Hand to Talk About

[mike l.]

"And he's going to fold pretty often to a river raise from Mason, unless he indeed does have him beat."

have you been sitting in the same game ive been sitting in the past 2 years? mid limit texass hold em? because i see AK get paid there like constantly all over town (and even out in vegas which is noticeably looser than it was before each time i go) just about always.

a maxim for this poker boom era hold em is: no one believes anybody ever has anything. you just have to show them. this is especially true for the 80 and higher ive played. so unless the 80 mason was in was a rock garden and the bb a known no action sort of player, the raise on the river is mandatory.

[dankhank]

okay so the BB would make this play because (a) he's bluffing, (b) he turned a boat, or (c) he has a weaker ace and thinks it's the best hand. (d) is that he's betting his jack or QQ-KK.

if (a) happens then the BB will fold to a raise, so in a sense the raise is pointless. you would think he'd fold his jack, and with QQ or KK I'd be surprised that he doesn't check call the river. so this is a loose generalization, but let's say if BB has (d) then a raise is pointless too.

so: are the odds of the BB having (c) that much more likely than (b), that it's worth the risk of losing two bets (if he has a boat and re-raises) to gain one (if he has a weaker ace)?

again a solid/tricky opponent i'm guesstimating it's something like 70/30 that he has (c) rather than (b). i suck at math but it seems like if those are the odds (again, this disregards him calling holdings like KJ to a raise; or leading out with it in the first place) then there is an argument to be made for just calling, since winning the hand will get you one more bet, but losing will cost you two.

for some reason i think tommy's line would include a pop on the river here. mine would too, incidentally.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
mason played this hand like his opponent must know he's mason and must care and be worried as a result.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think is is true. I think Mason just called on the river so he could utilize El Diablo's new Matador showdown style, thus putting his opponent on tilt.


(_) (/) (|)

[William Jockusch]

Let's examine this hand from the point of view of the big blind. This is an 80/160 game, so we have to assume he is an aware player. Mason raised from an early position. When he does this, his likely holdings are no big secret. AK, AQ, maybe AJ or a big pocket pair, or a few big suited hands. On rare occasion, something wild to throw off the opposition.

I don't know Mason's exact distribution, and neither does his opponent. But the important thing is, about 40% of the time, Mason will have a big ace. Depending on Mason's exact distribution, this figure might be 35% or 45%, but it certainly isn't far off.

When two aces hit the board, the chance that Mason has a big ace drops somewhat. Maybe as far down as 20%. But still a pretty big chance. Also, Mason could have JJ or AA, which are both monsters on this board. When the river comes, from the viewpoint of the big blind, there is probably about a 25% chance that Mason has AQ or better.

The big blind knows all this. And yet he is betting!

Returning to Mason's point of view, something really strange is going on here. Why is the big blind betting? The whole situation just doesn't compute. If the big blind has a monster, he should really be check raising Mason's expected bet. If the big blind doesn't have a monster, he shouldn't really be betting into Mason's possible monster.

That said, the one thing that seems sure is that the big blind doesn't have a medium-strength hand. If he did, he would check and call. In this context, medium-strength hands include weak aces, since anybody holding a weak ace would have to be concerned about his kicker.

That means it is highly likely the big blind has one of the following:

1) A monster of his own (and is going for 3 bets), or
2) Total garbage -- a bluff.

In case 1, Mason will lose two big bets by raising. In case 2, he will gain nothing. Hence his call.

[andyfox]

It's Vegas, baby. They love to fold. And to explain why.

And it's Mason. It's not for sure the opponent knows Mason, but it's not unlikely either.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
no one believes anybody ever has anything. you just have to show them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my new favorite poker quote. I don't play at this level of course, but man, I can't count how many times I've been called down to the river by small PP's when the board is practically broadway and I'm still betting the whole way. I can't figure out who's worse, me for firing three barrels with an unimproved AQ or AK, or the other guy for calling down with 33.

Anyway, I hope Mason will drop by and give at least an inkling of his read on this hand. I just can't imagine not raising the river, and I haven't seen an explanation of why the call is correct yet that I completely buy.

[KidPokerX]

raise the river. What are you worried about?

[skp]

That maxim you speak of is oh so right. These days, you don't even have to worry about losing the guy if you raise the turn. He'll look you up with 33 (or even when drawing dead with a Jack). Anyway, having just called the turn, a river raise is clearly mandatory particularly given that the flop and turn have 4 different suits. What this means is that the bb's out of the blue turn bet is not a semibluff with a flush draw. He has some kind of hand. Therefore, it's less likely that he is bluffing the river. He is value betting. Punish him with your Ak.

Put another way: You are more likely to be called here than if the turn ace were to put a flush draw out there.

[tipperdog]

Mason,

I think Tommy Angelo has cracked your 2+2 account and is making posts in your name!

My first thought was to raise the river. Now, I'm not so sure. It depends almost entirely upon the range of hands with which the BB might call your raise pre-flop.

Let's consider ONLY those hands with which the BB might call a river raise (or would 3-bet, if he's ahead). If he's pushing a bluff like KQ (highly unlikely), he can't call your raise, so we don't need to consider these hands.

Let's assume that he'll call (or raise) your river raise with any ace (including A2 and AJ), JJ or 22. I'm discounting the possibility of 35 (would have folded pre-flop), AQ, AK, KK, or QQ (would have either 3-bet pre-flop or check-raised on the flop), and 44 (wouldn't have stayed around until the river).

That range of hands leaves 28 hand combinations that you beat and 15 combinations that beat you. Since you're laying 2:1 with a river raise if you plan to call if 3-bet, a raise is NOT profitable here.

However, if you think my range of hands is even slightly off (if, for example, he might play this line with QQ AND pay off a river raise--I doubt it very much) then a river raise becomes correct. Also, if you can safely fold to a river 3-bet, a raise becomes correct, since you're effectively laying 1:1 odds on the final bet instead of 2:1. However, I can't imagine you could lay down to a 3-bet here, absent a superhuman read on the BB.

[illguitar]

The BB would most likely call with any ace, and mnay other hands, although it looks right now like you are up against an ace. I'm raising....