On hand reading and showing off

JimmyV · #1 08-17-2005, 01:04 PM

Party Poker 100/200 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Preflop:
5 folds, CO raises, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: (8 SB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (4 players)
SB checks, BB checks, CO bets, Button calls, SB folds, BB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
BB checks, CO bets, Button raises, BB folds, CO calls.

River: (9.50 BB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
CO checks, Button bets,

CO says: JT no good.

CO calls.

Final Pot: 11.50 BB

Results below:
CO has 7h 7s (one pair, sevens).
Button has Jd Tc (high card, ace).
Outcome: CO wins 11.50 BB.

I think this hand is interesting not just cause it's freaky (CO is not a monkey) but for some discussion of principles. A while back I suggested that if I had any edge over the other Party Mid-High winners, it was in hyperspecific handreading. That DOES not mean that I make plays like the one below as a matter of routine, or ever in fact that I recall, but the pot that CO won here is the sort of thing that accrues to hand-readers while other things accrue to the straight-up TAGs with probability arrays rather than specific holdings in mind.

Comments on the hand? Clearly, not something that happens without very specific opponent stats and experience (according to my data this opponent is 21/18 with an AF of 2ish).

And the larger question:

Should CO have made this comment at the table? It's showing off, and he should be embarrassed at even using the chat box; but is it plus or minus EV?

JimmyV

andyfox · #2 08-17-2005, 01:22 PM

Button didn't 3-bet pre-flop. If he had a hand with an ace in it that made him like it enough to raise with it on the turn, he probably would have raised with it pre-flop. So the odds of the ace helping him to a hand that could beat cut-off's hand are consequently reduced. He might have a set, but he might alsol have picked up a draw to a flush (or a double-belly-buster, as cut-off surmised).

I'm not sure if the call-down owed more to had reading or to knowing the opponent, as you point out. Both are, of course, important.

As for the comment, I would never make it. Part of that is my introverted nature, but I think introversion has its benefits in a limit game. If hold em poker is in part an information war, which it must be given the fact that it is a game of partially revealed information, why give out information free? The opponent will either know we were knowledgable enough to figure out his hand by the fact that we called down with pocket 7s, or think we put him on a flush draw, or suspect we were a "fish" for calling down. I'd rather keep 'em guessing than not.

On another note, do you guys think button would have been better served by raising the flop, given the apparently non drawing nature of the flop? I know I think he would have been better served by either repumping or dumping pre-flop.

daryn · #3 08-17-2005, 01:26 PM

i say he got lucky

JimmyV · #4 08-17-2005, 01:30 PM

"If he had a hand with an ace in it that made him like it enough to raise with it on the turn, he probably would have raised with it pre-flop. So the odds of the ace helping him to a hand that could beat cut-off's hand are consequently reduced."

Excellent. And same goes for his not raising the flop.

mrbaseball · #5 08-17-2005, 01:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
CO checks, Button bets,

CO says: JT no good.

CO calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he believed his own read he would raise.

MaxPower · #6 08-17-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CO checks, Button bets,

CO says: JT no good.

CO calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he believed his own read he would raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the point of that?

Schneids · #7 08-17-2005, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CO checks, Button bets,

CO says: JT no good.

CO calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he believed his own read he would raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he believed his own read he should 3 bet the turn and check/call the river, to discourage people from trying to semibluff vs him.

JimmyV · #8 08-17-2005, 01:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
CO checks, Button bets,

CO says: JT no good.

CO calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he believed his own read he would raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he believed his own read he should 3 bet the turn and check/call the river, to discourage people from trying to semibluff vs him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This too is wrong, since even if he saw the opponent's cards he would still know that opponent has 12 outs.

'Believing' a read doesn't mean believing it 100%.

J

Schneids · #9 08-17-2005, 02:05 PM

What if he bets a jack or ten river with his 77 that was 3 bet and gets the JT to fold because his 3 bet convinces JT the straight outs are the only good cards?

I dunno I'd rather put in 3 bets before the river vs someone I know to have 12 outs, while possibly getting a 4th bet from them on a desperation bluff, while also leaving ME the possibility of bluffing them out on the river.

That is, if I am confident enough in my read to be a big swinging dick to type it into the chat before calling.

phish · #10 08-17-2005, 03:10 PM

That is an interesting hand. It's obvious the button is not a very good player. But I suspect part of the reason why the CO said that is to look less stupid when he's caught calling with such a weak hand and loses.

The turn raise screams semi-bluff, since we can rule out a big A or 88 or QQ (because of pre-flop), or A8 or any queen(no raise on flop). This leaves A2 or 22 as possible monsters. Both unlikely. But the turn put a flush draw and double gutter on the board. Now it's possible that he could be raising w/ an 8 intending to check the river if called. But since he bet the river, that leaves a busted draw or a strong hand. since a strong hand is quite unlikely given how the hand's been played, the busted draw is the most likely choice. And since it's unlikely he called the flop with a backdoor draw and nothing else, that leaves JT or maybe T9 hearts or J9hearts as likely choices. Of those JT is the most likely.