An interesting hand
I was playing 10/20 at Brantford on the weekend, and a very interesting hand came up and I'd like to hear some thoughts on it.
I was in middle position with AQ. After a couple of limpers I raise and there were 5 or 6 callers in total (there was a lot of action at this table). The flop comes J-7-3 rainbow and shockingly, it's checked around. The turn brings a queen. It's checked to me and I bet. There is a call and then, the small blind check-raises. Now, the small blind was a relatively new player. She was a middle-aged woman and I had, perhaps prematurely, pegged her as a rock, just because I find many middle-aged women to be rock types. Perhaps this is a foolish generalization. Anyway, one guy cold calls the two bets and the action is to me. Now, the main question is what do you do here? Try and answer this before reading on for the result of the hand.
Well, what could she possibly check-raise with here that I could beat? Maybe the queen gave her two pair. Perhaps she slowplayed a set. I wasn't liking my chances. My instincts were telling me to fold. I could call and see if the river helped me, but I might be drawing dead anyway. Basically, I felt certain I was beat here, but I called anyway. I went with the old "call, just in case I have the best hand" reasoning. I forget exactly what the river was, but it was no help to me and the small blind bet out again. Again I make a very reluctant call; one where I am nearly certain that I'm simply donating only to find that the small blind has KQ, giving me the winning hand. Interestingly, the guy on my left said he folded AQ on the river saying he figured she had at least two pair. This is also funny because I kind of had this guy pegged as a fish, yet he was able to fold this hand when he felt he was beat, and I couldn't, even though I was nearly sure I was beat. Perhaps I need to work on my read of other players.
So was it bad of me to call here. I mean, obviously I won the hand, but I was sure I was beat. I certainly don't want to become a calling station, and make calls "just in case". It's funny, just when I think I'm calling too often when I should know I'm beat, I win a hand like this. What do you guys think about this hand?
One other thing; what do you think about the way the small blind played this hand? I like the way she played it. At the most, she paid one more big bet, than she might have otherwise. If I were in her spot, I probably would have bet out on the turn. If the AQ raised here, than I probably would call it down anyway. That would cost precisely as much as it cost her and she had the added bonus of almost getting me to fold the best hand. I may have to look at this play.
I was in middle position with AQ. After a couple of limpers I raise and there were 5 or 6 callers in total (there was a lot of action at this table). The flop comes J-7-3 rainbow and shockingly, it's checked around. The turn brings a queen. It's checked to me and I bet. There is a call and then, the small blind check-raises. Now, the small blind was a relatively new player. She was a middle-aged woman and I had, perhaps prematurely, pegged her as a rock, just because I find many middle-aged women to be rock types. Perhaps this is a foolish generalization. Anyway, one guy cold calls the two bets and the action is to me. Now, the main question is what do you do here? Try and answer this before reading on for the result of the hand.
Well, what could she possibly check-raise with here that I could beat? Maybe the queen gave her two pair. Perhaps she slowplayed a set. I wasn't liking my chances. My instincts were telling me to fold. I could call and see if the river helped me, but I might be drawing dead anyway. Basically, I felt certain I was beat here, but I called anyway. I went with the old "call, just in case I have the best hand" reasoning. I forget exactly what the river was, but it was no help to me and the small blind bet out again. Again I make a very reluctant call; one where I am nearly certain that I'm simply donating only to find that the small blind has KQ, giving me the winning hand. Interestingly, the guy on my left said he folded AQ on the river saying he figured she had at least two pair. This is also funny because I kind of had this guy pegged as a fish, yet he was able to fold this hand when he felt he was beat, and I couldn't, even though I was nearly sure I was beat. Perhaps I need to work on my read of other players.
So was it bad of me to call here. I mean, obviously I won the hand, but I was sure I was beat. I certainly don't want to become a calling station, and make calls "just in case". It's funny, just when I think I'm calling too often when I should know I'm beat, I win a hand like this. What do you guys think about this hand?
One other thing; what do you think about the way the small blind played this hand? I like the way she played it. At the most, she paid one more big bet, than she might have otherwise. If I were in her spot, I probably would have bet out on the turn. If the AQ raised here, than I probably would call it down anyway. That would cost precisely as much as it cost her and she had the added bonus of almost getting me to fold the best hand. I may have to look at this play.
Comments
3-bet the turn. Justification: She may be thinking you hold 2nd pair or worse and is now just raising her raggy Jack after it was checked through on the flop or is raising with top pair. The pot is a monster. If you are up against a made two pair, you have outs and odds to draw (along with 'hidden outs' of the board pairing to counterfeit her two pair).
Also, I would have bet the flop even with my two overcards. This flop is rags. No straight draw, no flush draw. Top will will likely be the best hand. Lets represent a big hand to these people and maybe get some better hands to fold. If you THEN get check-raised on the turn, you have a much high percentage of being beat because of all the agression you showed leading up to that point.
But he made the wrong decision, which is why he's a fish. Folding TPTK in a large pot, heads up? Never.
Oh also, just think, if you bet the flop she probably would have folded the KQ (no turn checkraise) and the AQ guy would have folded the river to you.. Woulda won the pot with no effort.
Checking (with the intention of folding) on that flop is prudent into a field of 5 or 6 enemies.
With no flop action, I'm confident enough to bet the turn when my hand improves.
How about facing a turn check-raise and a cold caller ahead of me? I'd call. My hand is too good to give up on at this point. I think that re-raising here would be too much of a disregard for the facts. One of the check-raiser and cold-caller (and possibly the player left to act behind you) has probably got something. Re-raising for value is too questionable, and the possibility of forcing a hand better than AQ to fold seems remote.
The river is basically the same story as the turn (post check-raise). You've got enough hand to not fold, but not enough hand to not call. (There's a prize for de-negating that last sentence.)
It was a pretty bad result for a KQ to lose more than 2 bets total on the turn & river. For the turn, I think both betting out and check-call are superior to check-raising.
Playing AQ the way this player did doesn't make much sense. This player was either lying about his hole cards, or...
Okay then.
ScottyZ
APRIL FOOLS! Oh wait, you ARE joking, right?
The pot is 12SB on the flop and you are going to fold a 6 out draw for 1 bet some someone who most likely has only a pair of jacks?
Lets chat about the likely hands that the villans played preflop. You've got your suited trash, your connected trash, your raggy ace, your two paints and your pocketpairs. Out of all those hands (something like 50% of all hands delt) you think someone has hooked up with this uncoordinated, unsuited flop in such a massive way that you'd fold with better than 12 to 1 odds?
If you held AKo instead, would that change your mind? On this flop it really shouldn't.
Checking and calling 1 and only 1 bet on the flop would be the correct play because as BBC said you have a 6 outer into a pot of 12 SB. 12-1 is not just a good enough reason it is a MUST call.
3 betting the turn is a little bit much I think. You could possibly be forcing the 3rd person in the pot out when they are drawing very slim with no obvious draw present on the flop and there are not to many hands that the "rock" could have that you are beating. Infact the only hand you can put her on that you are ahead of is KQ. Calling the checkraise and calling the river is the correct play I think.
Betting the flop 6 handed with no pair is not needed and a bad play overall I think. The only real hand you might and I mean MIGHT drive out that would out draw you is AK and that is a slim chance. With all that money in the pot most will call your bet and it is you who is on the draw and should try to hit your card as cheap as possible. Betting the flop when you miss with these hands is better suited for heads up or 3 handed pots.
Using caution is the best idea since your best card is the Q and if you hit an A and were given action you coulde be against that "A trash" hand BBC was talking about only it is with 2 pair.
Losing bets by bluffing into big fields with an un-improved AK or AQ is where so many players lose so many bets.
You are correct. I wouldn't 3 bet the turn if I lead out on the flop.. And I like your thinking about it in the way the hand actually played out.. Yer probably better off using that 3rd bet to get to the river than on the turn.
How about getting the guy with the 3 or the 7 to fold? You can't just stick your tail between your legs in a large pot when you miss with a big hand. Rather than being scared that someone MIGHT have a real hand, lets find out right now on the flop where it's cheap. I think giving a free card in a 6 way pot is death. I find it funny that you don't think people would fold when Scotty (a guy who plays a LOT of poker) just told us that he would infact fold it to a single bet.
Right, because they bluff suited/connected flops and then turn the blinders on when someone plays back at them. How are your opponents supposed to know you've only got AQ? This is a gorgeous flop for an overpair. Keep that idea in their heads as they play the hand.
have you played 10/20 at brantford (while it's a bit better i wouldn't doubt the presence of at 3 or 7)
I have played a large number of hours at the Brantford casino and you couldnt be more correct. These players are bad and I mean B A D. They dont put you on a hand that seems correct they put you on a hand that they are beating and call you down.
On the other hand if you are facing a bet, depending on the player who bet and his position I think you may consider folding AQ. You don't want to be up against QJ or A7 or A3. All seem reasonable hands for the usual 10/20 game and reduces you to 3 outs at most. In addition, if you hit the wrong card, it will be costly. But I don't think the answer is completely clear cut.
1) They dont understand pot odds, all they know iis that they hold a crummy pair of 3's.
2) They are weak and assume that whoever is betting has top pair or better.
3) They were looking to pair the big card, not the small one.
Your opponents cant make poor decisions if you dont give them one to make!
Oh my.. this is getting very frustrating now. Your opponents are playing 40-50% of their hands preflop. While yes, those *3* hands out of 100 are potentially out there, there is absoluely no justification for assuming they are.
Please don't fold for 1 bet getting 13 to 1 on your money on a rag flop.
I would agree with the first part, but I would think if they are in there with a 3, they are more apt to be loose and passive, and loving the fact that they hit something on the flop, obviously a call is coming.
If you had them pegged as weak-tight I would expect a fold, but then that begs the question what are they doing in there with the 3 in the first place?
I think your action on the flop has to be dictated by the type of players. If you expect your (semi) bluff will thin the field, and potentially let you take down the pot later, then bet it. If you expect calls with weak hands, then why bother?
This is now the happiest day of my life!:)
stp
Because checking amounts to giving up on the hand and on this rag flop, its just a horrid play. Plus, you are ignoring the implied odds you get when you make your hand on the turn and the 3 and 7 and J continue calling bets.
Lets jump into the wayback machine and play the flop out..
12 SB on the flop.
We bet in MP. Given the rag composition of the board, lets say we got 3 callers.
If we got raised, it's pretty safe to assume villians got jack and we can change out turn strategy accordingly. Call the raise (we've got odds).
8BB to the turn. If we spike our overcard on the turn, we lead out again. Only now, those 3 callers are contirbuting to our 75%ish pot equity.
If we miss the turn, we check and look at the action and figure out if we're drawing dead or not. Two bets back to us = bigtime fold. Mr Agressive leads out, it's likely a call. 9ish to 1 on the turn for a 6 out draw. Mr Mousie leads out and yer gonna have to think about it.
River unimproved = fold.
So likely, we're looking at investing a minimum of 1.5BB and a max of 3.5BB to win a pot of around 14BB when you hit.
This hand just screams basic Miller big pot agressive play.
IT'S NOT A TERRIBLE FLOP FOR AQ!!
I've been playing he Brantford 10/20 alot these days (I'm the one that sings at the table, and annoys the crap out of the grumpy old players). I think you made the correct play, for all the reasons ScottyZ mentioned.
I don't think you'll find many players who think and/or play as well as scotty, and his advice comes with a whole wack of experience.
Now, I do think that sometimes you must bet the raggy flop (say 10-20% of the time in this situation). It really depends on how well you've been running. If you've taken down a few pots, it's amazing that many players will go into fold mode against you. But, I suspect they were not in that mode when you played that hand.
I was in a similar situation, and folded to a flop bet from someone behind me with 3 more callers. The trouble with calling, is that your "true odds" are very limited, as people love to play Ace anything, and I mean anything. If a card from an Italian deck snuck in there, they would still play Ace/Italian card with no matching cards/suits. They would think it's their lucky card and it's a must play! So, it's quite likely you're up against A7 or A3, so you're only true out is the Q, and then you have an up hill battle.
But, say if it's checked around the button who bets and it's folded to you, a check raise is a nice way to show major aggression and get the rif/raf out. Then fire the turn, regardless of what hits. They will lay down the baby pairs, and you can tell them you had aces.
So, I would say you made the correct play. Yes there are other options, to either bet the flop or check/raise, but those need to be used sparingly and when the situation is right.
Cheers
Magi
Let's see... grammar aside, the last half of the sentence contains the dreaded double negative so maybe it should read ...", but enough hand to call." However "enough hand to call" is the same as "enough hand to not fold" (atleast in the context of this discussion), so the second half of the sentence is redundant as well.
On the grammar side... I always thought it was "enough (of a) hand"... but then, I wasn't much (of a) english expert!