first impressions

[milesdyson]

here's a hand i watched early at a table last night.

what do you "think" of each player in this hand, and how do you think they played their hands? what would you note about each guy?

<u>5-handed stars 10/20</u>

hijack raises first in. i fold. button 3-bets. blinds fold.

flop is K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

hijack checks, <font color="brown">button bets</font>, <font color="brown">hijack raises</font>, button calls.

turn is T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

hijack checks, button checks.

river is 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

hijack checks, button checks.

hijack shows Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
button wins with 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[PokerSparky]

I guess it depends a lot on what the two villains thought about each other.

Hijacks raise on the flop seems a bit overaggro considering button probably isn't getting rid of many hands he'd three bet preflop. If hijack is going to make the flop bluff, I think he should continue and semibluff the turn.

I think button should bet the turn.

Edit for disclaimer to say I don't play this high.

[Unguarded]

I think button played the hand well. I imagine that he had some sort of read indicating that his effective odds were adequate after the check-raise against this particular opponent. When he checked the turn, I guess he felt that getting to showdown was more important than preventing a free card against this villain.

Hijack's flop play is very bad imo. Button clearly knows to get to showdown against this guy, making the flop bluff very strange (he's basically attacking AQ/AJ, assuming button even 3-bets AJ). With the turn check, I suspect that he is hoping for one of two things. 1) He gets a free card. 2) He gets to semi-bluff check-raise. This part seems good to me.

[bbbushu]

hijack: CR with nothing on flop, gave up on turn/river

button: iso 99+ OTB, afraid of overs but still calls


i also agree that, if possible, what button and hj think of each other is important, and it's somewhat transparent how the thinking could be in this hand. button may have tried to induce a bluff in lue of protecting his vulnerable pair bc it looks really weird that hj checked the turn.

bbbu

[cassette]

I agree with PokerSparky's analysis of how Hijack should have played postflop. The only note I would make would be that HJ c/r bluffed the flop HU. I would have played the 9's like button did. Would a turn bet be standard? I think I would be more prone to bet the turn if the flop was more draw heavy to avoid giving a free card to HJ.

[PokerSparky]

[ QUOTE ]
Would a turn bet be standard? I think I would be more prone to bet the turn if the flop was more draw heavy to avoid giving a free card to HJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I think a turn check is fine from button. I think I may have let knowing what HJ's cards were influence my advice.

Again, a lot depends on past history between the two players IMO.

[duckman]

As a rule I don't fold the flop to c/r with 2 pair HU in the 5/10+ games b/c of [censored] like this.
I like buttons play. I want to get to showdown cheap and was offered a free card. It looks like QQ, JJ or a sexy or a bluff and I don't want to fold to a c/r so I like the thought of getting to showdown for 1 more bet.

If I am the HJ I am not sure what the raise accomplishes unless he follows through. I don't expect 99 to QQ to fold here in the mid games. I would of rather c/r the turn and bet any river.
But actually I would of probably folded the flop. My raise was from the hijack and I have to give the 3 bettor credit for being ahead on the flop. Don't I ?

edit: I guess maybe the HJ c/d the turn probably to c/r to make it look like a sexy monster but if that was his motivation he was naiive. pairs lower than Ks often don't bet and most players who bet here are committed to see showdown (for good or bad). Or maybe his flop c/r was the equivalent of raising for a free card on the turn. If so then it maybe it is not such a bad play.

I guess HJ play is ok with the "correct" frequency. HU you are often told to turn the top card into a 2 in one of the SM books so maybe HJ viewed his hand as having 6 overcard outs. The question is would the button have folded to a turn bet or would he have folded to 3 barrels or is he going to showdown.
It seems a lot of guys are going to showdown with what is 2 pair on the flop. Is this standard?

But again this comes back to the buttons three bet range. Some guys only 3 bet with AK+ or better (admittedly on 5/10 last night my HJ raise was 3 bet by 8/10 suited) so maybe the norm is to three bet very light at mid levels now.

A very interesting hand Miles that I think has some tactical and strategic implications.

[DING-DONG YO]

I would say hijack should have c/f the flop. But that c/r isn't bad from time to time but I normally wouldn't do it with NH/ND and possible drawing very thin/dead. Hijack should have bet the turn when picked up an OESD. I would note that HJ c/r a flop with pretty much pure cheese obviously looking to push off an UI A

Button played his hand fine except he should have bet the river. I would note that BTN doesn't fold PP on the flop with an OC. I would also try to see how BTN plays that type hand next time.

[waffle]

HJ folds AQ AJ AT most of the time, and 66, 88, 99, TT, JJ, QQ some of the time.

It's pretty much ownage if QJ makes AQ or AJ fold, but will he fold out enough hands in the 3bettor's range to make the bluff profitable? And should he fire the turn again?

Also, another weird way of looking at it is that in this case, HJ got to pay only 1BB to see 2 chances of outdrawing the 3bettor's underpair w/ his 6 outs. That's kinda good, I think.

[MacGuyV]

I think the turn check for both of them is weak unless hijack was going for the semibluff C/R. Since almost nobody can pull that off, clearly button should bet.
edit: I realize that probably sounds wicked results-oriented.