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. :-)

Got another one. Yes!

Do I get any brownie points? I got it right too :-p

i agree. the biggest clue is the two checks on 4th and 5th street. this person isn't holding the best hand; if they were, they would (should) be trying to get paid off at least a bit on 4th and 5th street. if they had anything better than the board, wouldn't they attempt even a value bet? that coupled with the fact that an all-in call will end their tournament if they lose means they cannot call if you push. good play.

thanks for the elaborate answer daniel :-)

If the stacks were a few thousand deeper, and the opponent bet the 1000 UTG, do you read this as a value bet or an attempt to steal half the pot, and push to resteal?

someone help me here ...

i said bet 1000. a value bet.

if he had the final 7 so be it ... also he was first in early position when he bet which would tell me too big ones. AK perhaps or another pair. It would seem to me that he either had QQ or JJ or something or he did have the AK.

If he did have the AK he would just call down and take it.

If he had the smaller pocket pairs he may fold it down to a 1000 bet thinking it was some sort of trap and he was facing a K or the final 7 himself.

with the bet 1000 option you would either get a valuebet here or a re-raise and you may very well just steal it but you would know where you're at without risking all your chips.

by just calling down on the flop i'm not sure if you know where you're at with the hand ... if it would have been raised after the flop you would have more information. You actually have no idea where you're at in this hand I believe. And if I would have been the opponate I would have checked the K when it hit too. Also with the aggressive raise on the flop you may have scared him out with his AK thinking you hit your jackpot since you limped in pre-flop from the button and could have had anything and he never would have seen his K hit.


i'm not saying i'm right as i'm sure i'm not ... just looking for some help finding the problem with my theory ...


mat

oh and don't flame me too bad I'm still burnt.

I said All-In as well.

Here's why...

If he slowplayed the king on the turn.

No way he checks it again on the river... you have to be super disciplined to do something like that, and online players will check turn/bet river with the nuts all the time. He doesn't have it.

mtm... the problem is that you can't value bet when you're splitting the hand. Either get him off it, or concede a split. Value bet isn't even in the vocab on this hand.

i don't see where you figure to split this pot.


matt

Cause I don't think he has a K or J.

That's the point ... if he doesn't have the K or J then he may very well have the best hand and he would earn that extra 1000.00 or the pot may just get folded to him ... but by putting all his money in the pot all he's doing is making sure that if he's wrong that he loses all his money. If he bets 1000.00 and gets raised he's either playing a genius or he's beat. See what I mean?


matt

thank you

you being in the same state as I am had deeply lower my IQ even more

this is why 1000 is bad

lets say your opponent pushes allin

....what do you do

does he have a K or J or does he just think you dont have one

Its not even about that. the fact is if he value bets 1000 Daniel will have to call and with only 1700 there is no point in trying to trap for 700 more when in doing so he runs the risk of daniel checking behind him.

first off if you bet 1000 and he raises you have to call the extra 700 so you're risking the same amount, but with less of a chance that your opponenet will fold.

f he re-raises i think you should let it go ... but why would you risk all your chips like that ... look at it like this ... if DN bets the only way he gets called is with a K J AA or the quads ... so why not push 1000.00 out and see what happens insted of pushing it all in ... then when you get called your out of the tournament for good ...


matt

Maybe you didn't notice your opponent only has 1700. If he goes all in after you bet 1000 you are getting 3.4-1 odds to call. you have to call the extra 700. It's really not an opinion. It's a fact. If you bet 1000 he will hardly ever fold, but if you bet all in he will often fold thinking "Do I really want to risk my tournament life on a split pot?

ok ... i see what you're saying here ... a 250 chip bet ... just enough to see if he'll commit all his chips maybe?


matt

wait. I'm confused. Are you talking about the turn? If so, then no, a 250 chip bet is ridiculous. He will often raise, and you will have just given yourself a tough decision.

If you're talking about the river then it's still ridiculous. You want to bluff him off his hand so that you can win the whole pot instead of splitting it. a 250 bet into a 2000 chip pot on a full house board will always receive a call and often raise.

ok ... i will agree with you on that point ... however this hand was misplayed early in my opinion ... on the flop and turn you needed more information ... you never know ...

for what you say to be correct you would need to be certin that you had the best hand and that you wen't up against quads or a bigger pair ... i don't think you are here ... follow me?


matt

Im confused here... If the guy doesnt have a K or a J then the only hand that wins the whole pot is AA. That's the only "bigger pair" hand that beats you.


It makes no sense for someone playing either J AK, KK or AA to bet at the flop then check the turn AND the river. The Bet , Check, Check is enough to tell you that you probably have the best hand... playing the board and splitting the pot with the other person.

The reason betting 1000 is a bad move IMO is that if he's going to call, he's going to push all in and then that extra 700 commits you to call too. With larger stacks you wont push all in, but here with stacks relatively the same amount as whats in the pot, push and take the pot.

The only way you "win" this hand is by betting and making the other guy fold. If he calls you dont win anythign except half the 100 that was limped plus the blinds. The entire idea is that DN does not want to get called and the best way to prevent that is to put the other guys entire tournament on the line. Based on our read we should be pretty certain we're sharing this pot... so why not push and make him fold.

Can no-one spot that the confusion comes because you have mis-read the board?

7s are irrelevant, 7s don't improve the board.

And how can he have JJ when there are three Js on the flop!

This is what I thought too when I saw his reply... It seems like the poster is completely misreading the board, or doesnt understand that only the best 5 play... I cant quite figure it out either. Hence the ensuing discussion makes no sense at all.

even if he thinks more than 5 cards play, he can't think there are five Jacks in the deck!

Well I really blew this one.

I voted bet 1000. I need to get back to my reading and absorbing more than I have lately.

This was a fantastic question, especially since I answered it wrong. I said check, fully expecting to split the pot and being satisfied with that. The way the hand was played the chances of being beat are extremely remote. If the guy is holding AA, a J, or a K, he would have to value bet the river, otherwise he is leaving money out there as a small bet would get called expecting to split. Here, the fact that Daniel has position is key to taking this whole pot. This teaches me that I shouldn't be always be satisfied with a split when: 1. the chances of being beat are remote, and 2. gaining the whole pot instead of half will greatly improve my chip stack.



Thanks DN, I learned a lot from this hand.

Isn't your opponent more likely to put you on a steal if you go all-in?
Would you move all-in against an unknown opponent if you did have a Jack or King in your hand? Maybe I'm just trying to overthink the situation.

SOME opponents yes...but MOST won't.

Most will not want to risk all their chips for a split pot and assume they are beat. The fact that it's a split pot means the villain has to be twice as sure he's not behind than if he could win outright.

If you don't bet all the opponent's chips many opponents will auto-call knowing that they are still in the tournament if they lose the hand.

If I had a Jack or King I'd probably bet half the villain's chipstack.

I know this one is very old but I am just going through these.

I think the real question here is why he wouldn't call you? The only thing he can think you have is AK but if you did, you didn't play it very well or how most people would. Putting myself in his shoes, I don't know how he didn't call. You bet out strong after the flop, slowed down with position when the K hit and then went all in? It doesn't add up to me.