3 Jacks
I have a question about a play that was debated recently during a game I was in. It was late in the game (40 left of 150) and 4 players limped into the pot. Flop brought 3 jacks. First position bet 2x blind. I folded. Cut-off re-raised 6x blind. Player 4 folded. At this point, first position had about $12000 left, player 3 had about $6000, and pot was at around $5-6K. Here's where my question comes.
First player re-raised all in, and other player called showing the fourth Jack. First player had A-rag. His opinion was it was a good play since at the point he raised all-in they were heads-up, and other guy would need the fourth J to beat him. My opinion is that calling the reraise might have been OK hoping to make something on turn/river, but at that point, a pair of deuces had him beat, so going all-in was a very questionable play.
Was the aggressive re-re-raise a smart play considering the betting during the round and the odds, or would a call to see the turn make more sense? A few other players agreed with the play,while I was the lone voice questioning it, so I'm wondering if my play might be too conservative?
That said, a rag fell on the turn, and an A fell on the river, giving player 1 Aces over Jacks. In the end, I think all the money would have been there!
First player re-raised all in, and other player called showing the fourth Jack. First player had A-rag. His opinion was it was a good play since at the point he raised all-in they were heads-up, and other guy would need the fourth J to beat him. My opinion is that calling the reraise might have been OK hoping to make something on turn/river, but at that point, a pair of deuces had him beat, so going all-in was a very questionable play.
Was the aggressive re-re-raise a smart play considering the betting during the round and the odds, or would a call to see the turn make more sense? A few other players agreed with the play,while I was the lone voice questioning it, so I'm wondering if my play might be too conservative?
That said, a rag fell on the turn, and an A fell on the river, giving player 1 Aces over Jacks. In the end, I think all the money would have been there!
Comments
1st player maybe could throw out the 1st bet with hopes of his ace holding up and having people fold, but as soon as someone reraised him what in the heck did he think they had? From his explanation it doesnt seem as though he thought it was a pure bluff, so his all in was in hopes of getting one of 3 outs to make his boat? Unless I have an amazing read(Kreskin like) on the other player I fold to the rereaise and save my chips for a better opportunity.
The other guy flops quads, ding ding ding! How much can I get from these guys would be my only thought. He had one player bet into him, why raise and risk the guy folding? Just call and hope the guy keeps betting into you, and milk him for every chip. Or maybe he had a crystal ball or some other mind reading ability to know that the guy would come back with a re re raise allin with only Ace high, lol.
Uhh.. You can't question the play of the guy holding the quad jacks. He got the other player all-in by the end of the hand. Not every monster hand HAS to be slowplayed.
To win (or place well) a NL holdem tournament, there will be several points at which you must bet strongly when holding a weak hand. If you often fail to bet strongly with an ultra-strong hand (worse yet, if you automatically slowplay every monster hand you flop), this gives away far too much information.
Neither slowplaying the flopped quads on the flop nor playing them fast is automatically wrong. Slowplaying the (virtually) immortal nuts on the flop 100% of the time on the flop most certainly is wrong.
The goal is to get some chips. How to accomplish this is going to depend on your opponents, and your own table image. Perhaps your opponents will be more likely to call a big flop bet or raise in order to chase when there are still two cards to come, but would give up and fold on the turn or river. Perhaps your opponent is a player who will auto-bet the turn if the flop action is checked around. Perhaps the opponent holds 22 in the pocket and any turn and river card would be a scare card. Perhaps your opponent is so tight that he would never call any size bet of the flop, turn or river, but will almost always make a small river bet to attempt to steal the pot.
Again, it depends a lot on the behavior of my opponents, but it's quite likely that I'd put in a big bet or raise very early in the hand after flopping 4 of a kind. It's what my opponents would be least expecting.
Calling the flop raise here would be the worst of the three options by a longshot I think. Folding is perfectly sensible. Depending on the opponent (that is, the probability that a bluff would work), moving all-in might also be a valid option.
He is in fact currently losing to any pocket pair, or any better Ace. Did he mean to say that "the other guy would need the fourth Jack to call him"? This would probably be incorrect thinking, but at least it is the correct thing to be thinking about (namely, what range of hands the opponent will call with, and what the chances are that he has one of these hands) when considering an all-in move.
ScottyZ
you mean Jacks full of Aces yeah?
Yes. He explained that without either the other J or a high kicker (A or Q), the other player wouldn't call. My thought is that only someone with pockets (or really gambling) would call/raise the bet, and someone stealing would possibly go all-in. The fact that player 3 only raised 6 bets looked to me like someone who wanted to be called.
Late, but still a long way from the money (assuming about 10% get paid).
This is a bet of 2 into a pot of 4. So, he is betting 1/2 the pot. An appropriatte bet size, I think.
This is 4 bets back to the original bettor into a pot of 12. He is being offered 3-1.
This is a clearly a case of "If you are called, you are beat." If I understand it correctly, the player that moved all-in had a naked ace. He is on a PURE BLUFF. This is not a semi-bluff. This is a pure bluff. You better have a very solid read on your opponent to make a pure bluff in this spot. Generally, bluffing works best in a couple of situations:
(1) When you can represent something specific. Is that the case here? What is the bluffer representing? It is not the typical betting progression for flopped 4 jacks. He might have a big pair that he thinks is best, and I guess that is what he is representing. But, he is asking his opponent to lay down middle or small pair. In other words, he has NOT represented quad jacks (IMHO) and he is representing a hand that will ask his opponent to make a tough laydown.
(2) When your opponent has little. Is that the case here? Maybe. On a flop of JJJ the opponents re-raise MIGHT be a bluff. But, if his opponent has anything it is likely to be either quad jacks or a pocket pair. Quad jacks are, obviously, not folding. And, a pocket pair will be a tough laydown.
On balance, I don't think that three-of-a-kind on the flop meet either of the two criterion just outlined. That makes it, to me, a bad time to bluff.
What about 8-8? Or, 6-6? A-K? There are lots of hands that beat A-rag. The question is "what hands will my opponent fold?" NOT what hands does he have?
I thnk the ace-rag player has a pure bluff. Once he is re-raised he shoudl simply fold.
Discretion is the better part of valour. My father, when I was a young lad, took me to the local hilltop and taught me that there is no greater honour than to die in battle. However, during my life, I have some to believe that it is a greater honour to kill the enemy and plunder his lands so that I have a pile of gold higher than my horse. Sometimes... it's better to tuck your tail between your legs and fold.