Posted 20 October 2005 - 01:33 PM
Wow, there was some excellent discussion concerning this hand, and most of you were split on whether or not to check or to bet "something." I will tell you what I did and follow that up with why I did it. I decided that going all in was the best play. If the dude was crafty enough to trap me with a King or Quads, then I would still have a few hundred left. My opponent folded, and I got the pot all to myself!1) It was VERY unlikeley that he had four jacks. Why? Well, if a player flops quads in a three way pot they generally don't look to protect the hand with a bet. If he had the Jack he would have probably checked the flop. Also, for him to raise a limper there are fewer hands that a typical player would raise with in this case that contained a Jack. Sure, he could have 10-J suited, or a hand like A-J, but it is less likely than having a pocket pair or a bigger Ace.2) He could have AA or AK. While that's true, you would think that with a full house on the board, and just 1700 left in chips that he would look to bet the river since he is GUARANTEED a csll of say, 1000. 3) The thing to ask yourself is this: is he more likely to fold to a bet, or more likely to be slowplaying the a J, AA, ot AK? Based on all of the clues based on how he bet his hand, I would say that he is less likely to be trapping.4) Going all in is a better play than betting 1000, because if you bet only 1000 you increase the likelyhood of him calling since it won't mean his tournament life. You want to put maximum heat on him so that he asks himself, "Am I really going to risk the whole tournament to split this pot?" Many players will feel like it's not worth the risk and just give you the extra money.5) There is too much in the pot to let it go. The pot will increase your stack size by 25% and the risk is minimal. A check will see your stack go to 3000 when he isn't trapping, and 4000 when he isn't trapping and folds to your bet. At that stage of the tournament, a gamble like that makes sense. If for example, you had 100,000 and your opponent had 90,000 with a 1000 pot out there, then it would be foolish to go all in. It doesn't help you very much. In this particular example, though, it would help your stack significantly.6) For your opponent to be setting a trap, he must somehow think it's more worth it to check and "hope" that you bet, versus betting an amount that he would surely have called. If you had four jacks, a King, or AA, would you bet the flop, check the turn, and then check the river also? The only time you might do that is if you KNEW your opponent would bite and go all in. That is a valid argument. Of course, if you know nothing of your opponent than a sophisticated play like that becomes useless.********************************************************************* So in closing, while a check is a safe play, you don't win tournaments by playing safely. You win them by playing aggressively and taking pots that nobody esle wants. A "free play" like this one, is one that you can't be afraid to make. "I can't lose what I don't put in the middle." "Yeah, but you can't win nothin' either." I won't continue debating this hand, although I'm sure some of you may want to disagree. I'm right... trust me I'm right, lol. :-)