Playing A-high at the Best Table Ever

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm lost on this hand after the flop.

I guess I understand the turn bet, but I don't know about the river call.

[/ QUOTE ]


This hand is ENTIRELY read-based.

The idea is this: The maniac could basically have any two cards. With a bunch of low cards and a paired board, it is much more likely than usual that no one has a pair in his hand yet. So the idea is that my AJ has a lot of showdown value at this point, and I kind of want to show it down in what is a pretty big pot.

One way to accomplish this would be to just go into calldown mode. But that has the bad effect of letting the other players see the river for one bet. If they have weak pairs, hands like KQ, or maybe even better As, I want them to fold. They probably don't realize how crazy the maniac is.

So I bet the turn in the hopes that the maniac will raise and blow away the field. Then I get the hand heads-up with the maniac, and, based on reads, that situation is very favorable.

The turn is a better place to do this than the flop because tons of turn cards hurt my hands (so I want to see a safe turn card) and it will be much easier to protect my hand/push my edge when the big bets come.

I call the river because that's the entire point. The maniac will raise the turn with tons of hands that are worse than mine. I am NOT in a bet/fold unimproved situation. My hand is going to be good pretty often regardless of what the maniac does. I'm HOPING he raises the turn, in fact.

Results: Maniac showed K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and MHIG!

[newhizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Results: Maniac showed K J and MHIG!

[/ QUOTE ]

nice hand, i wonder if hes more likely to bet this or to call a bet with this, i have no idea

of course hes probably likely to have like 6 high or something too which he most likely will not call a bet with

[BigBrother]

I think this is results-based thinking and you should have known to fold the flop since you were most likely drawing very thin against 83o.

First of all, thanks for the great reply. I was hoping you would answer it, and you did.

[ QUOTE ]
Results: Maniac showed K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and MHIG!

[/ QUOTE ]

Un-[censored]-able! That's great.

I guess this isn't really a bluff, but rather calling a bluff, right? It seems the few times this has happened to me, Villian ended up pairing at least, and sometimes actually had a hand at the end. Maybe I'm being too results-oriented for the few times I've been burned.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, thanks for the great reply. I was hoping you would answer it, and you did.

[ QUOTE ]
Results: Maniac showed K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] and MHIG!

[/ QUOTE ]

Un-[censored]-able! That's great.

I guess this isn't really a bluff, but rather calling a bluff, right? It seems the few times this has happened to me, Villian ended up pairing at least, and sometimes actually had a hand at the end. Maybe I'm being too results-oriented for the few times I've been burned.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not really a bluff in the truest sense. It's more of a promotion play, or what might be termed a "value-bluff."

The idea is that I can beat one guy but maybe not the other two; so I use him to improve the relative standing of my hand.

The major points in considering this play:

1. The maniac. We need a REAL crazy here. I needed to be pretty sure not only that he'd often have a worse hand than mine, but that he'd often raise with it to improve my equity.

2. Board texture. This doesn't make sense if the board had a K, Q, or even T. The fact that ever card was so low and that the board was paired gave me some confidence that most of the players in the hand probably missed the board, meaning either my hand was often pretty good or that they had hands that wouldn't likely continue with.

3. Relative position. The fact that I'm next to the maniac is key here. I'd actually prefer to be on his left, so I could raise/check-raise him and have more control over the outcome, but this guy was such a lag that I could bet into him knowing he'd raise a good majority of the time.

[UCLAseetoK]

Is this play (turn donk with hopes of blowing out field) really profitable at 2/4? From my experience, it seems when a super aggro-fish has been at a table for a while, the table tends to overcall against plays like this much more often then usual... how much would this negate the value of this play?

.... pocket two calldown for the win. =D