Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[Josh W]

You have a lot in here I want to respond to, but so many quotes are making this cluttered. I'm going to try to get rid of some of them, but nothing critical (I hope!).

[ QUOTE ]

This sounds like you think this but don't know for sure because you haven't played enough hands with UTG. And I think you need to have played thousands online against him to make this laydown.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, I don't know for sure. But as I've stated throughout, I think he naked-bluffs here less than 1 outta 20 times (I think it's more like 1 outta 50). He'd need to bluff 1 outta ten times for my call to be justified.

[ QUOTE ]

You also said above, "Nobody can put UTG on a hand."
Sure we can.
Monster: set or straight that didn't want to lose anybody on the turn or was going to CR.
Two pair: A9 specifically, maybe A6 or A2 that got scared on the turn.
Hand you beat: Ahxh or a complete whiff


[/ QUOTE ]

AhXh is 'impossible' because HJ and button have aces. Of those you list, I beat only "complete whiff", and as I've said, I think he bets that here less than 1 outta 20 times.


[ QUOTE ]

You also wrote above
[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty clear that HJ and Button both have big aces, and there's probably about 25% chance I'm chopping at best with button.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean at best? Do you mean at worst?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what I meant. Just pretend I didn't write "at best".

[ QUOTE ]

Because the button and hijack have you beat about 1% of the time here.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's less than that. I think maybe 0.1% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

Now I'm sure UTG had you beat this time but it seems to go back to basics. I'm not making big folds in big pots on the river without 98-99% certainty of my read.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then you are losing money. In this spot, with this pot size, you only need 90% certainty.

[ QUOTE ]

If you were 99% certain then I think you need to state that - maybe you did and I didn't see it though. If you were 99% certain of your read then it was a good play win or lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I've said, it's actually 90%, not 99%, and I have stated it. I'm somewhere in the 95%-98% region.

Josh

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If it were me (and I play only SLIGHTLY less than 38% of my hands), I'd check the turn not to checkraise (although I would if the opportunity presented itself) but to allow all the drawing dead AK, AQ, AJ, etc catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but they already called 2 cold on the flop, now they are reluctant to call 1 big bet on the turn?

Doesn't utg want to bet the turn if they are drawing dead because they will likely call a bet on turn while they are "drawing" but be reluctant to call a bet with bare Ace on the river. You need the parlay of them to be drawing dead and to make there hand on the river for it to be break even with betting the turn don't you?



[ QUOTE ]
Yep, if he'll bluff the river over 10% of the time into a field of four. I don't think he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to be bluffing, he just has to have a worse hand than you. There's no way utg can have Ahxh? Couldn't utg have been raising the flop trying to clean up his Ace outs, then checking the turn to draw as cheaply as possible?

[JasonP530]

I like your basis for the flop lead sometimes, but I don't think you have the river right. I think it is much more likely that someone is betting/calling without an ace than UTG raised a set/A9/A6 on the flop and then didn't bet the turn when a blank came. He can reasonably expect a higher pocket pair to 3 bet him from the CO and button, so it probably isn't out there. His check is very bad if he has a set(since they have already cold called 2 on the flop). So bad, that I would reward him by paying him on the river.

[Robb]

Sorry I edited my post - kind of wrote in a hurry - had a conference call at work.

Anyway, I didn't run the numbers with 95% certainty but it's probably an ok laydown because you chop half the time with the button.

Here's to hoping your read was on.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Edit: Hmmm the more I think about this...and I don't say this often but, based on the way the hand went down it's almost guaranteed MP has AK/AQ/AJ and button has AK/AQ/AJ.
Which means you're right, there are no Aces left. So it comes down to how often is UTG betting into 3 players (albeit one has checked) and can't beat an ace? 1 in 20 might be right. Ha, given all that online I still make a "I can sleep at night" call. But only because I don't trust my reads past the 10% intervals yet: 90% certain, 80% certain. Maybe one day.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If it were me (and I play only SLIGHTLY less than 38% of my hands), I'd check the turn not to checkraise (although I would if the opportunity presented itself) but to allow all the drawing dead AK, AQ, AJ, etc catch up.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but they already called 2 cold on the flop, now they are reluctant to call 1 big bet on the turn?

Doesn't utg want to bet the turn if they are drawing dead because they will likely call a bet on turn while they are "drawing" but be reluctant to call a bet with bare Ace on the river. You need the parlay of them to be drawing dead and to make there hand on the river for it to be break even with betting the turn don't you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's not an exact science. But people 'take one off' on the flop with naked overcards A WHOLE LOT MORE than they do on the turn. If UTG bets the turn and a drawingdead opponent mucks, it's horrible. If he gives a free card, there's no guarantee that they call the river, but there's AT LEAST A CHANCE for post-turn profit to be made.


[ QUOTE ]
Yep, if he'll bluff the river over 10% of the time into a field of four. I don't think he will.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

He doesn't have to be bluffing, he just has to have a worse hand than you. There's no way utg can have Ahxh?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think way less than 1% of the time, unless his "x" is the non-heart card on the flop. And even that is almost impossible. This is simply because there are only 4 aces in the deck. I've got one (100% certain), the board has one (100% certain), the button has one (over 99.9% certain) and the highjack has one (over 95% certain). I think that '95' for the highjack is also about 99.

So, if he doesn't have at least an ace, and has a hand worse than me, I call that bluffing. Perhaps he dillusionally betting K9 on the river, not thinking its a bluff. But I put that in the "less than 10% chance that he bluffs the river" category (even if he doesn't call it a bluff).


Josh

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I edited my post - kind of wrote in a hurry - had a conference call at work.

Anyway, I didn't run the numbers with 95% certainty but it's probably an ok laydown because you chop half the time with the button.

Here's to hoping your read was on.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Edit: Hmmm the more I think about this...and I don't say this often but, based on the way the hand went down it's almost guaranteed MP has AK/AQ/AJ and button has AK/AQ/AJ.
Which means you're right, there are no Aces left. So it comes down to how often is UTG betting into 3 players (albeit one has checked) and can't beat an ace? 1 in 20 might be right. Ha, given all that online I still make a "I can sleep at night" call. But only because I don't trust my reads past the 10% intervals yet: 90% certain, 80% certain. Maybe one day.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I've never lost sleep over poker [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Seriously, I've tossed away winners in pots like this before (I used to put too much faith in my reads, so whereas it may seem like I'm doing that here, I've done it much moreso in the past), and it never lingers.

When I throw away hands like this as winners (which doesn't meaned flawed logic, though it often points to that), I often end up posting the hand here and getting showed the error of my ways. So far, I've yet to see any error in my ways here....I'm not convinced that UTG bluffs over 10% of the time here....

J

[ggbman]

Anyone here with an ace is going to bet or call a bet here, regardless of what their kicker is in most situations. This pot is huge, and its also difficult for better hands to value raise weak aces in this kind of pot, and your opponents should know that. This river is an easy call.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
So far, I've yet to see any error in my ways here....I'm not convinced that UTG bluffs over 10% of the time here....

J

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that UTG could have Ax here (Ax hearts maybe?), and one of your other two opponents could have a horribly misplayed pocket pair that didn't turn into a set.

The button certainly has an ace to overcall the hijack, but the hijack could have less than a pair of aces, given that the turn was checked around.

[Robb]

[ QUOTE ]
The button certainly has an ace to overcall the hijack, but the hijack could have less than a pair of aces, given that the turn was checked around.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just in regards to what hijack could have....
There has to be a huge parlay for hijack to not have an ace here which means UTG doesn't have an ace:
1. No way he has JJ/QQ/KK - I have never seen one player at 30/60 play the hand this way.
2. a ten - without out another pair - like J10 - so you have to hope he called 2 cold on the flop with a J high pair draw with preflop 3 bettor yet to act
3. a nine - like J9 same comment in addition to the fact he didn't bet the turn once everyone else showed weakness
4. 77/88 you have to hope he thought UTG had a missed flushed draw and that nobody else would call.

Out of all of these I think a hand with a nine in it is the most likely candidate for hijack to have that doesn't contain an ace but still probably less than 2% of the time.

So in other words I thought it was a really bad fold at first but hand analysis shows it's a least a close call (in my opinion). But I still call in case UTG is an idiot and because I don't do this detailed of an analysis at the table.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
If UTG bets the turn and a drawingdead opponent mucks, it's horrible. If he gives a free card, there's no guarantee that they call the river, but there's AT LEAST A CHANCE for post-turn profit to be made.

[/ QUOTE ]

This analysis is terrible. He raises his impossibly strong hand on the flop, then checks it on the turn (cuz he "knows" you will call on the flop but not the turn, that's a special kind of fish that will call at 7:1 and fold at 11:1, then call the river)? Maybe, but that's the least likely scenario. What about the flush draw, just let him see the river for free?

I'm sure you posted this hand to show us how brilliant you are, so why don't you post the results, because your arguements don't seem logical to me. And that's why I don't think it's a good river fold.