw (so you shut down to any broadway/club and fire at the rest)?......whereas, if you are the kid, and you see a weak player deliberate, you'd do the opposite (because a weak player most likely has a pair/top two-type hand as opposed to the draw)?.....if I've got it right here, I think it makes a lot of sense.......

one other thing, it hasn't really been mentioned that the river - aside from bringing the flush - also paired the board.....do you think this scared the pro at all?....or no because the pro doesn't think there's any way in hell the kid would play a set like that?.....

[vector2]

Thanks for pointing that out, coltrane. I didn't even notice that the 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] paired that board. After having this pointed out, I'm surprised the pro was able to call so quickly. Before, it didn't really matter if the kid was bluffing or not because the odds of the kid having the nut flush the way the action has been going is very remote. However, it is within the realm of possibility that the kid limped with JJ or 99 (the higher the cards on the board are, the harder it is to put someone on a set if he or she wasn't the preflop raiser). Many a time I've busted a limper with JJ on an A-J-x board when they flopped aces up with AXs). Was the pro just absolutely sure the kid was bluffing?