Texas Holdem Hand

Steve Giufre · #1 12-09-2005, 12:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
can the button have Th9h here?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the flop I put him on KT or 109. I cant see him taking all that heat with just a Q, and I think he knows better than to smooth call the flop with QJ. Once he raised the turn, I was really more less thinking K10 and not much else, and the BB should know this, which is what makes his turn three bet even more scary.

Great responses so far I think. I am curious to hear more about the first decision on the turn, call VS raise.

andyfox · #2 12-09-2005, 01:14 PM

Sure seems like your in, at best, second place on the turn, and you might be drawing to a one-outer. I agree with your "scary" characterizaton of the BB's actions, especially considering he bet into your flop cap when an ace came. An ace comes on the turn and a guy still bets after there's been a lot of flop action, and my experience is that he's either got snow or a hand where he wants to be raised.

Now you see why I don't (hardly ever) play deuces. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Steve Giufre · #3 12-09-2005, 01:21 PM

Now you see why I don't (hardly ever) play deuces. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I agree with you and others that Im taking a little bit of the worst of it limping behind there. Its just that calling is way more fun than folding. Thats gotta count for something right?

andyfox · #4 12-09-2005, 01:32 PM

Mason wrote a long time ago about not worrying about losing set over set because it just doesn't happen often enough to worry about. Which if true. But it will happen more often, obviously, if you're playing a lot of small pairs, especially if you cold call with them. (I know you didn't do that here.)

Anyway, tough spot you're in here. I see the logic of those who say raise the turn first time around to protect your hand, but when I think there's a good chance I'm behind, and maybe drawing virtually dead, I just don't see the sense of raising to "protect." I saw the analysis that said you were 11:9 to have BB beat, but that's a strictly mathematical analysis; since he's firing and re-firing the odds he has you beat, in my estimation, go way up. Not to mention it sure looks like the other guy has a straight.

Steve Giufre · #5 12-09-2005, 01:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mason wrote a long time ago about not worrying about losing set over set because it just doesn't happen often enough to worry about. Which if true. But it will happen more often, obviously, if you're playing a lot of small pairs, especially if you cold call with them. (I know you didn't do that here.)

Anyway, tough spot you're in here. I see the logic of those who say raise the turn first time around to protect your hand, but when I think there's a good chance I'm behind, and maybe drawing virtually dead, I just don't see the sense of raising to "protect." I saw the analysis that said you were 11:9 to have BB beat, but that's a strictly mathematical analysis; since he's firing and re-firing the odds he has you beat, in my estimation, go way up. Not to mention it sure looks like the other guy has a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the post Andy. Your thinking is pretty similar to mine.

#6 12-09-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Mason wrote a long time ago about not worrying about losing set over set because it just doesn't happen often enough to worry about. Which if true. But it will happen more often, obviously, if you're playing a lot of small pairs, especially if you cold call with them. (I know you didn't do that here.)

Anyway, tough spot you're in here. I see the logic of those who say raise the turn first time around to protect your hand, but when I think there's a good chance I'm behind, and maybe drawing virtually dead, I just don't see the sense of raising to "protect." I saw the analysis that said you were 11:9 to have BB beat, but that's a strictly mathematical analysis; since he's firing and re-firing the odds he has you beat, in my estimation, go way up. Not to mention it sure looks like the other guy has a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Im the one that came up with the 11:9 figure, and I just wanted to point out to you that this number is not "strictly mathematical", in fact this figure is based almost purely on logic. The only hands I have in the villain's range that constitute this number are the hands that I think the villain would logically play this way, AQ,AA,QQ,JJ,QJs. I think if you look at the action preflop+flop by this aggresive player you will see that there is a good chance he would play all these holdings the exact same way. So based on logic and mathematics, the hero is a small favorite to have the best hand which is why I think raising is the correct move on the turn since at this point in the hand the hero didnt know the guy behind him had a likely straight.

andyfox · #7 12-09-2005, 03:09 PM

Thanks. I'd discount Q-Js somewhat, since most players are more likely to knuckle, than raise, preflop with this hand, and the turn ace might slow Q-J down, especially out of position again two opponents, one of whom capped the flop.

When I said "strictly mathematical," I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered what hands BB was likely to have given the action. (Your analyses are unfailingly well-thought out and instructive.) A guy keeps betting like this I usually put greater emphasis on him having a great hand rather than a very good one. But no doubt BB wouldn't put either of his opponents on a set, given that neither of them raised pre-flop and he might figure Steve would slow play a set of 2s. And guys just don't put other guys on sets of deuces. He'd have reason to believe A-Q was the best hand, putting Steve on Q-J.

Your point, as usual, is well taken.

#8 12-09-2005, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks. I'd discount Q-Js somewhat, since most players are more likely to knuckle, than raise, preflop with this hand, and the turn ace might slow Q-J down, especially out of position again two opponents, one of whom capped the flop.

When I said "strictly mathematical," I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered what hands BB was likely to have given the action. (Your analyses are unfailingly well-thought out and instructive.) A guy keeps betting like this I usually put greater emphasis on him having a great hand rather than a very good one. But no doubt BB wouldn't put either of his opponents on a set, given that neither of them raised pre-flop and he might figure Steve would slow play a set of 2s. And guys just don't put other guys on sets of deuces. He'd have reason to believe A-Q was the best hand, putting Steve on Q-J.

Your point, as usual, is well taken.

[/ QUOTE ]
Andy if we eliminate QJs, the hero would then be neutral at 9:9 against the BB's range. In this situation I would still feel compelled to raise the turn to protect my hand the times it is good, but if I somehow had all this information heads up I would just call down, since I would see no use in putting more money in the pot when I'm just even money to have the best hand.

chaosuk · #9 12-11-2005, 08:17 PM

This isn't a logical approach at all. You can't simply reverse-engineer to the hands he would play the flop onwards and not weight their preflop-flop probs (assuming you haven't down so).

For analysis for this type of player in this scenario raising from BB p/f: I'd likely put AA-QQ at 100(-d)%; JJ 70%; QJs 5%; AQ 10%; AQs: 30%

AQ has to be discounted a little on the flop too.

I also think, that bty raising on the turn (a mistake I'd easily make here) I'm struggling to protect myself against many hands at all - i.e. by protecting I mean getting hands to fold that I fear will outdraw me - I prlly won't get em to fold. Even if those hands fold, I can't see it being worth the trade-off for doing someone else's value-raising.

chaos