HoH Hand 2-1

Phil Van Sexton · #1 02-20-2005, 05:59 PM

HoH Hand 2-1, p. 64

PokerStars SnG, blinds 50/100. You have 1930. You have 86clubs in the cutoff. MP (840) calls, you call, button (990) min raises, MP calls, you call.

note - Harrington says to fold pre-flop, but shows how to play if you incorrectly called pre-flop.

Flop is 9s3c2c. Pot is 750.

MP checks. Harrington says "You should make a move to win the pot right here, but cheaply if you can....$200 to $300 looks about right to shake out any weak holders."

MP has 640 left. Button has 790. If you bet 300 and the button pushes, the pot will be 1840 and you will need to call 490 (you have 1430 left).

This seems like an easy call with your flush draw, so what was the point of betting 300 in the first place? Betting appears clearly inferior to just pushing, or am I missing something?

If you bet 200 and the button pushes, you need to call 590 to win a 1740 pot. Probably a fold, but it's close. On the other hand, betting only 200 encourages the short stacks to either call or push with any number of hands or bluffs.

Does anyone else have an opinion on Harrington's comments?

Allinlife · #2 02-20-2005, 08:10 PM

I agree with you over Dan on this one.

TheAmp · #3 02-20-2005, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you over Dan on this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

A small bet would be a good idea if you want to start a war, or to steal the pot (fold if someone playsback).

This is not the case. If you semi bluff here you must go over the top.

Apathy · #4 02-20-2005, 08:26 PM

By betting less then all in but enough so that your opponents know you are commited represents a stronger hand then the one you hold which is a good thing, and you have no risk of an opponent repushing with nothing since they *know* they will be called. Make sense?

Allinlife · #5 02-20-2005, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By betting less then all in but enough so that your opponents know you are commited represents a stronger hand then the one you hold which is a good thing, and you have no risk of an opponent repushing with nothing since they *know* they will be called. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

good point. I don't know how many people at stakes I play will think this far though. Too often you will get bad players raising allin with overcards/ call with overcards in this situation if you bet less than allin. in 30$+ tournaments, I may consider this over pushing.

Phil Van Sexton · #6 02-20-2005, 09:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
By betting less then all in but enough so that your opponents know you are commited represents a stronger hand then the one you hold which is a good thing, and you have no risk of an opponent repushing with nothing since they *know* they will be called. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think they know they will be called. 200-300 is a good bet if you have nothing and just want to take a stab at the pot. In this case, I'm certainly not calling if raised.

I see your point, but I'm not sure it applies in this case and, if it did, I'm sure Harrington would have stated this in his reasoning.

C M Burns · #7 02-21-2005, 05:25 AM

I had a similar reaction to this and some other hands in his book. I does seem that a push if you are going to call a raise any way makes more sense, at least against people who are not too analytical. However, it seems like many of his hands are to give examples of specific concepts, not always all aspects of a hand. If i remeber corectly this was in the pot odds section. I think his main point is even if you may have played other aspects of a hand questionably (like pre-flop) you need to look at the curent situation and odds, so just giving of an example of a situation where you may know u are behind but the pot odds justify a call