Help me read this guy's hand....

[Blizzardbaum]

[ QUOTE ]
Check, min-bet, call is an ideal scenario. You make a big move to claim the pot. Once you get re-raised I think you have to go all-in here. It's the only coherent way to respond. You've been trying to hit a hand and then under-represent it. You've done it. The purpose was to entice losing hands to behave like winning hands. He's now behaving like a winning hand. If you don't cash in on this move by pushing back super hard, then what was the point of acting so weak on the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Worst. Advice. Ever.

[alanbrown]

care. to. elaborate?

[Blizzardbaum]

[ QUOTE ]
care. to. elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

See my other responses. I'd be shocked if OP had the best hand right now. Shocked.

You also have not "hit a hand." You have tpgk and a player who has been miniraising just woke up with a 3 bet on the turn and pushed all in on the river. You are being crushed.

[jlkrusty]

Blizzard:

Thanks for your post. Very helpful.

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop: You are out of position with K-high. I fold this, but calling pf is the smallest mistake you made in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The preflop call was a mistake. As you say, however, it was the smallest mistake in the hand. Others seem to think it was the biggest. Anyhow, I'd much rather discuss the rest of the hand as you have done.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't afford to give away free cards or cheap cards if someone is drawing, so you need to bet your top pair. This has the added advantage of being cheaper than making a bet that is the same % of the pot on the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

It has also been my experience that in order to chase out a draw, you have to bet a greater percentage of the pot on the flop than the turn because a flop drawing flush has higher implied odds. That is, a flop drawer has two streets to extract money from you if they hit. Thus, to give improper pot odds to a flush drawer on the flop, you have to bet a pot size bet, whereas you only have to bet about a 2/3 pot size bet on the turn.

Also, I wanted to figure the hand out better before placing my big bet. Like you, I had a feeling someone might be playing AA in a very weird way. I thought it better to get more information on their plays before making my move. If a flush card hit the turn, I was okay with giving up the hand knowing that I could have prevented it. I felt it too risky to start bloating the pot before I knew what was going on. If someone had AA or hit their draw, I felt I would definately become aware of it on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
Turn: ...given the weirdness of the hand and any rational person's complete and utter confusion at the action thus far, I would not raise. I only raise if I think I have an idea of what is going on in the hand and I think raising will benefit me.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the time, I thought I knew what was going on. After seeing my opponents' turn play, I felt 95% certain that at least one of my opponents was on a draw, and the other had some pocket pair. It just made no sense that a player would slow play a set or straight on both the flop and turn with a board that had two potential flush draws. Thus, feeling I had figured the hand out, I put a big enough bet out to give improper pot odds for my opponents to call. I only realized I was in the 5% unknown category when my opponent reraised my turn bet. That's when the confusion set in.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, you should be asking the same question of your decision not to bet your tpgk flop (what hand were you hoping to make when you called pf?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I normally would have bet the flop. However, in this hand, I wanted to gain more clarity in the hand before investing. I believed I could get that clarity by just checking and calling what I anticipated would be minimal bets. I further planned on checking the turn right when I c/c the flop. I felt that someone would show the strength of their hand by the turn, and that if no strength was shown, then I could comfortably make a bigger raise at that time. Obviously my plan backfired, but I think the idea was sound.

[ QUOTE ]
Calling that reraise makes me sick to my stomach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Afterwards, I had to take some Pepto Bismal. This, in my opinion, was my biggest mistake.

Looking at only postflop play, the thing I wish I would have done differently is to either fold or push back OP's reraise on the turn. Between folding and pushing OP's reraise, which do you think is better?

[alanbrown]

I remain with rusty in finding a set unlikely because he's gone to such pains to price in the flush draw. I read his pause and re-raise as looking back at the hand and deciding hero was trying to steal. CO had the nut flush draw and was leaning on his fold-equity.

all-in would be staking 350 to win 300. You're probably right that it's a lot to risk over that belief, but it's far from certain that he's slow playing a monster here, he could very well have made his raise with QJ or QT thinking he's ahead based on hero's weak representation on the flop.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your assessment Rusty. Call PF is just to see if you can hit a K or Q. There's a number of limpers and if you hit you're likely to be best. Once you do, then I say bet the flop somewhat heavier to find out where you are. But, deciding to obfuscate seems an acceptable way to mix it up to me. So you give a free card for the promise of having a hard-to-read hand later. Then a blank falls on the turn. This is what you were hoping for. Check, min-bet, call is an ideal scenario. You make a big move to claim the pot. Once you get re-raised I think you have to go all-in here. It's the only coherent way to respond. You've been trying to hit a hand and then under-represent it. You've done it. The purpose was to entice losing hands to behave like winning hands. He's now behaving like a winning hand. If you don't cash in on this move by pushing back super hard, then what was the point of acting so weak on the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. This strategy of "under-representing my hand, then springing forward at the right moment" is what I'd really like to discuss.

Following the lines I did, I think this moving back all in is how I should have played. As you say, I have successfully under-represented my hand. Someone has taken the bait. They are unlikely to believe I have paired with the Queen, and now I need to spring the trap and go all in.

My question is whether this type of strategy is worth doing. That is, does this strategy have -EV, or is it just lighting money on fire. The problem is that someone may be springing a bigger trap on me with their bigger hand.

It is just hard to comprehend someone playing so risky with a bigger hand. If my trap fails because the flush card hits, meh, no big deal--it was only a pair of queens anyhow. Whereas if I am opponent and I have a big hand like a straight or a set, then it is a much bigger deal to allow a flush card to hit. Is my thinking sound?

[alanbrown]

I personally believe that this kind of move must be part of your repertoire. However, it's dangerous. The beauty of it is being able to stack someone who made rock solid assumptions based on your misleading betting. The cost is in giving free or cheap cards and losing opportunities to extract value + the cost of believing you've sprung a trap that's actually been trapped.

The more people believe there's a 'correct' way to bet a given situation, the more profitable will become contra-theories. That's the problem with poker. The more accepted a theory becomes, the less valid it is.

I remember getting stacked because I was convinced that the person who'd checked the T52 flop couldn't have a T. I've since seen the pro's make that move on a couple of occassions and I personally love it as a minority play (15% maybe).

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
I remain with rusty in finding a set unlikely because he's gone to such pains to price in the flush draw. I read his pause and re-raise as looking back at the hand and deciding hero was trying to steal. CO had the nut flush draw and was leaning on his fold-equity.

all-in would be staking 350 to win 300. You're probably right that it's a lot to risk over that belief, but it's far from certain that he's slow playing a monster here, he could very well have made his raise with QJ or QT thinking he's ahead based on hero's weak representation on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alan, your analysis makes the most sense to me. And, I agree I should have pushed all in after the reraise. However, it causes me another puzzling question.

If CO reasoned as you describe above, then certainly he is holding TP-lower kicker (like QJ, QT, Q9, Q8, etc.) or 77-JJ. Of all those hands except one, doesn't he just check behind on the river? The only hand of those listed above that makes sense for him to go ahead and push is 88, right?

[alanbrown]

88 certainly sounds like a possibility. The other possibility is he was giving mis-leading bets as well and allowing the flush draws to play so he'd have a lock if the club didn't fall.

Another reasonable scenario is that he was completing the push he began on the turn. He knew he was behind you and was pushing you off your mediocre hand. The only hands worth pushing on the river are the locks and the bluffs. The mediocre hands get called only by hands that beat them and folded to by hands they beat.

This may be one of those Lose All Your Chips scenarios but it seems equally plausible that it's an Almost Double Your Chips scenario.

My overriding feeling for this hand is about coherency. After choosing to see the flop and then check your TPGK the only money extracting move left is to play his weak-view of your hand.

However, it's dangerous waters you swim in here. A solid bet on the flop should be your majority move here.

[jlkrusty]

[ QUOTE ]
This may be one of those Lose All Your Chips scenarios but it seems equally plausible that it's an Almost Double Your Chips scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, and I think it is, then I should have made the call on river because I am getting 2:1 odds on the call.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it's dangerous waters you swim in here. A solid bet on the flop should be your majority move here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they are dangerous waters. But, are they also +EV waters? So long as they are +EV, I'm willing to try this again as a mix up play (with the correction of pushing back all in on the turn) some time in the future.

Please understand that this is not my average play. I rarely slow play my hands. On average, I would have folded this hand preflop. On average, I would make the solid bet on the flop. I try, however, to mix things up every once in a while. Changing gears, and implementing new strategies every once in a while really keeps your opponents guessing.

This slow-play strategy (to be used rarely, but NOT never) has several advantages over just betting out solid on the flop:

1. In the event I am way behind, I usually discover it at minimal cost. The reason is because most players that hold a monster are not going to allow two flush draws to get card after card cheaply. They might allow it once (on the flop), but they almost never allow it twice (on the turn with two flush draws). If they reveal their hand on the turn, I can escape cheaply.
2. In the event that I am ahead, I am not giving up to much value by allowing a single street cheaply. The odds of them hitting their flush (or straight) on the turn is only about 20%. The other 80% of the time, I can reraise big, my opponent will suspect my play as a bluff, and he will often call me down (perhaps even an all in) with a drawing hand or even a marginal holding. This should more than make up for the 20% I give away in the free card.

The strategy also has disadvantages. Namely, it has high risk. If not executed properly (like what I did), it has lots of negative EV. Still, I'm not afraid to try something like this again--hopefully with more discipline the next time.

So long as I try this only as a sporadic mix up play, and so long as I don't chicken out on going all in, the strategy should prove to have some very solid +EV in the long run.

Agreed?