Errrrrrr.. Who calls this?

[soah]

Hand reading involves analyzing their actions on every street, not just the most recent one. He can't bluff the river without first making it through the first three betting rounds. JT is absolutely the only hand which could be around to bluff on the river. Meanwhile there are a number of reasonable hands which beat Hero, which could also be played by a bad player in exactly the same manner. Barring a read, you cannot make this call on the end. In order to do so you must put your opponent on a very specific hand, and assume that they are capable of overbetting the pot on the river (into an opponent that has shown reasonable strength in what began as a multi-way pot) on a stone cold bluff. More often than not, this will not be the case.

[FreakDaddy]

Fair enough. I think you re-quoted from another post that's why the same questions were asked again. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Regardless, I understand your position and undoubtly the hand looks suspicous. It was not an easy call without a read. I'd make the call though, but I understand why you wouldn't of course.

[-Skeme-]

Solid reponse, soah. JTo was the missed draw I considered, but dismissed it.

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand reading involves analyzing their actions on every street, not just the most recent one. He can't bluff the river without first making it through the first three betting rounds. JT is absolutely the only hand which could be around to bluff on the river. Meanwhile there are a number of reasonable hands which beat Hero, which could also be played by a bad player in exactly the same manner. Barring a read, you cannot make this call on the end. In order to do so you must put your opponent on a very specific hand, and assume that they are capable of overbetting the pot on the river (into an opponent that has shown reasonable strength in what began as a multi-way pot) on a stone cold bluff. More often than not, this will not be the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? What are the numbers of hands that beat villian here? I only realisticly see two. Am I missing something? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

There are many more hands that could be around to bluff on the river. In fact JJ doesn't seem out of the question, along with TT, KQs is also a more remote possibility (because of all the kings out of course). People over play mid-high pairs at this level, and don't play them well.

Again, I'm not saying that it's out of the question that the hand could be played this badly. Of course it is, but there are a number of reasonable questions that arise and without a read it's a tough call, not an easy lay down. It's a fairly big pot in which hero has a decent hand and the only hands that reasonably beat him are 88 and 99. I think when you add in the number of times that villian would bluff, plus have a king himself, that's it's borderline call. Do I think most people here will disagree? Of course I do. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? What are the numbers of hands that beat villian here? I only realisticly see two. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah. Sometimes when a betting pattern screams a monster, you have to listen. Sometimes you abandon the "Hands I'm beating Vs. Hands beating me" concept and act solely on your read. Here's a better question: What hands are likely to play it this way, from a non-psycho kinda weak player, that I am beating?

If you raise preflop with Kings, get reraised, someone 3-bets all in, and another person comes over the top of THEM all in.. do you call? You call because only 1 hand is beating you, but everything else is behind? I'd hope not.

You bring up a player developing his hand reading ability, but cite that 99 and 88 isn't likely based on other holdings he may have? And then you somehow say Tens and Jacks play it like this? I never see that happening.


[ QUOTE ]
Do I think most people here will disagree? Of course I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this supposed to mean?

[FreakDaddy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really? What are the numbers of hands that beat villian here? I only realisticly see two. Am I missing something?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yeah. Sometimes when a betting pattern screams a monster, you have to listen. Sometimes you abandon the "Hands I'm beating Vs. Hands beating me" concept and act solely on your read. Here's a better question: What hands are likely to play it this way, from a non-psycho kinda weak player, that I am beating?

[/ QUOTE ]

What hands am I missing besides 88 and 99? I've already answered your question, but here goes again. JJ,TT,KQs,JT,89s,QQ & AA(a little more remote but probable),AK.
[ QUOTE ]

If you raise preflop with Kings, get reraised, someone 3-bets all in, and another person comes over the top of THEM all in.. do you call? You call because only 1 hand is beating you, but everything else is behind? I'd hope not.


[/ QUOTE ]
Completely depends of course. Yet in most cases I'd fold.
[ QUOTE ]

You bring up a player developing his hand reading ability, but cite that 99 and 88 isn't likely based on other holdings he may have? And then you somehow say Tens and Jacks play it like this? I never see that happening.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I don't ever recall saying that 88 and 99 are unlikely. I did say the pre-flop mini-raise creates a question, but I never said that it wasn't probable. I in fact stated that it was probable that someone could play the two holdings you are fearful of this badly.

Do you say that you'd never see them(JJ,TT) played that way because you'd never play them that way, or you really never see players overplay mid pocket pairs at this level? Just curious. I see it a fair amount of the time. Perhaps you should come sit at my tables. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I think most people here will disagree? Of course I do.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is this supposed to mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a majority of the play here is a little weak-tight.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
JJ,TT,KQs,JT,89s,QQ & AA(a little more remote but probable),AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see none of these hands as likely holdings for Villain. KQs and JTo are more likely than any others, but still pretty far out there.


[ QUOTE ]
Completely depends of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what?


[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... I don't ever recall saying that 88 and 99 are unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meant to say, "cite that 99 and 88 is likely", sorry.


[ QUOTE ]
Do you say that you'd never see them(JJ,TT) played that way because you'd never play them that way, or you really never see players overplay mid pocket pairs at this level?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do I never ever play them this way, I've never seen anybody else play them this way. I would expect Jacks and Tens to either lead the flop and maybe the turn or check-call down because they suck. Not jam the river.


[ QUOTE ]
I think a majority of the play here is a little weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[soah]

TT and KQ don't need to bluff the river. They have showdown value. They were made hands on the flop with little hope for improvement -- the only reason anyone would check-call with them is if they believe their hand is already good.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the numbers of hands that beat villian here? I only realisticly see two.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you meant Hero... 88, 99, and 76 are three obvious ones. Then consider occassionally running into K9, K8... or even K5 or 55. Anyone that would minraise preflop with JT would certainly be capable of doing the same with K9 or something.

[swedeD]

Some thoughts on how a LAG can try to bluff Hero off the pot:

Considering the flop is checked to Hero, Villian can put Hero on any pair or trying to buy the pot. When king nr 2 appears and Hero makes another bet, I still can see that Villian thinks Hero can bet like that without having a king or better. King nr 2 and Hero's turn bet doesn't decrease the possibility that Villian think Hero doesn't have a king, Villian will probably keep his read.

With that kind of read, a maniac can easily think an all-in bet will buy the pot. I have seen this a lot of times at 6 max. If villian is a LAG and just plays his opponents, this isn't a rare scenario.

But, of course, this is full ring so I would fold this hand. It just smells bad player walked into monster hand and is trying to do a fancy play.

[-Skeme-]

If I knew he was a maniac I would've called. I don't see a non-maniac player doing this without a monster.