|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/3/2008 1:06:27 PM PACIFIC |
 A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 17. Jun 2003 21:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| The player UTG was your typical 15-30 player. He sat down on my immediate left and got hot immediately. Now up a rack before his first big blind, but chooses to limp this time. The button overcalls, and the small blind completes. I have 5h2s in the big blind and check the flop of Qh 6d 4c. No one bets, yet this game has been fairly aggressive. So they let me see the perfect 3s on the turn. The small blind and I check, and the player UTG bets. Button and small blind fold, while the bettor flat calls my checkraise. The river is the Qs. What are the benefits and drawbacks of checking vs. betting here? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, shorn, 18. Jun 2003 05:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think this is a question of which strategy is the most optimal to increase your win by the most bets. And, depending on the player, either could result in a bigger pot. However, my tendency is generally to bet out on the river to not allow someone a free showdown, especially since you already showed strength by checkraising the turn. If you check, you may get an aggressive player to bluff a Queen, but if he was stealing on the turn with AK, he will definitely check behind you. If he has a Queen with a good kicker (A or K), then he will certainly bet for value. However, AQ isn't likely as he limped pre-flop and only called your CR. So, the best you can hope for is that he bets out, you raise and you get two bets. However, if you bet out, he may raise for you with a Q and you can make it 3-bets which he will probably call. If he has nothing, then he will either fold or raise on a bluff hopting that you were bluffing at the pot (not likely though because of your CR). The only danger with betting out is that he was slowplaying a set on the flop other than queens and you are now beaten. Still, because he only called your CR (and could therefore not likely beat AQ), a small set is unlikely. I like betting because with the strength you have shown already, there aren't that many players that will bet your hand for you on the river and so you lose a BB more often than not with the str8. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 18. Jun 2003 07:37 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I can't rule out anything except maybe a set on the turn. I think he would have taken me to three bets if he had slowplayed QQ. Looking at what I think he thinks I have, maybe I could have flopped or turned two small pair. Now checking the river would appear as though I'm afraid of something like pocket nines. It's also possible he reads my checkraise as a complete bluff to counter a steal attempt on the turn, and is now in position to resteal on the river. I could have checked a weak kicker with my queen, top and bottom pair, or just caught with Q4. The most important information I have is that he called my checkraise on the turn. That makes me believe he has something besides an ace or king overcard. It's not unthinkable he has messed up with AA here too. Overall though, something like QJs or 99 makes the most sense. He has to be wary of a delayed checkraise coming from the blind, but maybe he's been affected by starting on a rush and is still looking for a way to outplay me. The queen on the river is a great card to try and move me off the pot if I check. I would be expected to follow through with a bet on the river after checkraising the turn. I really couldn't see him having filled up with that queen, and played the river accordingly. This was the last hand I got involved with (leaving the game after this final orbit), and I gave it some thought on the way home. Now I'm not at all sure what the best play is. Your comments are reasonable, but I want to see if there are some other viewpoints before concluding the hand. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Risky Business, 18. Jun 2003 08:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| My thoughts: I think he's on 2 hole cards above 10, possibly a queen. He may have flopped 3 to a straight, maybe J-10 or K-10 suited and decided to push on. His early position in an aggressive game shows power, but his early big winnings does show opportunity to loosen up here and take a shot. He's comfortable with you not having a queen now that a 2nd one came out, but with Q-K, he may love it. He called your checkraise because you're in the big blind, not because he has a hand. Your play smells of bluff. I really don't think he's overly concerned with many raises in a heads up game. on 18. Jun 2003 07:37 Andrew Wells wrote: > I can't rule out anything except maybe a set on the turn. I think he would have taken me > to three bets if he had slowplayed QQ. Looking at what I think he thinks I have, maybe I > could have flopped or turned two small pair. Now checking the river would appear as though > I'm afraid of something like pocket nines. It's also possible he reads my checkraise as a > complete bluff to counter a steal attempt on the turn, and is now in position to resteal > on the river. I could have checked a weak kicker with my queen, top and bottom pair, or > just caught with Q4. The most important information I have is that he called my checkraise > on the turn. That makes me believe he has something besides an ace or king overcard. It's > not unthinkable he has messed up with AA here too. Overall though, something like QJs or > 99 makes the most sense. He has to be wary of a delayed checkraise coming from the blind, > but maybe he's been affected by starting on a rush and is still looking for a way to > outplay me. The queen on the river is a great card to try and move me off the pot if I > check. I would be expected to follow through with a bet on the river after checkraising > the turn. I really couldn't see him having filled up with that queen, and played the river > accordingly. This was the last hand I got involved with (leaving the game after this final > orbit), and I gave it some thought on the way home. Now I'm not at all sure what the best > play is. Your comments are reasonable, but I want to see if there are some other > viewpoints before concluding the hand. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 18. Jun 2003 08:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| He had shown some lack of respect for other players raises, and starting off with a rush isn't going to do anything to change that. Am I correct in assuming from your comments that you favor playing for another checkraise on the river? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Risky Business, 18. Jun 2003 11:02 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| With my straight, I think I'm going to lead here. Do I check/call his bet (possibly giving up one bet by checking) Do I check/fold to his bet (no) Do I bet/call a raise (yep, he may have a set with good kicker) Do I bet/win off a fold (maybe) Do I bet/re-raise (no, I'll give up 1 bet, not 2, to see his cards) on 18. Jun 2003 08:35 Andrew Wells wrote: > He had shown some lack of respect for other players raises, and starting off with a rush isn't going > to do anything to change that. Am I correct in assuming from your comments that you favor playing > for another checkraise on the river? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, shorn, 18. Jun 2003 11:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| All valid points Andrew. But I don't know that many players who will call a CR on the turn and then bet the river for you when you check (unless they have the nuts). Also, there aren't that many players who would believe that their opponent was CR the turn on a steal (even at 15-30) and if he did believe that and he had anything, why wouldn't he at least 3-bet you to try to get you to throw it away? I think the most logical hands he could have are QJ, KQ or AQ. I agree that potentially with KQ or AQ, if you check the river he mnight bet it for you. But, if you raise then you might be losing 2 more bets on the offchance he had QQ or Qx and was on such a rush that he thought he would play it from EP. I stiull think the best play is to bet and hope that he just calls. If he raises, you call, but I think the likelihood of him having you beat is small and when that is the case, i want him to pay to see my cards. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, MozMan, 18. Jun 2003 11:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Andrew- I've read the other posts, but I'd like to look at this a little more simply: What's gonna give you the best value vs. the least risk. The way I see it, the only thing you could potentially fear here is a boat, because the board is paired; but it doesn't sound like the kind of player you can reasonable put on holding Q-rag. There is the possibility he's slow-played QQ in the pocket, but I don't buy that. Bottom line, risk is minimal, so you can't use risk as an excuse to check-call. So now you gotta look for BIG value, and there are two questions you have to answer: 1- if you decide to check-raise, how likely is he to cooperate by betting for you? 2- if you bet out, how likely is he to call? If #1 is low and #2 is high, then you must bet. If it's reverse, then you must check. In addition, if both are low (he won't bet or call), you should probably also check, though having him fold to a bet is not terrible. To give you my take: I think he will not bet for you unless he's got quads (and I can't belive he does) and I am almost certain he will call a bet, because I think he's got a set. So, if it were me, I'd bet out. -Moz "Great. I've got a trig midterm tomorrow, and I'm being chased by Guido, The Killer Pimp." | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Wren, 18. Jun 2003 11:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| > 1- if you decide to check-raise, how likely is he to cooperate by betting for you? > > 2- if you bet out, how likely is he to call? > > If #1 is low and #2 is high, then you must bet. If it's reverse, then you must > check. Moz, I really like your analysis here. This is a very common situation, and discussed frequently, but this is the first time I've seen it summed up so succinctly and accurately. Rock on! However... > In addition, if both are low (he won't bet or call), you should probably also check, > though having him fold to a bet is not terrible. I disagree here. If he's most likely not going to bet OR call, why let a showdown happen and give everyone the chance to see your hand? IMO, the majority of the time, you want to give as little information to your opponents as possible. Wren | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, MozMan, 18. Jun 2003 12:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 18. Jun 2003 11:46 Wren wrote: > > > 1- if you decide to check-raise, how likely is he to cooperate by betting for you? > > > > 2- if you bet out, how likely is he to call? > > > > If #1 is low and #2 is high, then you must bet. If it's reverse, then you must > > check. > > Moz, > > I really like your analysis here. This is a very common situation, and discussed > frequently, but this is the first time I've seen it summed up so succinctly and > accurately. Rock on! > :::blush::: thanx for the kind words! :) > However... > > > In addition, if both are low (he won't bet or call), you should probably also check, > > though having him fold to a bet is not terrible. > > I disagree here. If he's most likely not going to bet OR call, why let a showdown happen > and give everyone the chance to see your hand? IMO, the majority of the time, you want to > give as little information to your opponents as possible. > I won't argue that, I think your point is very valid. I'm just the type that tends not to put up any money without expectation. I don't generally like to put chips out without hope of getting more in return. That's not to say I never do it; there are times when I don't want anyone to see my hand, or I want a particular effect. For example, I recently had someone bluff-bet into me on the river heads-up, and I had the nuts. I could have called and taken his $8, but instead I raised, knowing he would have to fold... it was just the message I wanted to send at the time. In general, I would have called because the raise wasn't gonna gain me any more chips; in this case, I wanted to show everyone that I KNEW his bet was a bluff. > Wren -Moz "Does Barry Manilow know you raided his wardrobe closet?" | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, MozMan, 18. Jun 2003 12:27 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Keep in mind, too... sometimes, you would like to see his cards at the showdown; it gives you some clues what kind of player he is. -Moz "Does Barry Manilow know you raided his wardrobe closet?" | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Wren, 18. Jun 2003 13:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| True enough. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 18. Jun 2003 18:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm unlikely to have him show me his hand. I'm not check/calling here. However there are situations where I do think it's appropriate to pay one bet on the end to see. I like to have some chance of winning with a call though. I've got a pretty good idea what he's doing anyway. After taking a large pot with a post from the cutoff, he got a real starting hand and cashed in again. Now he's just continuing to try and run over the table. By the way, he didn't see another flop after taking the deserved beating from the wheel. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, MozMan, 18. Jun 2003 18:09 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree. In this particular case, I think the best course of action is to bet out. He's almost certainly gonna call anyway, so you gain an extra bet in the pot. -Moz "Does Barry Manilow know you raided his wardrobe closet?" | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 18. Jun 2003 18:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| In my case it doesn't matter if I end up showing my hand. I'm big blind, and they let me catch up on the turn. All they would learn is that I checkraised with the current nuts. Now if I check the river and my opponent doesn't bet, that's going to send different messages to certain players. Some will think I was weak for fearing the board pair, others will think it was weak to try for a second checkraise. I don't really care what they think, I'm leaving after eight more hands anyway. There's no shock value winning a showdown with trash from the big blind. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 18. Jun 2003 12:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think he may very well have made a bluff bet at the river being on such a rush already if I had checked. In this case I would have raised just incase he wanted to pay off with three queens. Because he bet and called on the turn, I felt there were quite a few hands he would pay off with. So I bet, and he mucked. I don't think this mattered, but I unintentionally fumbled the cut (I put seven checks out there on the river instead of six). I also didn't say anything, or reach to take back the overbet. He gave it a few seconds before folding. I suppose I should be happy to take a pot I had no business with in the first place, but I think I cost myself the chance to let him try to outplay me on the end. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, shorn, 18. Jun 2003 12:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If he mucked at the end then you could be right because he obviously had nothing (I can't imagine he would have mucked a Queen in this spot). I guess that I just don't trust players to bet my hand for me on the end. This might have been a good time for you to try and induce a bluff by making some "ugh" like noise when the third queen hit on the end, and THEN checked. Then he might have bet it to represent it. Otherwise, it hink betting was the best play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A nice blind, Andrew Wells, 18. Jun 2003 18:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Actually I think I was trying to induce a call by remaining stone cold silent, staring at the river queen and not reaching to take back the extra money. That's mimicing bluff behavior when I wanted a "look me up" call. It may have been completely useless this time though. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|