$60-$120 Hand

[Jim Brier]

This is a 9-handed $60-$120 game at the Bellagio. I am in the small blind with the Ac-4c. An early player and two middle players limp in. I limp in for another $20. The big blind checks. There is $300 in the pot and five players. The flop is: Qc-5s-2c, giving me the nut-flush draw, a gutshot straight draw, and an ace overcard. I bet my 15-outer. The big blind folds but the early player raises to $120. The other two players fold. I make it $180. I am 3-betting because I figure to end up with the best hand by the river and I may be able to bet my opponent out of the hand if he has a better hand. He calls. There is $660 in the pot and two players. The turn is the 9s. I bet and my opponent calls. There is $900 in the pot. The river is the 8h, a complete bustout. I check. My opponent bets. What should I do? A second question: Should I have bet the river?

I will post the results later.

[Dynasty]

I agree with your pre-flop, flop, and turn play.

On the river, I think you have a fold. It's hard to put your opponent on a non-pair hand. Since you hold the Ac and the Qc is on the board, it's hard to give the EP a club flush draw. KcJc would be the strongest club hand he could have.

Normally, I would have bluff-bet the river after being so aggressive on the earlier streets but it's probably a mistake to do so in this hand.

[J_V]

I would fold if I checked the river. However, I would have bet the river and given my opponent a chance to laydown a hand. I can't put my opponent on a hand that I would fold, but that doesn't mean he won't fold. Players do strange things, with this much money in the pot, give you opponent a chance to so something dumb.

Well it sure sucks that you didn't hit one of your many outs. You played this hand nice and aggressively which is IMO the only way to play it. I personally would bet on the river. This way if your opponent is on a draw like yourself he will fold, figuring you for a strong made hand. Besides, you have to bet to win. He has position on you and the only way to take the pot down at this point is to bet out without hesitation. If you check to him on the river then you should probably fold.

PokerPrince

[FishyWhale]

3rd question: Why not just call his raise on the flop and check-raise the turn no matter what?

1) Anyway, the only hand you can beat by calling imo is a lower busted flush draw (KJs or KTs) and check-raising is very expensive when it fails (which it most likely will), so I guess I´d fold, putting my opponent on KQs, KK, AA, or AK.

2) Generally, betting the river does sound right instinctively, but if you ask yourself what your opponent has got at this point, take a look at the odds he´s getting (8.5-to-1), and think of the "call turn, call river" maxim, a check-fold probably is better (but perhaps he would have folded on the turn if you had gone for the check-raise).

[mikelow]

On the turn, you have to follow through. A check would announce "I'm on a club draw." On the river you are getting 7.5 to 1. You can't beat any pairs or an ace (except for A-3).
So what is the chance of a bluff without an ace? Not great. So I would fold. BTW, I would have bet on the river as well. Try to continue the (semi)bluff.

[Mason Malmuth]

I think that there is a flaw in your thinking here. In fact, your rational reminds me of playing stud, which I have been doing a lot of lately, more than hold 'em.

In stud, since it is more often correct to chase, and since it is less correct to check when you have taken the lead, it is often correct to go to three bets on the cheap street since your opponent is less likely to give it up. Put another way, there is less value in an alternative strategy.

Hold 'em doesn't work that way. If you were to call and then checkraise semi-bluff on the turn if a blank hit, depending on the player of course, there is some chance that he would fold. If you made the exact same play in stud, they will almost always call and then go to the river (as they usually should [in stud]).

So even though you are the favorite to finish with the best hand on the flop, at limit hold 'em it doesn't mean that you should automatically take it to three bets. You must consider the possible alternatives and how they can impact the play of the hand.

MM [img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img]

[Steve Fiete]

Fold.

Would he have raised on the flop with a flush draw with 2 players after him? Maybe, but he would need to have that flush draw, and make that play. If he had JcTc then you are beat anyway. The only other reasonable possibilities are KJs and maybe KTs. So there are only two hands he could have that you could beat, and he probably would not have raised on the flop with these hands if he had them.

Would he still be with you on the river with a pair less than Queens. This seems really remote, and even if he did, then the 9 and 8 are scare cards for you. He probably would have raised pre-flop with JJ and TT.

That leaves hands where he has a Q, and I do not think he would have folded this if you had bet the river.

[John Gaspar]

I've never played this high but I'll offer an opinion anyway [img]/forums/images/icons/smirk.gif[/img] I would have bet the river as well. When you check the river, you must fold. With a better kicker like a J, I might call. I would do this because what could my opponent be betting. A good Q or a busted draw? I think your opponent would just showdown an okay Q and nut no pair. FWIW.

[Mike Gallo]

Jim,

I would check, fold. I dont think a bet would win this hand, and I think a weak ace might not take the pot either.

What hands would your opponent limp in with from early position? Perhaps KQ off, a medium pocket pair, or a stronger ace? All of those hands beat yours.

Keep in mind this comes from a player who hasnt played higher than $10-$20, so I could be way off here. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]