Fold, call or raise?
OK, this hand had me puzzled. And it's an insignificant, tiny pot to boot. Hardly worthy of a thread, but I'm bored so why not... (Incidently I had to hack this converter up by hand, since it didn't seem to work for me)
Party Poker (9 max, 9 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Ac, 6c. Â
2 folds, MP1 checks, Hero calls, 3 folds, SB completes, BB checks.
I know it's a pretty marginal limp, but the table was loose-passive and thought I might draw in extra limpers.
Flop:Â 8h, 9s, 7c (4 players) (Pot 4 SB)
SB checks, BB checks, MP1 checks, Hero bets, SB calls, BB folds, MP1 folds.
Turn:Â 9c (2 players) (Pot 3 BB)
SB checks, Hero bets, SB calls.
(I didn't think he had a 9 if he was checking the flop, and thought my bet had a reasonable chance to take it down here, maybe not worth the risk given the small pot size though?)
River:Â 8c (2 players) (Pot 5 BB)
SB bets, Hero ???
I can't put him on a 9 given the check-call of the turn. My only worry is that he's made a low full with an 8. I think this is highly likely given he's loose passive (maybe 75% sure). Of course the lead out bet feels odd though, and could be a complete bluff, an A thinking his kicker's good, or even potentially a weaker flush betting. My hand is essentially a bluff catcher at this point (beating any non-boat and I think a 9 is doubtful). So options are fold (small pot), call (catch a bluff which is reasonably possible) or raise (trying to get an 8 to lay down). All options seem to have their appeal to me and I'm still puzzled what my best move was here. Thoughts?
Party Poker (9 max, 9 handed) converter
Preflop: Hero is MP2 with Ac, 6c. Â
2 folds, MP1 checks, Hero calls, 3 folds, SB completes, BB checks.
I know it's a pretty marginal limp, but the table was loose-passive and thought I might draw in extra limpers.
Flop:Â 8h, 9s, 7c (4 players) (Pot 4 SB)
SB checks, BB checks, MP1 checks, Hero bets, SB calls, BB folds, MP1 folds.
Turn:Â 9c (2 players) (Pot 3 BB)
SB checks, Hero bets, SB calls.
(I didn't think he had a 9 if he was checking the flop, and thought my bet had a reasonable chance to take it down here, maybe not worth the risk given the small pot size though?)
River:Â 8c (2 players) (Pot 5 BB)
SB bets, Hero ???
I can't put him on a 9 given the check-call of the turn. My only worry is that he's made a low full with an 8. I think this is highly likely given he's loose passive (maybe 75% sure). Of course the lead out bet feels odd though, and could be a complete bluff, an A thinking his kicker's good, or even potentially a weaker flush betting. My hand is essentially a bluff catcher at this point (beating any non-boat and I think a 9 is doubtful). So options are fold (small pot), call (catch a bluff which is reasonably possible) or raise (trying to get an 8 to lay down). All options seem to have their appeal to me and I'm still puzzled what my best move was here. Thoughts?
Comments
I see no reason to bet any street.
On the flop, I would love to take off a free card. You have a gutshot draw to the 5 with a backdoor flush draw. The other cards which improve your hand are extremely weak prospects. The board is co-ordinated enough and there are enough players in that your chances of picking up the pot immediately are pretty much nil. I would go ahead and take off a free card here to see if a 5 comes off.
On the turn (given that you had bet the flop), I would again be looking for a free card. If both the flop and turn were checked around this would be an excellent spot for a semi-bluff, and should be a virtually automatic play. By betting the flop in last position, you tend to psychologically commit your opponents to their weak holdings (like bottom pair). The turn play (give that you had bet the flop) is actually, the closest of all the decisions in this hand IMO, and, though I prefer checking it, betting here is not unreasonable.
On the river, there is little value here. The only hand your opponent could call you with that you have beat is an Ace kicker or a smaller flush. I'd simply check and show down the flush. You'll most likely find your opponent with a hand that he would not have called you with on the river, or a hand that beats you.
ScottyZ
Heads up, out of position on a very scary board (aka 4 to a flush made on the river or a double paired board) you should lead out on the river. Your opponent can only raise you with a very premium hand so you can fold, but you get the value out of the times when you are ahead.
If you don't lead the river with a bet, then you land up paying off your opponent when he's ahead, but he checks through when you are ahead.
Now.. I'm not saying that this guy really understood the logic behind the play.. but against tricky opponents you need to be aware it exists..
In this pot, given it's small and you can only really beat a bluff, I'd fold.
I'd be inclined to call on the river. Many opponents will use this kind of awkward looking river bet when they have a busted draw (or counterfeited 3 pair). Of course, he may have just spiked 8's full, but I think your hand will be good more than 1 in 6 times here.
ScottyZ
Sorry if there was any confusion. I would have gladly checked the river down, (although BBC's OOP point is interesting), Â but I was IN position and he bet into me.
And as far as this hand goes I think the key thing to consider was the pot being small. Â Specifically I think that if I check the turn taking the free card and face a river bet on the same board with only a 4BB in the pot, it's an easy fold.
Sorry, I'm gonna need a definition on that one.
I thought the same. OK, stupid to play "What if?" But hypothetically let's say I HAD taken the free card on the turn. Do you call only getting 4 to 1 (even if I might have induced him to bluff by checking the turn)? I think the smaller pot makes this laydown easier than the 6:1 case with the odd lead out bet. Either way the pots are small but I think 6:1 vs. 4:1 swings it from call to fold (at least for me).
I'm not sure I'd fold in this case. Checking behind on the turn when it's heads-up is very likely to induce a river bluff (or even a river value bet with Ace high) from all but the most timid players.
Oddly enough, I think the hypothetical line of betting (check behind on the turn) leads to an easier river call for a smaller pot. The probability that you are facing a river bluff in this case has gone way up.
ScottyZ
Try reading the post. I gave you the definition there.
FLOP: I like taking a free card here, but betting cant be much of a mistake if it is one at all.
TURN: Any hand capable of calling the flop that doesnt have you beat is drawing extremely thin. Any hand that has you beat is definitely calling. Youd hate to pay double for your now robust draw, check behind.
RIVER: Easy call
Clarkmeister: A prominent poster on the two plus two forums
Clarkmeister's Theorem: Always bet a 4flush board on the river OOP, an opponent will fold a better hand often enough while worse hands call you often enough, to make the play profitable due to the fact you cannot be punished by a raise because your hand is not strong enough to call a raise. There are of course exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb, this is the correct play OOP on a 4 flush board.
Its actually straight out of Theory of Poker and should be credited to David Sklansky but Clarkmeister is often credited with it.
I dont think it applies in this situation. The theorem applies specifically to 4flush situtations where you can make a better hand fold simply from the scary nature of the baord. A better hand will never fold on this board. A tight, overpair, straight, flush and even a dry ace will call almost every single time.
I'd have to say that I don't mind either calling or folding pre-flop, depending what kind of limit we are talking about. (Looks to me like a low-limit hand, but we are actually missing this information.) Folding would be too tight in a typical LL game, but may be right in a tougher game with a lot of pre-flop aggression.
I'm having of trouble getting my mind around the idea of raising pre-flop here, whatever the limit. Of the scenarios in which I would attempt a blind steal (or isolation play), MP behind a poster (who has checked) and with 5 players left to act behind me seems pretty low on the list.
ScottyZ
Sorry. Yes, silly 1-2 bonus whoring hand. Table was generally loose-passive, in a tighter more aggressive game I'd have dumped it in EP and certainly wouldn't be the first entering the pot with it (the poster kind of lured me in and I hoped my call would draw in more).
Thanks for the def on Clarkmeister Kai. Was busy browing 2+2 yesterday to get the gist of the theorem. Maybe this is an oversimplification but doesn't this assume your opponent to be somewhat passive and not insane? I'd hate to lead a flop there OOP with a 4 flush into a LAG, because the possibility of a bluff-raise exists. Isn't there some value vs. an agressive player of checking to induce a likely bluff? I'd feel obligated to pay off the raise as well (eg. with a set vs. the 4 flush). But maybe I'm way off base here.
And FWIW the results of the original hand: I paid him off and called. Villain had 87o for the low boat. An oddly played bottom 2 pair on the flop. Either he recognized the vulnerability of his 2 pair vs. draws etc and was genuinely timid, or more likely had intended to check-raise me on the turn but then wimped out when the 2nd 9 fell, but couldn't bring himself to throw the hand away.
Im not a big fan of limping beind the poster unless im fairly sure it will elicit limps from loose players behind me. If the game is loose passive, i like limping along. If the game is agressive, which my thinking was geared towards, calling is probably worst. So if i were to play the hand, id raise...folding is probably better tho. With better position, hijack or CO, im raising everytime.
The theorem assumes that a better hand will fold. In a situation where you are heads up against a lag holding a set on a four flush board on the river, the proper play would be to check call because the basic principal of betting is that there are a great deal of better hands that will fold and that you can fold safely to a raise. Against a lag, we cannot expect him to fold any flush card and we cannot fold safely to a raise...because hes overly loose and overly agressive. The rule of Rope-A-Dope (check calling maniacs) would take precedence over Clarkmeisters Theorem.