Fun With 55

[Joe Tall]

I really think that in most of these cases that once you break the seal, you're usually best off pissing chips into the collective urinal as fast as humanly possible.

I nominate this for quote of the month.

Nice one, Nate,
Joe Tall

[BottlesOf]

Oh that's so dirty...I love it. Although, I wuss out and bet the river.

[slavic]

Dude, with two players I bet hoping to three bet. Your description of the 3rd player with position is of the nature that he will overcall so in all likelyhood the worst you can get is 2 bets on the river. Mr big pair will only bet a Q and since two of them are on the board he'll raise with it as well as bet it, however he will only call a checkraise. With other pairs he just checks it fearing the LMP as much as you. If LMP bets you let MP off the hook.

The flipside of this is that if a 4th bet happens your likely toast.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Earlier in the hand, I'm usually more inclined to 4-bet the flop rather than go for the double checkraise. Here your play seems okay, but you need to be careful on a board that is a little bit heavier on draws.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think 4-betting pretty much announces that I have a set, and will kill my turn action. In the 15-30 game you play in MP is going to feel a lot better about AQ or AA going 4 bets on the flop than he will in this 5-10 game. Had there been a flush draw out there as well, I would have capped it, but capping this flop would scream set or 2 pair.

I'm still confused as to why so many of you think MP could raise this river. The Q can only help him if I have 2 pair. Certainly there are opponents that don't understand this and would raise anyway, but I don't think this guy would. Besides, if I bet and MP does in fact raise, LMP is dumping any hand that doesnt' have a Q in it. So when I re-raise I still only get 3 bets on the river. Whereas when I check-raise I'm going to get 4. (BTW, LMP had 99 and called both MP's river bet and my check-raise.)

[ QUOTE ]
When playing against aggressive, unthinking opponents, it can be dangerous to make unusual-looking plays that give them the chance to reflect on what you're doing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. Where did the "aggressive, unthinking opponents" come from?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Although, I wuss out and bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't until after the hand was over that I realized this was the first trifecta I have ever pulled off.

Edit: Now that I think about it, this might be the first time I've ever tried for the trifecta.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
The flipside of this is that if a 4th bet happens your likely toast.

[/ QUOTE ]


given how things have played out so far, I'd say there's just about no chance he's losing this pot

[sthief09]

Nate, do you have a name for the trifecta pulled off while trapping another player for all 3 streets?

Did he have a Q?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Did he have a Q?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, MP had AQ and LMP had 99 (he called both MP's river bet and The Dude's check-raise).

But what's more interesting to me is that so many people seem to think I should be betting out on this river. The more I think about it, the more clearly checkraising seems to me to be the right play. Let me see if I can explain my thoughts here.

- There is virtually no chance I'm losing this pot, so my only concern is pumping the most bets I possibly can out MP and LMP.
- My read on MP is that he is tight preflop and capable of thinking decently postflop, although he plays very straightforward. This read isn't 100% since I've never seen him before this session, but it's what I'm going by.
- LMP is calling one bet with virtually any 2 pair hand (mainly pocket pairs), and calling up to 4-bets with any hand that has a Q in it. He's also not going to raise this river with any hand he could have.

Now, given my read on MP, I think it's a good bet that he will recognize what you all have correctly pointed out: even if he has a Q he's still not really going to like his hand. The ONLY hand I could have that he just improved against would be 54. The range of hands he's likely putting me on after the turn are a flopped set, 76 for the straight, 54 for flopped 2 pair, or possibly an aggessively played AQ. By checking the river, he's likely going to do one of two things. 1) Put me on 54 and bet, or 2) Scratch his head, say "I don't know" and bet any hand that has a Q in it. He's probably going to check through AA and KK.

So by betting the river, I get one bet out of each MP and LMP, netting me two bets. In the very unlikely case that MP raises his AQ (again, note my read on him), LMP is going to fold any hand w/o a Q, so I would only get 3 bets anyway. If I give an average of 2.2 BBs profit to betting the river I think I'm being overly generous.

By checking the river, I'm going get an MP bet from AQ and KQ and very occaisionally AA or KK. (As an interesting aside, I would bet AA and KK in his position, and I think it's correct to do so - planning to fold to a checkraise of course.) LMP will be calling, and occaisionally betting a mid-Q if it gets checked to him. So assuming I get 3.5 BBs when MP has a Q (very occaisionally I do see an LMP type of player call one bet then fold to a raise on this type of river) and 1 BB when MP has AA or KK (since sometimes he will bet anyway and sometimes LMP will bet his Q), my EV is 2.6 BBs.

Now, feel free to challenge my assumptions, but realistically I think it's just incredibly unlikley I'm going to get raised on this river if I bet out. Against one of Nate's said "unthinking, aggressive opponents" sure, I can see betting. But not here.

[The Dude]

Bump.

Hey Nate, from your "aggressive, unthinking opponents" comment I can only assume you didn't catch the part at the beginning where I gave my read on MP. How does that information effect your opinion?

[digdeep]

The way I understand the argument is not whether a check-raise in this scenario is the best way to maximize the number of BB in the pot, but instead what is the likelihood that his play will work. If your assumptions are all based on 100% probabilities, you are absolutely correct. However, change the probabilities of the occurence of each scenario and the bet vs. check raise is a bit more debatable.

I think this is where your reads on the opponents are particulatly important, because with different opponents, MP may check, and LMP may check/fold.