Interesting "Ace on the River" hand - Page 2

Bartholow · #11 08-11-2005, 02:24 PM

I believe in the power of the simple mind. I 3-bet the river.

blumpkin22 · #12 08-11-2005, 03:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He calls to potentially cap the betting with both players, following a raise by the weak player.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to expect the weak player to raise, since he needs to hit his two outer to make trips. With quad 8s, the strong player would always raise and hope for an overcall from the weak player and a reraise from us if we have a full house.

blumpkin22 · #13 08-11-2005, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in the power of the simple mind. I 3-bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Decisions in poker are not always simple, and that is what makes it a great game. Now back to the hand.

Here is a paraphrasing of Greenstein's amazing analysis.

The strong player must have started with rolled up 8s. That is consistent with his cold call of the raise on third, and his decision to continue when we have open queens. Thus, the strong player almost surely has a full house.

Now you think, "Why didn't he initially raise you on the river?" He must have figured he could get the same money if he got an overcall from the weak player, without risking a reraise from you. Piecing this together, you start to see what the perfect play was. You could have JUST CALLED the raise by the weak player on the river, representing only trip queens. You may get just an overcall from the strong player, but if he has the eights full he will now reraise, because he now thinks you did not fill up. So, he will then reraise, and when it comes back to you, you confound them both with the fourth bet!

beta1607 · #14 08-11-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Now you think, "Why didn't he initially raise you on the river?" He must have figured he could get the same money if he got an overcall from the weak player, without risking a reraise from you. Piecing this together, you start to see what the perfect play was. You could have JUST CALLED the raise by the weak player on the river, representing only trip queens. You may get just an overcall from the strong player, but if he has the eights full he will now reraise, because he now thinks you did not fill up. So, he will then reraise, and when it comes back to you, you confound them both with the fourth bet!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutly brilliant. Overall do the posters in stud who read this book recommend it?

Jeffage · #15 08-11-2005, 04:14 PM

I liked this book alot, though it is FAR from stud specific. The hand examples are excellent (NL Hold Em, Limit, Stud, Tournaments). It's really kind of how to approach poker mentally and practically with a few brilliant hand reading flashes thrown in. Worth the money IMO.

Jeff

Bartholow · #16 08-11-2005, 04:24 PM

Yeah, that's smart. Guess it's another case of me not counting on people, even strong players, to come to these conclusions in the heat of the moment.

jon_1van · #17 08-11-2005, 04:27 PM

I guess if you are playing 4k-8k you can take alittle more time than the 20 secs party gives you

Michael Emery · #18 08-11-2005, 06:12 PM

My copy of the book is on order so I should have it soon. As for the hand, it seems simple enough. Though its played in a atypical and unorthodox fashion it does make sense. The only flaw in it that I see is on the river. Is this "weak" player paying off with just aces or kings here? I assume we all can agree it would take an absolute dolt to overcall here with his unimproved big pair. Therefore, an argument can be made that the eights full should have raised the river here since more than likely the weak player isnt improving and thus not calling. And while it might sound odd, if he improves, some weak players might just cold call the two river bets if they do make their aces/kings up. But if its positive that the weak player wont call two bets cold on the river if he improves (reasoning the "strong" player must be full) then a argument can be made for just calling instead and hoping for an overcall. This way you dont risk 2-1 if the Queen is full. But this still dosent sound right. IMO the "strong" player played on a world class level until the river, where he should have raised.

Mike Emery

blumpkin22 · #19 08-11-2005, 06:39 PM

I disagree. The weak player has called all the way, and he is calling if he makes two pair, and might make a horrible crying call unimproved because he is (in Sklansky's terminology) "married" to his big pair, even in the face of open pairs on the board. Doubtful, but possible; it is a big pot.

The strong player could have raised on sixth with the full house, but again, with the weak player likely drawing dead and the open queens likely drawing very live to a better full house, there seems to be no point. Also, the strong player doesn't know whether or not we have a full house on sixth (or even fifth). If he raises on sixth and we fill up on the river, it is an easy check-raise for us to execute. If you think it through a little more, it is the best move for him to just call all the way, keep the weak player in, and not risk a reraise from us.

The maneuver on the river getting four bets in is pure genius.

barryg1 · #20 08-11-2005, 07:47 PM

By the was, as with this hand, none of the hands in the book were contrived. Since you guys made a thread about it, I will let you know the weak player was Larry Flynt and the strong player was Ted Forrest. I was extremely confident about the hands I was up against, going to the river.

I made the obvious (but probably wrong) three-bet on the river, at the table. When Ted showed me his full house, I slowly realized that he would have called without hesitation on the river with only three eights, hoping it was good.

Ted even needled me about it at the time, suggesting I should have figured out the right play.

Barry