A correct slow play?

WordWhiz · #1 07-05-2005, 10:08 PM

Yeah, I know slow-playing in the micro limits is almost always wrong. But I was recently in a hand in which my opponent did what I thought might be a correct play, although it worked out poorly for him. The situation:

1 Early Position limper, folded to the SB, with KQo, who completes (yeah, he should have raised, but that's another post). I check in the big blind w/ 86o.

Flop comes KK5 rainbow! Would you lead out with a bet here from the SB, or check hoping someone else will hit something on the turn or the river, or better yet, try to bluff at the pot with nothing, given that it's only 3 handed?

Anyway, he checked and it checked around. A 9 comes on the turn, and it's checked around again. Then disaster: the seemingly innocuous 7 on the river. SB bets, I raise, limper folds, SB reraises, I cap, he calls, and shows his losing 3 kings to my rivered gutshot.

Nonetheless, I couldn't help thinking that this might have been one of those rare situations where slowplaying was correct.

Dave G. · #2 07-05-2005, 10:13 PM

I'm not sure I like it much. A lot of the players at these limits will call just about any bet on the flop, to see if the turn improves their dreadful holding any. Give them a chance to call.

He should just bet. Sometimes with flops like this and a tiny field, you just aren't going to make much money most of the time. He just has to accept that, scoop the small pot and move on.

BSK · #3 07-05-2005, 10:24 PM

What if he just went fishing on the flop, then after it checked around, bet the turn? Is this a happy compromise?
At least that is the way I would have played it. I don't like the fact that he let it go around twice.

scotty34 · #4 07-05-2005, 10:28 PM

"They want to call, I want to let them"

McGahee · #5 07-05-2005, 10:40 PM

So if the river was a brick you would've capped with 8 high because you didn't believe he had a K?

Aaron W. · #6 07-05-2005, 10:42 PM

Against two opponents, he's not making much more money by checking than he is by betting. Maybe somebody will catch a pair on the turn, but most often it still won't happen (12 outs max between two opponents = 74% of the time everybody bricks). It would be better to just bet the flop and hope somebody has something.

Against two players (EP limper + BB), I think I might take a stab at the pot with a weak holding, just to see what happens. You only need them both to fold 25% of the time and with a KK5 rainbow paired flop, it's quite likely they both missed completely and will be unwilling to chase. But this is a pretty special case.

WordWhiz · #7 07-06-2005, 12:49 AM

So if the river was a brick you would've capped with 8 high because you didn't believe he had a K?

Um, no. Not sure where you got this from my post. I would have folded preflop, on the flop, or on the turn to any action whatsoever with my crap holding. I capped because I made the straight, not because I had a gutshot draw.

MrWookie47 · #8 07-06-2005, 01:51 AM

Even if you held a gun to my head and prevented me from betting that flop, you still couldn't stop me from betting that turn. Anyone who gives two free cards like that deserves to be sucked out on like you did on him.

bottomset · #9 07-06-2005, 02:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"They want to call, I want to let them"

[/ QUOTE ]

and I misread the action and thought you went 4bets on the turn for a sec w/ just the gutshot

Dave G. · #10 07-06-2005, 02:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What if he just went fishing on the flop, then after it checked around, bet the turn? Is this a happy compromise?
At least that is the way I would have played it. I don't like the fact that he let it go around twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is the bet size has doubled, but the pot size has not changed. People with awful holdings realise that there's only one card that can come to give them some shot of winning, and now they have to risk MORE money to fight for the same small pot. People are much less likely to call a turn bet, so you don't really gain anything here either.