30/60 QTs

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
A turn checkraise is incredibly obvious as the hand he holds against a thinking player. He is always going to get tested with this action and a better hand will never fold. He should have just went ahead and bet out on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I don't agree with. UTG's range is wider than Button's.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So on the turn the pot was 3.5 BB and including the 3 BB that UTG put into the pot on the turn he spent 4 BB trying to win those 6.5 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a small problem with this part of the post because it is mathematically misleading. It ignores something I think of as "recovered equity". While I'm sure you understand what's going on here, I sometimes see this mistake for real on these forums in preflop reasoning.

When contemplating the turn 3-bet, the button knows he has the option of checking the river if it is -EV. Therefore he must feel any river bet is +EV. So he is not spending 4 BB to win 3.5, he is spending 3. Actually he is spending even less than 3 on the turn, since he is recovering some of the equity on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and sometimes he improves and wins the pot. But the figure I gave is a rough approximation.

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
So Jason had to twist some details to make this hand postable, but it hardly matters. I was the button and I played this hand poorly. I should have bet the flop and since I didn't I should have just not tried to make a play for such a small pot. But when the UTG player checkraised the turn I think I played the hand great. I did not bet the river because the river was a heart, I checked behind and he won with a flush. I told him I had Ace high. His turn checkraise is abysmal.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second, but Jason said:

[ QUOTE ]

The Button had 6 9 and UTG's Q-high took the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand the "twisting of details" when it comes to announcing the results. Typically, we don't post results, unless there is a very compelling reason after a full discussion has ensued (or there is some strong entertainment value).

I think this is a hand where results did seem appropriate to post, but I'm confused as to why we're hearing to different sets of results - one where hero calls with Q high on the river and wins and then the other were hero makes a flush and checks (or whiffs on a check raise attempt).

FWIW - I feel compelled to point out that I (as probably many here) greatly value Jason's posts, and I can understand changing the river card to spark more of a debate I suppose, but why falsify the results of a hand? Surely there is no need to "prove" anything to anyone here is there? The analysis of the play up until the river was pretty interesting on its own, no?

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

[Barry]

[ QUOTE ]
The responses to this thread were pretty much what I expected them to be. I'm quite frustrated by that.

The Button had 6 9 and UTG's Q-high took the pot. I think both players played this hand pretty thoughtfully

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So Jason had to twist some details to make this hand postable, but it hardly matters. I was the button and I played this hand poorly. I should have bet the flop and since I didn't I should have just not tried to make a play for such a small pot. But when the UTG player checkraised the turn I think I played the hand great. I did not bet the river because the river was a heart, I checked behind and he won with a flush. I told him I had Ace high. His turn checkraise is abysmal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I go away to FW's for a couple of days and come back to fine out this thread has taken a strange twist.

This is just great. You think both players played the hand thoughtfully, then we find out that you made up the river action and a button hand that UTG could beat. Do you really think that it is highly likely that DD would have bet the turn with total dust, knowing that in a game like this other A's or PP's better than 4's will likely call, given the action so far?

[CardSharpCook]

Button is usually unpaired when he didn't bet the flop and the turn pairs the board. Especially when it is a TAG on the button. I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]LOVE[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] the Q-high call on the river and am saddened that this is not what actually happened.

Death, while UTG may have been a donkey, in my opinion, he stumbled on to a correct line against a player like you (or myself) given the action. He DOES get better hands to fold. Namely, king-high. And occasionally some opponents will fold a PP or an ace. Additionally, a river ace or king would split the pot. A call-down line is also ok for him.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The responses to this thread were pretty much what I expected them to be. I'm quite frustrated by that.

The Button had 6 9 and UTG's Q-high took the pot. I think both players played this hand pretty thoughtfully

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So Jason had to twist some details to make this hand postable, but it hardly matters. I was the button and I played this hand poorly. I should have bet the flop and since I didn't I should have just not tried to make a play for such a small pot. But when the UTG player checkraised the turn I think I played the hand great. I did not bet the river because the river was a heart, I checked behind and he won with a flush. I told him I had Ace high. His turn checkraise is abysmal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I go away to FW's for a couple of days and come back to fine out this thread has taken a strange twist.

This is just great. You think both players played the hand thoughtfully, then we find out that you made up the river action and a button hand that UTG could beat. Do you really think that it is highly likely that DD would have bet the turn with total dust, knowing that in a game like this other A's or PP's better than 4's will likely call, given the action so far?

[/ QUOTE ]

DeathDonkey did NOT have A-high. He did bet the turn with total dust. He 3-bet the turn with total dust. He TOLD UTG he had A-high when, in fact, he did NOT.

[Michael Davis]

"A turn checkraise is incredibly obvious as the hand he holds against a thinking player."

I don't buy this at all. It looks like some dummy just got fancy with big pockets than decided to make a random turn checkraise, which, let's be honest, is pretty damn rare even in the Bellagio 30-60 in a pot where nobody has anything.

-Michael

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
A turn checkraise is incredibly obvious as the hand he holds against a thinking player. He is always going to get tested with this action and a better hand will never fold. He should have just went ahead and bet out on the turn.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

doesnt this mean he should checkraise when he mostly has it, and bet when he doesn't? but then shouldnt he balance? this is oversimplified IMO.

[operaman]

The 3 bet by the villian on the turn is very bad. How can he make this bet with no outs and no hand? If the turn is capped he has to fold on the turn, having put 3bbs in a small pot.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
In an amazing live Bellagio 30/60 game, Hero limps UTG with Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Three more limpers to a smart, thinking LAG who limps otb. The SB completes and the BB checks.

Flop: J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
Checked around.

Turn: J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
Checked to the Button who bets, SB folds, BB folds, Hero check/raises, folded to Button who 3-bets, Hero calls.

River: 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
Check, bet, call.

[/ QUOTE ]

i will say now what i said when we discussed this hand in Vegas; the smart, thinking LAG played this hand like a total jackass.