Crack the Hand for $20

[handsome]

AJ

[WillyTrailer]

for no other reason than this is what happened to me last night too. makes me feel good when these cats think "I'm going to nail that bastard who raises all the time" and then it backfires on them.

-WT

[naphand]

I cannot fault your analysis. A turn raise is the standard line here, however I still think the Turn card is very safe. The only conceivable draw I lose to here is the backdoor flush. Unless Donky has the 4 or the flush suits he is drawing to 2 outs if he has a pair. I agree that the consideration of whether he has a pair of some kind is critical to the value of this raise, I also agree that a middle-pair (77-TT) would be a likely holding.

On the Turn I had every intention of raising, I stopped when I realised that the board had done nothing to improve any hand he had (except a 4) and has, in fact, made me immune to any 2-pair hand made on the River. I felt that raising the River was a better plan here due to the high chance Donky is bluffing. I did not give Donky the aggression to either bluff raise, or raise any draw. Of course, the converse of this is that he may not have the aggression to contunuation-bluff bet the River.

I would have raised any River card apart from Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. A non-diamond Q probably would have made me pause for thought, but I think I would have raised any way. The plan is not so bad, the River card was.

Of course, the fact that the Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] is the perfect bluff card for Donky clearly gave him the impetus to continue his bluff and I think, with hindsight, there is a reasonable chance he would not have bet without such a "perfect" card. At the time, when he bet the Turn I fully expected him to follow through, now I am not so certain.

I agree, he may have called the Turn raise and may even have called again on the River just to check me out (after all he had come that far).

This hand is all about the mechanics of the Turn-vs-River raise. I do not think the difference in EV is as great as you suggest, much depends on the factors discussed (times he calls a Turn raise and calls/folds the River -vs- times he bets the River again). For the Turn raise to be clearly preferred he must both call the Turn raise and the River bet, for the River raise he just needs to bet the River again. He calls the River raise with the same hands he calls the Turn raise with (i.e. anything) but because the River may improve him (to any pair) I stand to gain more by waiting PLUS I gain an extra bet when he is bluffing and would have folded to the Turn raise. The River may also 2-pair his hand and he CR or 3-bets me.

There are spots when it is correct to wait until the River to raise, and poarticularly so when you suspect villain is bluffing. The number of times villain has nothing is important, as is his capacity to continue bluffing on the River. The fact that he may pair up from nothing on the River (so calls a raise) or may make 2-pair and CR ot 3-bet me adds quite some EV to the River raise IMO.

I believe it is closer than may first appear but it is very dependent on the read. The standard line of raising the Turn is not clearly superior here IMO, if opponent has a high chance of having precisely nothing. If you believe he has a PP much of the time, has picked up the flush draw or has a Q, then the Turn raise is very much the best option but only if the River is an unraisable card or he is prepared to fold to any more aggro from me.

I probably over-focussed on the "he has nothing" line a bit, it was the classic steal-flop/Turn pairing that caused that, and I probably let this shadow my judgement.

Thanks for your input. As it happens (check results) I probably got the max., but that would be too results-oriented. I can certainly confirm that calling down AA is not a pleasant or satisfying experience, and one I would not wish on anyone... [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[WillyTrailer]

I think this analysis is a bit off. Particularly when you say you think you may lose him with a turn raise....there's no way you're losing him. Remember why we think he LRR'd to begin with. He hates you for all of your raising. He's calling a turn raise with any pair, any overcard and mayb with two cards below top card on board. He really wants to stick it to you. Get the bets in while he still has hope to win.

-WT

[naphand]

Well, I have waited and waited and posted my thoughts on the hand but still no-one is getting even close to the right cards.

This was a tough one, not least because it was an AA hand and the board is just primed with so many AA-cracking possibilities. That was just a bluff on my part, this AA hand did not get cracked.

I feel kinda mean and for such tough hands I am always tempted to offer the prize to anyone who at least gets close. The following posters seem to have got the right idea, they did not play the board and tried to think of some really wierd hands that still held some kind of consistency:

krimson (88)
BWebb (85)
PTjvs (33)
baronzues (J4)

Shame about that 4 baronzeus, if you could have just resisted the temptation to believe my Aces were cracked I think you would get the money. Any Jx (x<J) would have been good enough.

Donky shows J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Go figure.

I am sure this will give plenty of ammo to any snipers, but I get to keep the $20 anyway. I would, however, like to thank Harv72b for his excellent post on the psychology of Donkys, anyone wishing to take part in future really should read this insight. This post alone adds considerable value to the thread (I'm serious!).

Part of the solution to cracking the hands is not just to consider what Donky has, but to try and read my reason for posting as well. Too many AA-crack hands here (after the grief I got last time?), too many Rivered-flushes (somewhat understandable) and too much thinking he must have something decent.

As a former player in stripsqueez's HUSH version I am always thinking that people will work the hands if there are too many clues. OK there were just about ZERO clues here, a bit OTT on my part. I will try to strike a balance in future posts but much of that will depend on the skill (?) and audacity of the responders.

Thanks for all who tried (and failed) and those who took the time to make thoughtful and substantive posts. It is funny what comes up in these things. Until next week... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[naphand]

Yes I think you are correct here, he was weak-tight but have morphed into a limpet and tenaciously wanted, as you say, to take any chance to beat me. The question remains - does he call the River unimproved? If not then letting him bluff off his chips is still valid.

I believe my line of reasoning has some merit, but accept the accusation that I favoured that line too much, regardless of the result.

[Harv72b]

Regarding you raising at some point in the hand...I had a hand similar to this happen about 6 months ago. I lost the HH due to a computer crash, but I can go from memory.


I raise first in from MP with AKs. Coldcaller in LP, and Donkey 3-bets from the button. I cap, coldcaller coldcalls again, Donkey calls.

Flop comes AxA. I bet, coldcaller folds, donkey raises, I 3-bet, donkey caps.
Turn is a K. Capped.
River is another K. I bet, Donkey raises, I think about just calling with what is obviously a chop but 3-bet anyway because the rake is already capped, he caps, and I call.

Donkey mucks 56s.

Note that he was not normally a maniac. He'd apparently just gotten fed up by being "bullied" and decided to stick it to me just once. I don't know if he expected me to fold to the river cap or what, but hey...more power to him for trying.

The moral of the story? Don't assume the donkey is going to fold. Or, to paraphrase a great SS poster, "People like to call. I like to give them the opportunity."

[Neal_Schon]

White people have names like 'Lenny' and black people have names like 'Carl'!

[naphand]

Yes, thanks for reminding me and one or two others who have suggested a similar thing.

I find myself oscillating between weak-tight and LAG, at least to some degree. Hopefully the oscillations are reducing and approaching something correct!

Part of the problem is, I believe, a tendency to make reads or decisions that are too narrow in focus. In this case when the flop came so raggy I mentally put myself on the track of "he probably has nothing". As it happens it was "correct", but as others have pointed out and your hand above demonstrates, sometimes players do odd things and letting them bluff-cap is very +EV. I agree we should be taking opportunities for players to make big mistakes.

I know this hand looks obvious from first glance, but I do feel there are often hidden complexities in otherwise straightforward hands. I felt this was one, although I think I am forced to accept that, on balance and even though my thoughts were partially correct, not raising potentially cost me 1 or more BB from a player who perhaps could have gone on to completely self-destruct on this hand.