iffy call?

ralphthemouse

PokerStars Game #804345270: Tournament #3173005, Hold'em No Limit -
Level V (75/150) - 2004/10/27 - 14:05:56 (ET)
Table '3173005 1' Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: vitanova88 (2880 in chips)
Seat 3: ralphdamouse (1240 in chips)
Seat 5: pierre2426 (2075 in chips)
Seat 6: PotRobber (2340 in chips)
Seat 7: tkeen (3075 in chips)
Seat 8: alexvgauth (1265 in chips)
Seat 9: jeremy270 (625 in chips)
vitanova88: posts small blind 75
ralphdamouse: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ralphdamouse [8:spade: 9:spade:]
pierre2426: folds
PotRobber: folds
tkeen: folds
alexvgauth: calls 150
jeremy270: raises 475 to 625 and is all-in
vitanova88: folds
ralphdamouse: calls 475 << at this point i was getting 2-1 on the call (pot 1000).. and since i figured i wasnt getting dominated (short stack, could be anything - Axs, AK, TT, etc...), i called. good play??
alexvgauth: raises 640 to 1265 and is all-in
ralphdamouse: calls 615 and is all-in <<what about this call?? i knew he had a good hand (QQ+, or AKs) but the pot was big (about 2100) and i figured i wasnt dominated too badly. this is probably the worse play, as the first time around i didnt think alex was going to call let alone raise. what do you guys think??

i hate when this happens. how do pot odds work in this case (when you get reraised)? :banghead:

BBC Z

The first call was bad because you discounted the early position limper who has equal chips to you.

what about this call?? i knew he had a good hand (QQ+, or AKs) but the pot was big (about 2100) and i figured i wasnt dominated too badly.

Hi.
You put your opponent on an big pair or AKs and you think your suited connector isnt dominated too badly? Buh? HUH? WHA?

Just think about what you did. You had 1200 chips and pushed them all-in preflop with 89s. Pot odds or no pot odds you risked your tournament on that hand.

ralphthemouse

Hi.
You put your opponent on an big pair or AKs and you think your suited connector isnt dominated too badly? Buh? HUH? WHA?

what i meant is that my outs were likely not counterfeited.

and the limper always limped. so he couldve had any mediocre hand had he not reraised in my mind.

ScottyZ

According to the standard terminology, I would say that 89 is not dominated by AK, but is dominated by QQ. By dominated, people usually mean having 3 outs or less. (With 89 vs QQ you have 0 direct outs.)

I would not have called the first raise. 89s is pretty much strictly an implied odds hand. As such, you should generally try to avoid playing this hand all-in (or with your opponent all-in) pre-flop, especially if you are the caller.

I would have folded to the first raise, and I think that this is far superior to re-raising, which in turn is superior to calling.

The pot-odds being 2-1 is very misleading. You might be happy with this edge if you were guaranteed to be heads-up against a semi-random hand (like maybe a bad Ace). Even heads-up, this call is not overwhelmingly right by any means. The problem here is that you have no idea whether or not you will be heads up, particularly when your opponent remaining to act after you has been limping in "every hand". Someone playing this badly is far more likely to continue in this hand than a typical player. Don't think he would fold a weak hand here... has he been folding weak hands previously? No, at least not pre-flop it seems.

Don't think a "must see the flop" player can now easily get away from this hand. It's probably the exact opposite due to the "juicy pot".

As for the call of the 2nd raise, this is probably okay. Now that you know how many opponents will be in, it's much easier to estimate your chances of winning. Pot-odds calculations are now much more appropriate. You're getting around 4 to 1 pot odds on this call.

Are you at least a 20% favorite to win the hand against 2 opponents? Probably, but I bet it's fairly close in a lot of cases. So this seems like a +EV (though probably marginally so) play.

(Also, I would not give a "see every flop" player credit for a hand like QQ or AKs when he limp-reraises here. This might simply be a "may as well put it all-in now" play.)

Are you risk averse at this point (after the 2nd raise)? No, because you are suddenly a very short stack with only 615 chips. Now you are willing to take pretty much any +EV play regardless of the variance. Close your eyes and call.

ScottyZ

ralphthemouse

thanks for the replies. i know that 89s is all about implied odds, but i guess i shouldve paid more attention to the limper.

sometimes when high pressure situations present themselves i get tunnel-vision i guess.

oh well. im here to learn

Dave Scharf

I think you have properly thought about pot odds. What you failed to consider is variance and the limper.

By variance I mean "consequences of losing the hand." You have a reasonable stack and are not interested in a close call. You want to (1) have the best hand or (2) be bluffing. Calling isn't doing either of those.