High Card Only Showdown

[JJH3984]

As everyone has said, it depends on your opponent (and potsize). Usually you need a pretty substantial read to value bet A high and it depends a lot on how your opponent views you and how you view your opponent.

[CardRG]

For all of you who said you would bet the showdown with nothing but high cards, such as AK or AQ, what’s your response to being bet into?

Will you call a bet with nothing but A high or K high?

What’s the max number of bets you’d call with this kind of holding?

From an odds standpoint, if the pot is large enough are you ever so married to the pot (and is it ever strategically correct) to call at showdown no matter the number of bets and no matter the hand you hold? Even if the betting is capped?

Lastly, because your actions might result in you having to showdown a nothing hand, do you take your own table image into consideration here? And the impact on that image this exposure will generate.

Do you worry that now they'll see that you're a fraud and a phony? And the next time you find yourself in this or a similar situation those who've been paying attention might be more likely to put you on a bluff.

[SixForty]

[ QUOTE ]
For all of you who said you would bet the showdown with nothing but high cards, such as AK or AQ, what’s your response to being bet into?

Will you call a bet with nothing but A high or K high?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously opponent dependent. If he's a maniac or the type to bluff a lot, then I've called with A high and even K high a fair bit. If he's the type to semi-bluff draws all the way and then fire on the river as a last ditch effort, then I look at the board to see what types of draws he might be pushing as decided how my hand fares against those missed draws. There have been a couple of times I've picked off a missed straight draw on a low board with a Q high. (Villain was value pushing a draw into multiple opponents, and I was playing a QJs flush draw, and on the river, he bet, everyone folded, so it was heads up in a big pot, and I figured the chances of him holding T8s or 98 on a 764-2-2 board were good enough to look him up)

[ QUOTE ]
What’s the max number of bets you’d call with this kind of holding?

[/ QUOTE ]

One. Almost always. If someone bets the river, and someone else raises, they are almost always beating Ace high. Like, way more than 99% of the time. Add this to the fact that the odds you are getting from the pot to pick off a bluff are now cut in half, and it's almost never right to call two bets cold on the river with Ace high.

Also, as I mentioned before, It's never a good idea to overcall on the river with Ace high. Even though the bettor might be bluffing, anyone who calls him will at least have a hand that has some value. And that hand will almost always beat Ace High.

[ QUOTE ]
From an odds standpoint, if the pot is large enough are you ever so married to the pot (and is it ever strategically correct) to call at showdown no matter the number of bets and no matter the hand you hold? Even if the betting is capped?

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, the pot can get big enough that I'm calling very light. If I'm playing in a 1/2 game, and someone dumped $10,000,000 in the pot, then I'm calling to a showdown with 9-high. Even if two guys cap the betting on the river. The chances of them bluffing with lower hands than my 9-high are probably better than the 1.25 million-to-1 that I need to call profitably.

With that said, in practical terms, I don't think it's ever going to be big enough in a real game to justify it. Remember, with every bet/raise that goes in on the river, two things happen:

- the bettor/raiser is saying he has a stronger and stronger hand, so the chances that your Ace high is best go down, and
- the odds that you are getting from the pot go down, so you are getting worse payback for trying to pick off that bluff.

For example, let's say it's 3-handed on the river in a 13 big bet pot. Someone bets and someone calls, and you have Ace high, King kicker. The pot is laying you 15-1 odds, so you only have to win the pot just slightly more than 6% of the time to make a profit.

But in that same pot, if the first player bets and the second player now raises, the pot is laying you 16-2 odds. So now you have to win the pot over 11% of the time to make it profitable. (and that's if the first player doesn't reraise)

So you have to be MORE likely to win this pot than the first one because of the worse odds you are getting. But given the action (namely the raise by the second player) you are actually LESS likely to be winning it.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, because your actions might result in you having to showdown a nothing hand, do you take your own table image into consideration here? And the impact on that image this exposure will generate.

Do you worry that now they'll see that you're a fraud and a phony? And the next time you find yourself in this or a similar situation those who've been paying attention might be more likely to put you on a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something that I read early on in my playing career that made sense to me was along the lines of:

"Don't put your effort into trying to create a specific image at the table. Instead, put your effort into understanding what type of image your natural play is presenting, and understanding how others will then play against you"

So I rarely adjust my play to create an image. (I'm not saying I never do it, just rarely) So if I think a bluff may be profitable, I'm not afraid to show down a nothing hand. What I'm paying attention to is that if I have shown down nothing hands a couple of times recently, because I got caught bluffing, then I'm less likely to try a bluff in the near future, because it's less likely to work. But on the flip side, I'm more likely to value bet a little lighter (like maybe middle pair on the river) since I'm more likely to get called with weaker hands.