For Anyone Who Knows The Results, Don't Post

[Scott3705 0]

UB 50/100 NL Hold'em Random Player A is at seat 0 with $4648.Hero is at seat 3 with $12034.50.Random Player B is at seat 5 with $13425.Random Player C is at seat 6 with $9100.Mahatma is at seat 7 with $17187.The button is at seat 5.Preflop: Hero is CO with K A UTG Folds, Hero raises to $350, Button folds, SB folds, BB (Mahatma) callsFlop: ($750) 10 K 3Mahatma checks. Hero bets $500. Mahatma calls. Turn: ($1750) 5Mahatma bets $1700. Hero calls.River: ($5150) AMahatma goes all-in for $14587. Hero?

[nomad_monad 0]

Prahlad's turn bet is a little confusing. I am a bit wary here that he's got a set of 10s and bet the turn to see if we'd call a bigger bet on the river. But something tells me he's got AK as well, has the Hero read as having AK also based on the flop and turn action, and is now pushing the river to take the whole pot while only risking a chop.If he's got QJ, it's very creatively played.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

Is Prahlad capable of playing AT like this? I watched him earlier today, and he is indeed a very strong, and creative player.If he had QJ, then the ace on the river might actually hurt his ability to make moneyon the hand if he thinks you have a king(which is a reasonable assumption). So he would have to read you for AK specifically in order to push the nuts like this because KQ and KJ aren't calling the river push.

[godoffrisbee 0]

I think we should have raised on the turn. Just calling here implies that we are weak and a big bet may take the pot away from us on the river, which is exactly what may have happened. Raising to $5000 kind of commits us, but it also takes the tough decision away from us. If mahatma reraises us all-in, then we have to make a crying call, which sucks, but it's better than folding on the river when we have a hand that can definitely call, but is a much tougher decision.

[MasterLJ 0]

Assuming we played this way to the river, if I play with Prahlad with any regularity I'm calling here more for future game payouts. I give it about 50/50 with Prahlad as to whether it's a bluff or not (even though I know results) so I think we add a lot of potential in the future by not letting us bully us. Also, if we call here, the next time we're in a similar situation we can probably figure that he's got it assuming he remembers the hand.

[offset 0]

I don't know much about prahlad's game, but I do know he likes to get creative with draws and he is a very agressive player.He could be using his LAG reputation to suck in money with a set using his bet on the blank turn, he could have KQ, or he could have QJ. I think those (set, KQ, QJ) are the most likely possibilities on the turn. When we call his turn bet he knows we are strong. It is not unreasonable for him to assume we have AK.Why would he be overbetting the river? Would he really do this on a bluff, when a pot sized bet (or even less) would achieve the same purpose? Moreover, what could he be bluffing with? QJ has already made the straight. I doubt he is making that bet with KQ or just a pair of Aces (I think given the action that holding is very unlikely anyhow).The most important aspect of this hand is that we have shown we are strong. He probably correctly thinks we have hit our kicker, and assumes we will call a push. He either has a set or QJ, in which case we should fold.

[tapeworm 0]

I would probably fold, but I do not play with this guy. I have just heard "stories" of how he goes all-in with anything. As a hand history alone(without knowledge of your opponent), I think fold is the only good play, since average player does not bluff like this, very often.But I have a math question. How often does he have to be bluffing for calling to be the right play? It should be simple math, but I do not know the answer. Anyone? I guess that is the only analysis cause either you are calling his bluff or your are calling with a worse hand. It's not like villain has a worse two-pair and thinks his hand his good.EDIT: Nevermind, I got off my lazy *** and did my attempt at the math:Hero has $9484 left on the river. So your pot equity is 9484/(5150+9484) = 64.8%. With some gorrilla math and rounding off errors, I got that he must be bluffing 39% of the time which works out since 0.39*14634 ~= 0.61*9484. If someone could verify my gorrilla math that would be great.Ok, So MasterLJ thinks he is bluffing 50% of the time, so its a call. I say it is less than 40% so its a fold. Oh, and to "offset", from what I hear about Mahatma is that an overbet is not out of the ordinary, bluff or not. I agree with your overall analysis though that it is still likely not a bluff, but it really is player dependant.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

We have to ask ourselves this. When we call his bet on the turn, what are we hoping for on the river? An ace gives us the best possible two pair. Considering he is LAG and in the BB, he could be calling with any two cards. I call here for the same reasons Master LJ stated, its probably a 50-50 proposition as to whether we have the best hand at this point.

[tapeworm 0]

We have to ask ourselves this. When we call his bet on the turn, what are we hoping for on the river? An ace gives us the best possible two pair. Considering he is LAG and in the BB, he could be calling with any two cards. I call here for the same reasons Master LJ stated, its probably a 50-50 proposition as to whether we have the best hand at this point.

I guess that what makes aggressive play so effective. Do you really like calling all your money off in a 50-50 proposition? I mean, I'll do it(and unfortunately hold'em often reduces to this), but I prefer to be the aggressor. The guy moving in with the pair and flush draw, the guy moving in with AK PF, etc. Based on HH, I still feel it is less likely a bluff, but I don't know opponent. If it is 50-50, like you say, then I guess you gotta call, but I still don't feel comfortable doing it. Man, I gotta add more of this to my game...

[Dratj 0]

Before I knew the answer, I would say that it is a call. Mahatma is known for pushing with a wide variety of hands. I think hero should have raised the turn and then he would not be in such a dilemma. It is a very incomfortable call though. it is really 50 50.

[MasterLJ 0]

I guess that what makes aggressive play so effective. Do you really like calling all your money off in a 50-50 proposition? I mean, I'll do it(and unfortunately hold'em often reduces to this), but I prefer to be the aggressor. The guy moving in with the pair and flush draw, the guy moving in with AK PF, etc. Based on HH, I still feel it is less likely a bluff, but I don't know opponent. If it is 50-50, like you say, then I guess you gotta call, but I still don't feel comfortable doing it. Man, I gotta add more of this to my game...

I agree completely about being the aggressor. That's why in my first statement I said "assuming I played it this way to the river," which is a huge assumption, because I wouldn't play it this way to the river.I think it's most effective to attack people like Prahlad on the turn. My other point was that if we play with this guy with any regularity ALWAYS making calls when it's 50/50 (he has you beat/he's bluffing) we're going to mess up his game against us.

[Scott3705 0]

I thought the turn was kinda off. I haven't really watched this player but saw on 2+2 that he's known for overbetting with air and with the nuts. He basically plays balls the wall NL where he's looking to pick up a lot of scared money. (See Mike matusow post in general earlier this week).I MasterL_J is right here about the turn. That card didn't help him, so why the hell did we slow down if there are a lot of cards that can come that will slow us down and contemplate a fold on the river? The only thing I would consider is that what calls the flop and leads the turn? We would think maybe a draw in an aggressive player's hands will raise the flop. So at the turn, we give him credit for a big hand or we think he's pushing air or near air at us. Against an aggressive player in a SH game that is constantly pushing with nothing or near nothing, (as well as big hands), I am going to default to hand strength and take a stand here. Especially online, I think you play against ranges, not specific hands. At the turn, his range is absolutely huge and you're beating way too much. so I go for the push on the turn. At the river, depending on hero's play in past hands, I think it's somewhat easy to read a strong holding in hero's hand and I can see villain overpushing just because he knows it'll be hard to get away and the hero is probably tired of getting beaten up here.

[tapeworm 0]

Before I knew the answer, I would say that it is a call. Mahatma is known for pushing with a wide variety of hands. I think hero should have raised the turn and then he would not be in such a dilemma. It is a very incomfortable call though. it is really 50 50.

Dratj, I think it is important not focus on results and make the same play before and after you know the "answer." I also notice this in your other posts where your set gets beat by a set and ask, "could I have folded this?"I Like MasterLJ's thinking that we want to make the tough calls so that he does not try to run us over too much. Otherwise, he is going to call EVERY time we enter a pot with a raise thinking..."free money."Alot of people seem to advocate raising or pushing on the turn, which I can buy, but I am not 100% convinced that it is the right play against such a player. The question is, do we want to trap or "fight fire with fire." This is not a draw heavy board(which makes the str8 draw that much more concealed). We cannot discount the str8 draw, but as Scott points out he most likely is Potting the turn with "air" or a monster. In this case, raising only saves us from making a tough call and in fact costs us money as it will only be called by the monster(set). I mean I look at the hand vs. Matusow(in that other post, which is hilarious by the way) and the guy went all-in with Queen high to be called by Ace high, so we cant discount "air." The advantage of raising is that it cuts off draws and sets a precedent that we are not going to back down easily(which is probably more important). So....I am just throwing thoughts out there. I do not know which is better(calling down or raising) on the turn. In the end I guess I like raising, because when I think of possible river cards(brick, Q or J, 10, A) and the possibility of Prahlad moving in on ALL of them, I do not know when I call and when I don't and it makes my life easier, but keep in mind that a push on the turn is ONLY +EV if he folds alot, as any call has us beat.Pretty interesting hand anyways....thanks for the post

[MasterLJ 0]

The more I've thought about it the more I've come to the conclusion that calling IS the right play.Just look, honestly half of the poker community that has discussed this says "he's betting with air," and the other half says, "he's got QJ." That's perfect. If my read puts this as 50/50 I'm calling every single time against a super-aggressive player. Yes, I will lose some hands, but I won't be run over. And it's not an ego issue, being run over is -EV.

[Jordan 1]

if he's done this before with air and has shown..he'll play it the same way with a flopped set on that kinda board.he doesn't have QJ. I'd say he if we are beat, it's with a set and he is overbetting cause he "knows" he'll get paid off here now by AK.- Jordan

[Dratj 0]

Dratj, I think it is important not focus on results and make the same play before and after you know the "answer." I also notice this in your other posts where your set gets beat by a set and ask, "could I have folded this?"I Like MasterLJ's thinking that we want to make the tough calls so that he does not try to run us over too much. Otherwise, he is going to call EVERY time we enter a pot with a raise thinking..."free money."Alot of people seem to advocate raising or pushing on the turn, which I can buy, but I am not 100% convinced that it is the right play against such a player. The question is, do we want to trap or "fight fire with fire." This is not a draw heavy board(which makes the str8 draw that much more concealed). We cannot discount the str8 draw, but as Scott points out he most likely is Potting the turn with "air" or a monster. In this case, raising only saves us from making a tough call and in fact costs us money as it will only be called by the monster(set). I mean I look at the hand vs. Matusow(in that other post, which is hilarious by the way) and the guy went all-in with Queen high to be called by Ace high, so we cant discount "air." The advantage of raising is that it cuts off draws and sets a precedent that we are not going to back down easily(which is probably more important). So....I am just throwing thoughts out there. I do not know which is better(calling down or raising) on the turn. In the end I guess I like raising, because when I think of possible river cards(brick, Q or J, 10, A) and the possibility of Prahlad moving in on ALL of them, I do not know when I call and when I don't and it makes my life easier, but keep in mind that a push on the turn is ONLY +EV if he folds alot, as any call has us beat.Pretty interesting hand anyways....thanks for the post

so, do you call or fold the river? I understand that it's making the right play and not results that matter. Perhaps that set over set post should not have been in strat. I know that you can't worry about that. My initial assessment was to call the river because it seemed like a weird way to play QJ. I only said what I said because I know what Mahatma had after. AK beats a lot of possible holdings and that's why I said call before knowing what Mahatma had. I don't regret saying call.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

What were the results of the hand?

[Jordan 1]

What were the results of the hand?

I think friedman had a set.- Jordan

[MasterLJ 0]

Posting results will stifle any intelligent discussion.Quite frankly it doesn't matter. Even if you know the results you still could make an argument against the play.

[Kaedin 0]

why have we ruled out QJ?

[Scott3705 0]

why have we ruled out QJ?

We haven't ruled out jq. We accept and understand he will have jq a lot here in this spot and he will have air as well. My only thought is, how would a player like this play a hand like an inferior two pair? Kinda strange to think he's going to be bluffing against top 2 but he can be sure if he gets called on this river, a two pair combo is probably bad which means he's going to bluff w/ a hand that has a lot of showdown valu.e

[Kaedin 0]

We haven't ruled out jq. We accept and understand he will have jq a lot here in this spot and he will have air as well. My only thought is, how would a player like this play a hand like an inferior two pair? Kinda strange to think he's going to be bluffing against top 2 but he can be sure if he gets called on this river, a two pair combo is probably bad which means he's going to bluff w/ a hand that has a lot of showdown valu.e

someone earlier ruled out QJ, and most people have been talkin about a set or 2 different pair. Villain might play an inferior 2pr the same way, because hero became fairly passive on the turn.

[hotbacon 0]

someone earlier ruled out QJ, and most people have been talkin about a set or 2 different pair. Villain might play an inferior 2pr the same way, because hero became fairly passive on the turn.

The overbet with a marginal two pair would be pretty sillyWhat would he expect to call that he has beat?

[Kaedin 0]

The overbet with a marginal two pair would be pretty sillyWhat would he expect to call that he has beat?

is it silly? dude could have deuce trey right now, but we're all sittin here hemmin and hawing over the play.

[nomad_monad 0]

is it silly? dude could have deuce trey right now, but we're all sittin here hemmin and hawing over the play.

yes.there's a pretty big difference from getting us to hem and haw with 2-3 than with an inferior two pair.