Lots Goin' On with A4s

[W. Deranged]

Thanks for all the responses guys. I think this generated some really interesting discussion.

1. Flop:

I agree with Brett and Einbert that this is awfully close to a fold. But we are getting 9-1 here and we're effectively closing the action here as the blinds are unlikely to have hit that board hard and often wouldn't check-raise because of the pre-flop action anyway. We have 2-3 outs to 2 pair and 1.5 outs for the back door draw, and if you factor in the chopping possibilities and such I think we can certainly presume 4.5-5 outs which is a very marginal call getting 9-1 with a couple of possible callers behind us.

I think the major point about the flop call is the chopping question. The fact that the board is so scary means that we are not really that "dominated" by a lot of better As. We have effectively 3 chop outs against AJ, 5 against AT, 7 against A9 and so on. UTG+1 is sort of passive pre-flop but he's still a 6% pfr and so I'm really not that worried about AQ, AK, KK, or QQ. The only real concern is JTo but I think giving that too much credit is seeing monster under the bed.

2. The turn is the really interesting street here. My major thought here is that the super passive guy between me and the bettor is often on a draw here that in general my equity is going to be much better relatively speaking while he still is in the pot rather than on the river if he misses and gets out. Putting in one bet on the turn and then one on the river when I miss and the passive/drawing dude misses as well seems very obviously much worse than putting in two on the turn with the guy still drawing, with me still having tons of opportunities to improve, and then taking a free showdown unimproved. The fact that the guy in early position is passive and is almost never three-betting with a better A and often not with a two pair hand like KQ makes this more viable. Again, the only hand he could have against which I really don't want to be raising is exactly JT.

I think some of the numerical work done on the turn question is very helpful, but the 58% number that was derived I think is too low in that it's neglecting the fact that if we take a free showdown after our raise it really doesn't matter if we're ahead or behind on the turn as we're putting those same two bets anyway. Obviously this is mitigated somewhat by the possibility of three-bet, but, again, there aren't many hands that villain could have that merit three-betting other than exactly JT. (I think Brett and Einbert are probably both overestimating the likelihood of a three-bet and hence underestimating the free-showdown value of this play).

I think it should also be considered that the weird bettor doesn't necessarily have to have us crushed to beat us here. With stats like that, he could easily just have a medium A and be chopping with us on the turn and/or holding a hand like AT against which we are drawing very live.

3. The river is kind of interesting too. Everyone is right that we're chopping the vast majority of the time. I have a hard time putting villain on either a better hand or a worse hand that'll call a river bet (sometimes this is a last-ditch bluff with a missed heart draw or something). The decision between raise and call comes down to weighing those two minute quantities, and, ultimately, it's not a hugely crucial decision because the vast majority of the time the question is entirely moot. The fact that I would get three-bet by a boat and often not called by a worse hand (and hence needed to be 66% or more confident that I had the best hand) led me to call the river.


Results: Deranged calls.

UTG+1 shows KQo and MHIG.