3 replies to this topic

[JamesU2]

I think that the answer to this situation is obvious but I'm finding very few people who agree with me. Maybe I'm wrong. Thought I'd get some outside opinions.I'm playing in a small, 15 man tournament. There is a total of 375,000 chips in play. Play is down to 4-handed and I have roughly 65,000 in chips, which is good for third over-all. The two chip leaders both have over 100,000.From the small blind I look down at Kh-Qh. Blinds are 1000-2000 and I make it 6000 to go. The big blind folds and the player to his left calls (this player is low-man at the table with 58,000 in chips). The button had already folded, so the action is heads up. The flop comes 8-7-3, with one heart. I check and the caller bets 15000 into the 16000 pot. I think for a minute or so and decide to raise. I call the 15000 and raise another 20000. This leaves me with 24000 in chips. My opponent calls and reraises all-in for his last 17000. At this point I begin to think. My opponent is an aggressive player, frequently raising with hands like 9-5 and Q-10. To be honest, I give his bets very little credit. His 15000 bet after the flop (which nearly matched the pot) was a bizarre bet to me that said "please don't call me." I figured that both of my cards were live and that if either of them hit I would have the hand won. So that gave me 6 outs. There was also the small chance that running hearts would fall. I figured I had approximately a 26%-28% chance of getting the necessary cards I needed to guarantee the win. Throw in the fact that this player is crazy, maybe even making this bet with a K or Q with a worse kicker than me, so I decided to add 4%. So I figured I had anywhere from 30%-32% of winning the hand outright.So with somewhere between 4-1 and 3-1 to win, and looking at 6-1 on my money if I call, I felt that calling was the mathematically correct play. There are also the following three intangibles. One, my raise of 20000 (which only left me with 24000 at that point) should have screamed to my opponent that I was willing to play this hand out for all of my money. Two, his all-in reraise was LESS than my raise of 20000, and three, if I had folded to his all-in I would have had a very small chip stack (just over 5% of the total chips in play) and would have been forced to move-in on one of the next few hands.I feel that calling was completely necessary. I did. My opponent turned over pocket 5's. I caught a Q on the river to win the hand.My opponent hasn't stopped ranting for three days over how bad of a call it was on my part. Was it? I don't think so, but what do you all think?thanks,james

[holman3rd]

JamesU2 said:

I think that the answer to this situation is obvious but I'm finding very few people who agree with me.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Thought I'd get some outside opinions.I'm playing in a small, 15 man tournament.  There is a total of 375,000 chips in play.  Play is down to 4-handed and I have roughly 65,000 in chips, which is good for third over-all.  The two chip leaders both have over 100,000.From the small blind I look down at Kh-Qh.  Blinds are 1000-2000 and I make it 6000 to go.  The big blind folds and the player to his left calls (this player is low-man at the table with 58,000 in chips).  The button had already folded, so the action is heads up.  

I assume that the UTG player limped, button folded, you raised, bb folded, UTG called. Just a little confused from the sequence as you laid it out.As for the preflop raise, I don't see any problem. We don't really know anything about this player other than he is "crazy". With that limited info, I would initially put a crazy player on a high pp when limping UTG in a 4-handed game. Then again, he's crazy, so i'm not married to this idea.

JamesU2 said:

The flop comes 8-7-3, with one heart.  I check and the caller bets 15000 into the 16000 pot.  I think for a minute or so and decide to raise.  I call the 15000 and raise another 20000.  This leaves me with 24000 in chips.  My opponent calls and reraises all-in for his last 17000.  

I would have led the betting with a continuation bet to get more info on where i stand. You took the lead with the preflop raise, so a bet of around $7,000 sounds about right here. But, given that you checked, he probably put you on 2 over cards and made a pot-sized bet to get you to lay them down. After you check-raise, he was getting over 3 to 1 to call. Calling wasn't an option for him b/c he would have had to put over 50% of his remaining stack, so he pushed. He may have felt pot-committed here and decided to go with his initial read. He's only in bad shape against a higher PP, and it would probably be hard for him to put you on a set or an 8,7 or 3 with a good kicker. So, his read was probably down to pocket pair (higher than eights) or two over cards. I probably would have layed down my fives, but this guy is "crazy" so he called.

JamesU2 said:

At this point I begin to think.  My opponent is an aggressive player, frequently raising with hands like 9-5 and Q-10.  To be honest, I give his bets very little credit.  His 15000 bet after the flop (which nearly matched the pot) was a bizarre bet to me that said "please don't call me."  

Possible, but a pot-sized bet after the flop is pretty standard stuff when you have some kind of hand.

JamesU2 said:

I figured that both of my cards were live and that if either of them hit I would have the hand won.  So that gave me 6 outs.  There was also the small chance that running hearts would fall.  I figured I had approximately a 26%-28% chance of getting the necessary cards I needed to guarantee the win.  Throw in the fact that this player is crazy, maybe even making this bet with a K or Q with a worse kicker than me, so I decided to add 4%.  So I figured I had anywhere from 30%-32% of winning the hand outright.So with somewhere between 4-1 and 3-1 to win, and looking at 6-1 on my money if I call, I felt that calling was the mathematically correct play.  

You were pot committed and getting a good price to call...I would have called too.

JamesU2 said:

There are also the following three intangibles.  One, my raise of 20000 (which only left me with 24000 at that point) should have screamed to my opponent that I was willing to play this hand out for all of my money.  Two, his all-in reraise was LESS than my raise of 20000, and three, if I had folded to his all-in I would have had a very small chip stack (just over 5% of the total chips in play) and would have been forced to move-in on one of the next few hands.

Good analysis. If he is a "thinking" player, the fact that you'd call automatically should have been painfully obvious to him. He really must have put you on 2 overcards.

JamesU2 said:

I feel that calling was completely necessary.  I did.  My opponent turned over pocket 5's.  I caught a Q on the river to win the hand.My opponent hasn't stopped ranting for three days over how bad of a call it was on my part.  Was it?  I don't think so, but what do you all think?thanks,james

If I had played the hand the way you did up to the river, the final call was automatic. Let him rant. Why educate a player who doesn't know what he's talking about. Did you get lucky to catch a Q? Sure, but you were a 3-to-1 dog and were getting more than enough in pot odds to make the call.By the way, if I'm correct in that he had put you on 2 overcards, he should have been jumping for joy when you called. He was a 3-to-1 favorite at that point. And when you hit one of your 6 outers, he should have just said, "oh well, good game, that's poker."

[JamesU2]

holman, thanks for the response:Yes, you are correct in your assumption of his preflop play (limp, then call my raise).I also agree with you that I should have led out the betting after the flop. I realized this as soon as the word "check" left my lips. That is why I decided that simply calling him was not an option. I had to either fold to his bet, or raise to at least give the appearance of strength and get him to think. Though, yes, it was correct for him to call my raise as well.And why he wasn't jumping for joy when I turned over two overcards to his made hand is beyone me.Oh well. That's what makes the game fun.james

[holman3rd]

JamesU2 said:

holman, thanks for the response:Yes, you are correct in your assumption of his preflop play (limp, then call my raise).I also agree with you that I should have led out the betting after the flop.  I realized this as soon as the word "check" left my lips.  That is why I decided that simply calling him was not an option.  I had to either fold to his bet, or raise to at least give the appearance of strength and get him to think.  Though, yes, it was correct for him to call my raise as well.And why he wasn't jumping for joy when I turned over two overcards to his made hand is beyone me.Oh well.  That's what makes the game fun.james

The funny thing, at least in my opinion, is that you're being berated by a player who misplayed the hand. You check to him on the flop, which he could have interpreted as 2 overcards. So, he correctly fires a good-sized bet. However, you're checkraise should have sent off alarms in his head that he had just been trapped by an overpair. He should have shut down right there. Just my opinion, as usual.