$1/2 NLHE: River value with aces up? (1 Viewer)

[jbutler]

Limp A7ss in MP. Limps five ways to a flop of A72hh.

Guy who I've seen splashing around a lot with both calls and raises preflop and c bet/folds on flops leads for $10. I raise to $40 other players fold he calls.

I have been playing relatively tight but in the past orbit I've played two significant hands. In one I led flop into 5 player with pot sized bet and followed up with 75% pot bet on turn after getting one caller. He folded so no one saw my hand. Other hand saw flop four ways for $10. Pre flop raiser led for $20 and I made $65. Folds to her she makes it $150 I ship for $450 effective and she folds. Again no show obviously.

Turn ($90): 3o

He checks I bet $65. He calls.

River ($220): 6o

He checks. He started hand with $500. My action?

 

[Jimulacrum]

To have us beat, Villain must have an oddball backdoor straight that I'd consider ruled out, or a set. To pay us off, he should have a smaller two pair, likely aces up, and maybe a bare ace if he's feeling frisky. Given the line he's taken, I think sets are unlikely enough that we're almost always going to be best.

How much to bet depends somewhat on stack sizes, though, which you haven't provided.

 

[jbutler]

How much to bet depends somewhat on stack sizes, though, which you haven't provided.

Whoops - will edit OP. Villain started hand with $500 and I cover.

 

[stocky]

45hh might make sense but Ax makes more sense. I think half pot sized bet should be enough for him to call any Ax type hand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Okay, so with both sitting about $400 as of the river, there's no issue of bet sizes that would be silly given stacks.

Let's go with $85. It's hard to see a hand smaller than A7 (especially the bare aces) paying much more than that.

 

[jbutler]

45hh might make sense but Ax makes more sense. I think half pot sized bet should be enough for him to call any Ax type hand.

Should have made it clear in OP that the ace on the flip was a heart so he can't have called and an ace and a heart draw and hit worse aces up.

 

[10centguitar]

figured him for 45 hearts or Ace Rag, could have AJ or A10 off wanting to test if he is outkicked.

Also, really hard to tell what he has if we dont know what kind of play has been seen by all the players for the previous hour or so to this....

 

[jbutler]

figured him for 45 hearts or Ace Rag, could have AJ or A10 off wanting to test if he is outkicked.

Also, really hard to tell what he has if we dont know what kind of play has been seen by all the players for the previous hour or so to this....

Why would you figure him for specifically 45hh rather than simply having any heart draw?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Why would you figure him for specifically 45hh rather than simply having any heart draw?

I was thinking the same thing.

There's also a possibility of a pair plus heart draw like 67 (assuming the 2 is the flopped heart, which is not clear). That would give him just enough to talk himself into that meh turn call, and if he spiked a small two pair, just enough to maybe call the river.

I'd say that's much less likely if the 7 is the flopped heart, though.

 

[stocky]

Why would you figure him for specifically 45hh rather than simply having any heart draw?

I was just thinking it's the only combo that makes sense that would hit a straight. Flush and straight combo. Of course any heart draw is also a possibility.

 

[10centguitar]

Why would you figure him for specifically 45hh rather than simply having any heart draw?

He very well could have a hand like KQ-J10 of hearts, but as these stories typically go, im expecting disaster, why else would you be telling us the story lol.


I know nothing about the villain's showdown hands, slow playing frequency, etc. (not to mention what he will draw unprofitably to and how often)

We do know that villain has a tendency to cbet/fold to a raise on the flop. This doesn't tell us necessarily that he is incapable of bluffing multiple streets but it is evidence to the contrary.


Looks like villain is playing a loose aggressive style and trying to buy a lot of pots. Sounds pretty Super System to me. (little more evidence for small suited connectors.)

My answer really depends on how good of a player the villain is.

This being said, lets look at a few possibilities:

Suited face cards:
Would he knowingly draw to only a flush without pot odds when he wouldn't get paid off in the end when it hits? (whether he gets paid off depends on heros abilities, and villain could think he would get paid off if he underestimates our hero.)


A rag:
Some players are so bad that if they had A rag they would try to catch a 6-outer to get two pair and then shove if they hit. Doesn't sound like he is this bad.


Set or 2 pair: He could have checked the flop to disguise his hand, but he would have bet the turn to protect his hand from the flush draw. He is also OOP. Although the nuts would be a str8 on the turn, he would definitely take the risk to try to make some money if he had a set (particularly if he had Aces : X) It would be too wet to continue. At the very least he would be making a bet to see where he was at.



Here are some things i was thinking when I thought 45 of hearts. Besides the fact that he would be a little less than a coin flip to win the hand by the end after seeing that flop.

1. Pot was limped PF: Villain would be more likely to raise PF with something like J10 or KQ of hearts, than 78-45 suited, possibly even an A rag hand.

2 . Odds for his draw: If villain is any sort of competent in poker and indeed perceives hero as a solid player as well, he would undoubtedly feel better having a backdoor str8 draw to go with 4 cards to a baby flush than if he was strictly continuing in a hand where the board has an over card to his holdings. (KQ-J10 sorts of hands). I can see villain calling the flop raise to catch a heart and see if the action goes check check on the turn. But villain calls turn bet.

3. Pot/bet/raise size(s) versus stacks: You guys are 250BB deep at the start of this hand.

He bets $10 on the flop and gets raised from position. It costs him only 6% of his stack to see the turn and to possibly take all of yours if you have a set or a really big ace you cant let go and he catches. Or he might be anticipating you to give up trying to steal it on the turn. Giving him a free card.

Turn comes out a 3.

If he has 45 of hearts, he has the nuts and will slow play it.

You bet $65 and he calls (only 15% of his remaining stack) once again to possibly win all of yours if he is right. (he has also seen you shove with what could have been a bluff). Sounds like he is giving you some rope to hang yourself with.
Here is where the hand is really decided in my mind. How could he continue here without a worse 2 pair, which he would raise with anyways to protect it from a flush.

Any hand besides the nuts I see him raising with unless he just really sucks at poker and is drawing to only a K high flush. (he very well might be a player calling with K3 or K4 of hearts, Seen a lot of players think K4-K2 suited are great hands to get involved with)

He would have raised top pair top kicker, 2 pair, or set on flop. He would have folded to $65 on the turn with KJ-J10s if he isn't terrible.


My course of action on the river, knowing only what has been said, would be to bet $150 and pray I wouldn't get raised all in.

Even though you could take a bad player to value town here, particularly if he caught a 6 to match his A assuming he played A rag, anything smaller could potentially invite a steal attempt, which you would have a hell of a time calling. You bet 80 he shoves in 300, might make you think about your gutless bet a little.
He also would never call any small bet with anything here besides A10-AK+, hands he would have likely raised with PF and re-raised you with on the flop.

He would be less inclined to bluff raise a 3/4-pot sized bet because of your pot-commitement. If he raises you there you pretty much know you are beat, throw your hand away. If you bet small, and he raises and then you're guessing.

 

[MegaTon44]

He very well could have a hand like KQ-J10 of hearts, but as these stories typically go, im expecting disaster, why else would you be telling us the story lol.


I know nothing about the villain's showdown hands, slow playing frequency, etc. (not to mention what he will draw unprofitably to and how often)

We do know that villain has a tendency to cbet/fold to a raise on the flop. This doesn't tell us necessarily that he is incapable of bluffing multiple streets but it is evidence to the contrary.


Looks like villain is playing a loose aggressive style and trying to buy a lot of pots. Sounds pretty Super System to me. (little more evidence for small suited connectors.)

My answer really depends on how good of a player the villain is.

This being said, lets look at a few possibilities:

Suited face cards:
Would he knowingly draw to only a flush without pot odds when he wouldn't get paid off in the end when it hits? (whether he gets paid off depends on heros abilities, and villain could think he would get paid off if he underestimates our hero.)


A rag:
Some players are so bad that if they had A rag they would try to catch a 6-outer to get two pair and then shove if they hit. Doesn't sound like he is this bad.


Set or 2 pair: He could have checked the flop to disguise his hand, but he would have bet the turn to protect his hand from the flush draw. He is also OOP. Although the nuts would be a str8 on the turn, he would definitely take the risk to try to make some money if he had a set (particularly if he had Aces : X) It would be too wet to continue. At the very least he would be making a bet to see where he was at.



Here are some things i was thinking when I thought 45 of hearts. Besides the fact that he would be a little less than a coin flip to win the hand by the end after seeing that flop.

1. Pot was limped PF: Villain would be more likely to raise PF with something like J10 or KQ of hearts, than 78-45 suited, possibly even an A rag hand.

2 . Odds for his draw: If villain is any sort of competent in poker and indeed perceives hero as a solid player as well, he would undoubtedly feel better having a backdoor str8 draw to go with 4 cards to a baby flush than if he was strictly continuing in a hand where the board has an over card to his holdings. (KQ-J10 sorts of hands). I can see villain calling the flop raise to catch a heart and see if the action goes check check on the turn. But villain calls turn bet.

3. Pot/bet/raise size(s) versus stacks: You guys are 250BB deep at the start of this hand.

He bets $10 on the flop and gets raised from position. It costs him only 6% of his stack to see the turn and to possibly take all of yours if you have a set or a really big ace you cant let go and he catches. Or he might be anticipating you to give up trying to steal it on the turn. Giving him a free card.

Turn comes out a 3.

If he has 45 of hearts, he has the nuts and will slow play it.

You bet $65 and he calls (only 15% of his remaining stack) once again to possibly win all of yours if he is right. (he has also seen you shove with what could have been a bluff). Sounds like he is giving you some rope to hand yourself.
Here is where the hand is really decided in my mind. How could he continue here without a worse 2 pair, which he would raise with anyways to protect it from a flush.

Any hand besides the nuts I see him raising with unless he just really sucks at poker and is drawing to only a K high flush. (he very well might be a player calling with K3 or K4 of hearts, Seen a lot of players think K4-K2 suited are great hands to get involved with)

He would have raised top pair top kicker, 2 pair, or set on flop. He would have folded to $65 on the turn with KJ-J10s if he isn't terrible.


My course of action on the river, knowing only what has been says would be to bet $150 and pray I wouldn't get raised all in.

Even though you could take a bad player to value town here, particularly if he caught a 6 to match his A assuming he played A rag, anything smaller could potentially invite a steal attempt, which you would have a hell of a time calling. You bet 80 he shoves in 300, might make you think about your gutless bet a little.
He also would never call any small bet with anything here besides A10-AK+, hands he would have likely raised with PF and re-raised you with on the flop.

He would be less inclined to bluff raise a 3/4-pot sized bet. If he raises you there you pretty much know you are beat, throw your hand away. If you bet small, and he raises and then you're guessing.

Your thought about a small bet inviting a raise was my thought process as well (@jbutler texted me this scenario earlier). My initial reaction was a 75-80% pot bet, but this approach could be overshooting the maximum value for the river.

Since I know the ending, I'll let Jack finish his scenario.

 

[10centguitar]

Your thought about a small bet inviting a raise was my thought process as well (@jbutler texted me this scenario earlier). My initial reaction was a 75-80% pot bet, but this approach could be overshooting the maximum value for the river.

Since I know the ending, I'll let Jack finish his scenario.

Suspense sucks sometimes. Watch villain has A rag, if he had suited face cards he would have folded and there would be no story to tell. Or AA lol and is afraid he is going to lose and slow plays them.

Although, he might be a very cautious, sucky player with A7 and its a chop lol.

 

[Jimulacrum]

He very well could have a hand like KQ-J10 of hearts, but as these stories typically go, im expecting disaster, why else would you be telling us the story lol.


I know nothing about the villain's showdown hands, slow playing frequency, etc. (not to mention what he will draw unprofitably to and how often)

We do know that villain has a tendency to cbet/fold to a raise on the flop. This doesn't tell us necessarily that he is incapable of bluffing multiple streets but it is evidence to the contrary.


Looks like villain is playing a loose aggressive style and trying to buy a lot of pots. Sounds pretty Super System to me. (little more evidence for small suited connectors.)

My answer really depends on how good of a player the villain is.

This being said, lets look at a few possibilities:

Suited face cards:
Would he knowingly draw to only a flush without pot odds when he wouldn't get paid off in the end when it hits? (whether he gets paid off depends on heros abilities, and villain could think he would get paid off if he underestimates our hero.)


A rag:
Some players are so bad that if they had A rag they would try to catch a 6-outer to get two pair and then shove if they hit. Doesn't sound like he is this bad.


Set or 2 pair: He could have checked the flop to disguise his hand, but he would have bet the turn to protect his hand from the flush draw. He is also OOP. Although the nuts would be a str8 on the turn, he would definitely take the risk to try to make some money if he had a set (particularly if he had Aces : X) It would be too wet to continue. At the very least he would be making a bet to see where he was at.



Here are some things i was thinking when I thought 45 of hearts. Besides the fact that he would be a little less than a coin flip to win the hand by the end after seeing that flop.

1. Pot was limped PF: Villain would be more likely to raise PF with something like J10 or KQ of hearts, than 78-45 suited, possibly even an A rag hand.

2 . Odds for his draw: If villain is any sort of competent in poker and indeed perceives hero as a solid player as well, he would undoubtedly feel better having a backdoor str8 draw to go with 4 cards to a baby flush than if he was strictly continuing in a hand where the board has an over card to his holdings. (KQ-J10 sorts of hands). I can see villain calling the flop raise to catch a heart and see if the action goes check check on the turn. But villain calls turn bet.

3. Pot/bet/raise size(s) versus stacks: You guys are 250BB deep at the start of this hand.

He bets $10 on the flop and gets raised from position. It costs him only 6% of his stack to see the turn and to possibly take all of yours if you have a set or a really big ace you cant let go and he catches. Or he might be anticipating you to give up trying to steal it on the turn. Giving him a free card.

Turn comes out a 3.

If he has 45 of hearts, he has the nuts and will slow play it.

You bet $65 and he calls (only 15% of his remaining stack) once again to possibly win all of yours if he is right. (he has also seen you shove with what could have been a bluff). Sounds like he is giving you some rope to hang yourself with.
Here is where the hand is really decided in my mind. How could he continue here without a worse 2 pair, which he would raise with anyways to protect it from a flush.

Any hand besides the nuts I see him raising with unless he just really sucks at poker and is drawing to only a K high flush. (he very well might be a player calling with K3 or K4 of hearts, Seen a lot of players think K4-K2 suited are great hands to get involved with)

He would have raised top pair top kicker, 2 pair, or set on flop. He would have folded to $65 on the turn with KJ-J10s if he isn't terrible.


My course of action on the river, knowing only what has been said, would be to bet $150 and pray I wouldn't get raised all in.

Even though you could take a bad player to value town here, particularly if he caught a 6 to match his A assuming he played A rag, anything smaller could potentially invite a steal attempt, which you would have a hell of a time calling. You bet 80 he shoves in 300, might make you think about your gutless bet a little.
He also would never call any small bet with anything here besides A10-AK+, hands he would have likely raised with PF and re-raised you with on the flop.

He would be less inclined to bluff raise a 3/4-pot sized bet because of your pot-commitement. If he raises you there you pretty much know you are beat, throw your hand away. If you bet small, and he raises and then you're guessing.

A lot of this analysis makes sense if we're up against a skilled player who is thinking through his action on each street and planning ahead.

But that's not given. All that's given is that Villain has been playing loosely preflop and has made some c-bet/folds. It's also given that Jack has been seen making a couple aggressive moves and taking down uncontested pots.

Beyond that, Villain is just another player in a $1/$2 game. I feel like you're assigning him a profile that isn't (yet) indicated by the limited information we have. It could be the case that he's a skilled player, but we don't know. If we assume that, we may be giving him too much credit in a spot where many loose $1/$2 players will pay off for another $80–$100 with less than top two. (I think $150 is a little much, though. What hand is sticking around for $150 that isn't also shoving?)

 

[Anthony Martino]

If we bet $110 (half pot) and villain shoves the pot will be $725 and we will have to call $285 more to see if our two pair is good, so more than 2.5 on our money. I think our hand is good the majority of the time when we get to the river, as others have stated he needs a set or the straight to have us beat. Most players I see who take the line this guy who do have a monster almost always don't check the river, they bet for fear of you checking behind and them losing value.

So if this guy has a monster like a set or the straight he'd also have to be good enough to know that you're not going to check behind on the river, and give himself an opportunity to check-raise. I don't find that much at this limit.

As such, lead for half-the-pot. We are looking to extract value from weaker two-pairs or one-pair Aces with a good kicker. It's rare we're going to get check-raised all-in here.

 

[jbutler]

He very well could have a hand like KQ-J10 of hearts, but as these stories typically go, im expecting disaster, why else would you be telling us the story lol.


I know nothing about the villain's showdown hands, slow playing frequency, etc. (not to mention what he will draw unprofitably to and how often)

We do know that villain has a tendency to cbet/fold to a raise on the flop. This doesn't tell us necessarily that he is incapable of bluffing multiple streets but it is evidence to the contrary.


Looks like villain is playing a loose aggressive style and trying to buy a lot of pots. Sounds pretty Super System to me. (little more evidence for small suited connectors.)

My answer really depends on how good of a player the villain is.

This being said, lets look at a few possibilities:

Suited face cards:
Would he knowingly draw to only a flush without pot odds when he wouldn't get paid off in the end when it hits? (whether he gets paid off depends on heros abilities, and villain could think he would get paid off if he underestimates our hero.)


A rag:
Some players are so bad that if they had A rag they would try to catch a 6-outer to get two pair and then shove if they hit. Doesn't sound like he is this bad.


Set or 2 pair: He could have checked the flop to disguise his hand, but he would have bet the turn to protect his hand from the flush draw. He is also OOP. Although the nuts would be a str8 on the turn, he would definitely take the risk to try to make some money if he had a set (particularly if he had Aces : X) It would be too wet to continue. At the very least he would be making a bet to see where he was at.



Here are some things i was thinking when I thought 45 of hearts. Besides the fact that he would be a little less than a coin flip to win the hand by the end after seeing that flop.

1. Pot was limped PF: Villain would be more likely to raise PF with something like J10 or KQ of hearts, than 78-45 suited, possibly even an A rag hand.

2 . Odds for his draw: If villain is any sort of competent in poker and indeed perceives hero as a solid player as well, he would undoubtedly feel better having a backdoor str8 draw to go with 4 cards to a baby flush than if he was strictly continuing in a hand where the board has an over card to his holdings. (KQ-J10 sorts of hands). I can see villain calling the flop raise to catch a heart and see if the action goes check check on the turn. But villain calls turn bet.

3. Pot/bet/raise size(s) versus stacks: You guys are 250BB deep at the start of this hand.

He bets $10 on the flop and gets raised from position. It costs him only 6% of his stack to see the turn and to possibly take all of yours if you have a set or a really big ace you cant let go and he catches. Or he might be anticipating you to give up trying to steal it on the turn. Giving him a free card.

Turn comes out a 3.

If he has 45 of hearts, he has the nuts and will slow play it.

You bet $65 and he calls (only 15% of his remaining stack) once again to possibly win all of yours if he is right. (he has also seen you shove with what could have been a bluff). Sounds like he is giving you some rope to hang yourself with.
Here is where the hand is really decided in my mind. How could he continue here without a worse 2 pair, which he would raise with anyways to protect it from a flush.

Any hand besides the nuts I see him raising with unless he just really sucks at poker and is drawing to only a K high flush. (he very well might be a player calling with K3 or K4 of hearts, Seen a lot of players think K4-K2 suited are great hands to get involved with)

He would have raised top pair top kicker, 2 pair, or set on flop. He would have folded to $65 on the turn with KJ-J10s if he isn't terrible.


My course of action on the river, knowing only what has been said, would be to bet $150 and pray I wouldn't get raised all in.

Even though you could take a bad player to value town here, particularly if he caught a 6 to match his A assuming he played A rag, anything smaller could potentially invite a steal attempt, which you would have a hell of a time calling. You bet 80 he shoves in 300, might make you think about your gutless bet a little.
He also would never call any small bet with anything here besides A10-AK+, hands he would have likely raised with PF and re-raised you with on the flop.

He would be less inclined to bluff raise a 3/4-pot sized bet because of your pot-commitement. If he raises you there you pretty much know you are beat, throw your hand away. If you bet small, and he raises and then you're guessing.

Your thought about a small bet inviting a raise was my thought process as well (@jbutler texted me this scenario earlier). My initial reaction was a 75-80% pot bet, but this approach could be overshooting the maximum value for the river.

Since I know the ending, I'll let Jack finish his scenario.

@10centguitar I think @MegaTon44 is right that a 75% pot bet is overshooting max value on the river, particularly given the range we're targeting with our raise.

I agree with you that a set would have likely played back at some point, though not always. I don't really know how often he can make two pair on this turn without having a worse aces up. Possibly he flopped a pair and a flush draw, particularly since the pot was limped and possible he could have had specifically 45hh, but those hands are a very narrow portion of his range imo. He's much more likely to have a better ace here or a busted flush draw that could have possibly made third or fourth pair by the river.

I think that we give our opponents way too much credit to be worried about a bluff raise into a big pot on the river at this level. It just rarely happens. These players typically play their hands straight for value in these spots. So while yes it would be a tough spot if he jams over my river bet, it would be a sticky spot, I'm not that concerned with it. I'm really just concerned with getting called by worse.

Lots of people would also see this as a wet board by the river even though it really isn't. There are a bunch of low to middling cards out there, but there's only one straight available. As @Jimulacrum said, we don't know a ton about this player's hand reading skills, but I profile like the LAPD at the poker table and this guy is a young guy in good shape with his headphones on occasionally talking strategy with his buddy next to him, so until I see an indication otherwise, I'm going to peg him as a semi-aware, slightly better than average player. With that profile, he could easily see my bet on this board as suspect because of the incorrectly perceived wetness of the board.

So with that as my somewhat subconscious thought process, I bet $100 with one black chip and snap called fast enough that his chips hit the felt quicker than mine slid to a stop over the line. I tabled my hand and was good.

My concern was that I bet too small. @courage advised via text a bet of $130. I think that's probably better since villain obviously had no reluctance to call $100.

 

[Jimulacrum]

My concern was that I bet too small. @courage advised via text a bet of $130. I think that's probably better since villain obviously had no reluctance to call $100.

Seems like results-oriented thinking. Villain happened to snap-call, but you can't know he had a snap-calling hand before you bet.

Given how we're ranging him, I think the smaller bet was still best, and I might have even gone a hair smaller (like I said, $85, maybe $90, staying under that $100 threshold).

It would have been really nice to see his hand. That could tell you a lot about the kind of player you're up against—or at least what he thought of you going into the hand.

 

[10centguitar]

A lot of this analysis makes sense if we're up against a skilled player who is thinking through his action on each street and planning ahead.

Didn't know we weren't against an unskilled player. Figured the story was gonna be one of heartbreak. Maybe I missed this somewhere, however, I did mention this point several times of what he has if he is terrible.

However, in a vacuum yes I would bet for value.

So with that as my somewhat subconscious thought process, I bet $100 with one black chip and snap called fast enough that his chips hit the felt quicker than mine slid to a stop over the line. I tabled my hand and was good.

No matter the player at a 1/2, I would have seen if I could have got him to flip his hand over first. If he hesitated I would have flipped over the 7 and waited. Most bad players will show first even when they don't have to if they get a little encouragement.

Most players I see who take the line this guy who do have a monster almost always don't check the river, they bet for fear of you checking behind and them losing value.

Absolutely this is true, very good point.


Note I did say this...

but as these stories typically go, im expecting disaster, why else would you be telling us the story? lol.

Missed that the OP just wanted to know how much to bet for value...thought it was gonna be juicy.


Now knowing that he didn't show, I think it is pretty safe to say he had a single ace. What else would he only call a river bet with and not raise? He certainly wouldn't have called missing a flush with no pair. A worse two pair and I think he would have raised when no heart came on the river. A9o sounds about right.

If he did have only an Ace then half pot was probably all you were gonna get off him. But I wouldn't be too concerned with missing value on this hand. If you lost $30-$40 in value. oh well. As described this sort of hand is very common. Wait for the next opportunity with whatever player and adjust.

More importantly however is the fact that you got something of more value in information.
I would be concerned with trying to get bigger values out of him later in the session than worrying about this pot. He snap called a little less than half pot with a worse hand. You showed and took down the pot. He played in a weak/passive manner in a pot with you and lost. Probably called partly to show you he isn't scared to call you down. When a player snap calls then loses something happens to them. They want to show you they can beat you. If they take another beating with another player they start to unravel. Should be a cinch. He was talking strategy?

At this point in the session, I would be trying to needle him a bit without being obvious. I would mention something about strategy that is obviously wrong, to fire him up, wait to get in another pot with him where he would call me down light for his whole stack, then pray he rebuys.

 

[10centguitar]

Did he have a hundo in his hand ready to snap, or did he throw in a single 5 to show a call?

 

[Jimulacrum]

No matter the player at a 1/2, I would have seen if I could have got him to flip his hand over first. If he hesitated I would have flipped over the 7 and waited. Most bad players will show first even when they don't have to if they get a little encouragement.

Anyone else's poker etiquette sense tingling at this?

Figured the story was gonna be one of heartbreak.

…

Missed that the OP just wanted to know how much to bet for value...thought it was gonna be juicy.

This is where history comes into play. I know that Jack balances his strat-posting range.

Now knowing that he didn't show, I think it is pretty safe to say he had a single ace. What else would he only call a river bet with and not raise? He certainly wouldn't have called missing a flush with no pair. A worse two pair and I think he would have raised when no heart came on the river. A9o sounds about right.

If he did have only an Ace then half pot was probably all you were gonna get off him. But I wouldn't be too concerned with missing value on this hand. If you lost $30-$40 in value. oh well. As described this sort of hand is very common. Wait for the next opportunity with whatever player and adjust.

More importantly however is the fact that you got something of more value in information.
I would be concerned with trying to get bigger values out of him later in the session than worrying about this pot. He snap called a little less than half pot with a worse hand. You showed and took down the pot. He played in a weak/passive manner in a pot with you and lost. Probably called partly to show you he isn't scared to call you down. When a player snap calls then loses something happens to them. They want to show you they can beat you. If they take another beating with another player they start to unravel. Should be a cinch. He was talking strategy?

At this point in the session, I would be trying to needle him a bit without being obvious. I would mention something about strategy that is obviously wrong, to fire him up, wait to get in another pot with him where he would call me down light for his whole stack, then pray he rebuys.

I disagree with most of your postmortem analysis—especially where you try to rule out Villain having two pair, and especially especially where you try to whittle his holdings down to A9o. This situation just doesn't include enough information for that kind of made-for-TV, Negreanu-style hand reading.

However, I will say that there's some value in the last two paragraphs. This may turn out to be a key moment in the history of Hero and Villain. I'd be paying close attention to Villain for the next couple orbits to see how he responds.

 

[DrStrange]

As a host, I don't much care for players who should be tabling their hand but hold up the game waiting for the other guy(s) to show first. A few moments hesitation is not a big deal. Beyond that it grows into a problem.

This behavior can be contagious. We end up with many "showdowns" become one card at a time productions or a game of twenty questions - - "can you beat a ten?" "Maybe, can you top a king?" "well I can't beat the flush." "me either, can you beat two pair?" "Hmmm, which two?"

Just table the cards please -=- DrStrange

 

[jbutler]

Didn't know we weren't against an unskilled player. Figured the story was gonna be one of heartbreak. Maybe I missed this somewhere, however, I did mention this point several times of what he has if he is terrible.

Not really helpful to contribute to a strat post if you come in with the presumption that the result is one way or the other. That's why we post results after the discussion rather than before.

No matter the player at a 1/2, I would have seen if I could have got him to flip his hand over first. If he hesitated I would have flipped over the 7 and waited. Most bad players will show first even when they don't have to if they get a little encouragement.

Respectfully, this is a huge dirtbag move imo.

At this point in the session, I would be trying to needle him a bit without being obvious. I would mention something about strategy that is obviously wrong, to fire him up, wait to get in another pot with him where he would call me down light for his whole stack, then pray he rebuys.

Ditto as to my above comment, but less so than above. Mostly just irritating at this level to see someone trying this even if I'm not involved.

Did he have a hundo in his hand ready to snap, or did he throw in a single 5 to show a call?

He verbally declared call and threw in the few red chips he was shuffling.

 

[courage]

By the river villain has put $105 into the pot. My justification for value was based on the awesome runout for hero's hand, still top two. Also villain calls after getting raised on flop, so his most likely holding is Ax, excluding AK, AQ because no raise pf, or flush draw.

At river I think we're looking to get value from those hands such as AJ-A8 and A-rag that made 2 pair.

Agree if he had a set we'd have heard on flop or turn since flush draw is present.

So looking for value against a semi-aware player I think $130 or so is about right, and it also allows us to bluff similar bet sizing in future spots but only if we think the table is observant. The way the hand played out you could also bet big and hope villain cannot get away from two pair or a decent ace, but I think a lot of players these days pick up on that, so I like the $100-155 bet size.

Nice strat hand, Jack!

 

[10centguitar]

Anyone else's poker etiquette sense tingling at this?

Lol If this bugs you then you might watch too many tournaments on TV. I do not think I have ever been at a 1/2 or higher cash table, casino or illegal, that I haven't seen this happen to the weak players all night by all the strong players when there is a chance the strong player is behind. Or when they think they can get away with it.

Just a simple "whatcha got" will get a lot of players to show sometimes, if they show any resistance and dont want to show then I show my whole hand.

Some players are really bad about not showing and I will say "they called you." and they will be forced to show down, but a little back and forth, particularly when neither player knows where they are at after all the action is just part of poker I say, and can actually lighten the mood of the game a bit. Guy shows one, you show one etc.

*NOTE
If its a serious hand (big pot, all-ins, etc.) then I always automatically show down when called. But the little pots when there aren't any emotions going, I try to get some info.

I can say I have seen more tournament like etiquette at friendly home games for microstakes, but these are all tournament players anyways.


Anyone who thinks the hand is over just because its showdown time is missing a lot of info. (how people flip over cards, what they say before they do, how they drag in pots, etc) I know weak players who will always show first no matter if they have to or not, and I am happy to let them if they want to. Never known a casino dealer to stop them, nor anyone with a mind to make money.
A lot of illegal games people will run deals at these spots especially when there are all-ins and flipping a single card is very customary. Also chops and cash back to the loser deals.
I have seen this with 2k plus pots more times than I can count, and even more times with small pots as a player and a dealer.

I disagree with most of your postmortem analysis—especially where you try to rule out Villain having two pair, and especially especially where you try to whittle his holdings down to A9o. This situation just doesn't include enough information for that kind of made-for-TV, Negreanu-style hand reading.

In my original reply I stated why I think two pair is out of the question for the villain. Please tell us why you think why it is viable possibility. How is a villain who isn't very good not betting/raising with 2 pair unless he is a super passive nit? OP has already said he isn't. If he was desperate enough to chase a 6 outer for 2 pair, Im sure he would have shoved.

I could see many hands he could have. But I think many players like the one described would have A9o, A8o, or A4o more than the other hands I could think of.
(75o or 75s, K7s, 34s, a slow played AK or AQ, etc.)

Sorry if my analysis was too made-for-tv for you, but I would make a bet on it. If I was wrong I would lose. Not an issue.

 

[10centguitar]

A few moments hesitation is not a big deal.

Never really was suggesting more than this. What else would the hesitation be for?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Lol If this bugs you then you might watch too many tournaments on TV. I do not think I have ever been at a 1/2 or higher cash table, casino or illegal, that I haven't seen this happen to the weak players all night by all the strong players when there is a chance the strong player is behind.

Just a simple "whatcha got" will get a lot of players to show sometimes, if they show any resistance and dont want to show then I show my whole hand.

Some players are really bad about not showing and I will say "they called you." and they will be forced to show down, but a little back and forth, particularly when neither player knows where they are at after all the action is just part of poker I say.

If Villain merely calls, we almost certainly have him beat. We made the last aggressive action and have a near-certain winner. Any stalling is purely to get him to show what we know is a losing hand, in a spot where we are supposed to show first. Peeling only the 7 is like getting him to show out of a sense of false hope. That's slow-rolling.

That "little back and forth" is really annoying to a lot of players and is considered poor etiquette. It also costs the dealer, the house, and winning players money by slowing down the game for no reason.

*NOTE
If it a serious hand (big pot, all-ins, etc.) then I always automatically show down when called.

I can say I have seen more tournament like etiquette at friendly home games for microstakes, but these are all tournament players anyways.

This is what you should be doing anyway. And it's not about tournaments versus cash games. I don't think you should automatically table your hand on the flop, for example, just because someone's all-in. People who insist on that in casino cash games irritate me, and yes, it's totally a tournament thing.

But we're talking about showdown. All betting is complete and all the cards are out. Regardless of the size of the pot, it's time to show or muck. If you want to see your opponent's cards, you can ask nicely or make an offer—after you've shown yours.

Anyone who thinks the hand is over just because its showdown time is missing a lot of info. (how people flip over cards, what they say before they do, how they drag in pots, etc) I know weak players who will always show first no matter if they have to or not, and I am happy to let them if they want to. Never known a casino dealer to stop them, nor anyone with a mind to make money.
A lot of illegal games people will run deals at these spots especially when there are all-ins and flipping a single card is very customary. Also chops and cash back to the loser deals.
I have seen this with 2k plus pots more times than I can count, and even more times with small pots as a player and a dealer.

Running deals at showdown? The hand is over. What kind of deal is there to make? If you want to throw your opponent a couple bucks to see his hand, that's a fair offer, but anything on the level of what you'd call "chops and cash back to the loser" sounds nuts. Beyond a quick, "I'll give you x dollars to show," anything more is holding up the game.

Just because people have done it—in underground games, no less—doesn't mean it's good or even reasonable. Nothing wrong with paying attention to the details of how people act, but holding up the game at showdown to seek that information is out of line IMO.

In my original reply I stated why I think two pair is out of the question for the villain. Please tell us why you think why it is viable possibility. How is a villain who isn't very good not betting/raising with 2 pair unless he is a super passive nit? OP has already said he isn't. If he was desperate enough to chase a 6 outer for 2 pair, Im sure he would have shoved.

I could make a totally sensible case to check-call with two pair here, if Villain thinks that Jack is being over-aggressive. Going passive with a good-but-not-great hand (like, say, A2 or A3 here) is a very good way to counter a LAG, where making a really strong move would scare off most weaker hands and leave you only getting action when you're beat. If you check-call instead, you let him hang himself.

But beyond that, Villain doesn't even have to do it in a calculated way. He could just have two pair but not be very confident in his hand because (a) he's OOP and (b) Jack raised the flop. Maybe he backed into it with . Maybe he had A2 or A3 but was uncomfortable pushing the action for larger amounts of money in a limped pot.

All I've been saying about your analysis, anyway, is that you quickly dismiss two pair because he didn't raise the flop or turn, and I think you're jumping to conclusions.

 

[Bonafide86]

I don't see anything beating you here. Even bottom set I feel like he would've taken a different line. I bet big on river and he'll either fold his missed flush draw or call with his A x and you win a nice pot.

 

[10centguitar]

If Villain merely calls, we almost certainly have him beat. We made the last aggressive action and have a near-certain winner. Any stalling is purely to get him to show what we know is a losing hand, in a spot where we are supposed to show first. Peeling only the 7 is like getting him to show out of a sense of false hope. That's slow-rolling

Stalling is entirely different than taking a few moments. What I thought I described could happen in a matter of seconds, with most players not even noticing it happened because they are talking.

To assume that what I meant was to stall and hold up the game for everyone just to slow roll as well as the possible assumption that I would do this all night is simply off the mark. I might do something like this (encourage them to flip first, even though the word encourage is too strong to denote what I am doing) maybe 4 times in an entire session. I typically play 10-14 hour sessions. That is a wasted, what? 45-60 seconds over a session? I am sure that cuts into the house rake. BTW I deal regularly and trust me, I am all about keeping the game going. I will easily pull $400-600 in tokes dealing at a 1/2 game down here. It is always in my best interest to keep the game going as a player or a dealer.

I have seen in many cases where a player perceives another as being overly aggressive, calls OOP, flops well, and is scared to get in there as the hand progresses and the board gets scarier. Something which you alluded to. In your reply about a possible 2 pair. We do almost certainly have him beat I agree, but if he did slow play two pair A2o or backed into 2 pair A3 or A6 then why could we not make the case that he slow rolled a set of 2s, wanting to lay a big trap and the board got to ugly for him and he is OOP? If he had been getting beat all night I could see this. I have seen guys afraid to put their stacks in with KK or AA just because they have been running so bad, they inevitably do, but they hesitate feeling they will lose.

In this situation I agree hero is almost always good against a laggy 1/2 player, but if I was in this situation and felt maybe I was behind I might say something like whatcha got?, or show a seven if I felt he would show. Hell, I have seen players muck in spots like this just by showing them the seven!

Of course you would then have to show the whole hand to take the pot. But there is info there that you wouldn't have got just by tabling your whole hand right away like a boy scout should. You discovered just your seven was good. Now you have a better idea of what he had, just a busted flush draw with a small pair looks a whole lot more likely, which helps you take their stack later.


If I felt he would show first and he does, thats his mistake not mine.

Thinking something of this sort as described here as unethical and deciding no to do it is akin to seeing a fish at a table bet big out of turn (when you know they have a premium hand you don't want to play against them) ahead of you when you were going to bet and deciding not to fold, like the "judge tells the jury to dismiss certain remarks.", because it would be against what you were intending to do.

If I make the last aggressive action, and while watching my opponent, I notice he calls and starts to flip his cards over, Im not going to say "Whoa there buddy, don't let me see them, you are supposed to see mine first." Neither would anyone. I am not advocating taking forever. I did say I would have waited and should have been clearer.
Hesitate a bit would have been better to describe what I meant.

I would read the situation and deem whether or not it was appropriate. (appropriate if I can get something without putting off the table or fish) Certainly slow-rolling is terrible, but a little is used all the time by players who try to be cheeky, and is akin to showing a bluff. For instance, if hero tables his hand by flipping both cards over while they are stacked just long enough to show the seven for villain to see then spreads them quickly to show a winner. Total douche move, but happens all the time.

Players, even the most anal retentive in their observance of etiquette will pull this sort of BS just to get a rise out of another player. And it certainly is not fun to have it happen to you. Is it any different that it only took a second or two? I actually see it as worse if you have the nuts. Something card-protector overly zealous rule quoters seem to do. (not saying this is you or anyone on this thread.) I think we all know the types I am referring to.

That "little back and forth" is really annoying to a lot of players and is considered poor etiquette. It also costs the dealer, the house, and winning players money by slowing down the game for no reason.

The house certainly cares about the reg fish and whales. (illegal games). If a whale or a reg fish in the game wants to do it, you better believe the house/dealer/and good players let them and cater to them. I have seen games allow whales to ruin cards by bending and breaking them when they lose because they practically donate 2k every week. Sure as hell costs the house money in cards and time to get a new setup out. A guy going on book for a dime or two a week will be catered to. If they want to talk a bit at showdown and stall I will see what I can get out of them, and I will play their game and let them think I am just there having a good ol' time like them. It is as simple as that. I am there to make money.
If there is already guys doing it, and all the good players are taking advantage of it, why not do it too? Because its a jerk move? So is not telling a guy how you knew he had a losing hand and taking his hard-earned money off him only for him to repeat it week after week.

A little back and forth at a card table with real players, who typically act faster than most casino dealers can keep track of, will certainly be allowed if it is profitable to them in the way of info. Anything that separates a sucker from his money with less effort will be used.

These types of players also know how and when to do this in the game. They are doing it with great care as to not put off a fish. House players, dealers, game runners, and solid grinders will all do this.

I know fish who have been told over and over again they don't have to show first and they still do (unprovoked of course) unless they have a hand that they don't think they are winning with (sad part is, they usually do think they are winning when they flip their cards over first and they still lose.)


Poker is war, people pretend it is a game.
-Doyle Brunson.

 

[jbutler]

Stalling is entirely different than taking a few moments. What I thought I described could happen in a matter of seconds, with most players not even noticing it happened because they are talking.

To assume that what I meant was to stall and hold up the game for everyone just to slow roll as well as the possible assumption that I would do this all night is simply off the mark. I might do something like this (encourage them to flip first, even though the word encourage is too strong to denote what I am doing) maybe 4 times in an entire session. I typically play 10-14 hour sessions. That is a wasted, what? 45-60 seconds over a session? I am sure that cuts into the house rake. BTW I deal regularly and trust me, I am all about keeping the game going. I will easily pull $400-600 in tokes dealing at a 1/2 game down here. It is always in my best interest to keep the game going as a player or a dealer.

I have seen in many cases where a player perceives another as being overly aggressive, calls OOP, flops well, and is scared to get in there as the hand progresses and the board gets scarier. Something which you alluded to. In your reply about a possible 2 pair. We do almost certainly have him beat I agree, but if he did slow play two pair A2o or backed into 2 pair A3 or A6 then why could we not make the case that he slow rolled a set of 2s, wanting to lay a big trap and the board got to ugly for him and he is OOP? If he had been getting beat all night I could see this. I have seen guys afraid to put their stacks in with KK or AA just because they have been running so bad, they inevitably do, but they hesitate feeling they will lose.

In this situation I agree hero is almost always good against a laggy 1/2 player, but if I was in this situation and felt maybe I was behind I might say something like whatcha got?, or show a seven if I felt he would show. Hell, I have seen players muck in spots like this just by showing them the seven!

Of course you would then have to show the whole hand to take the pot. But there is info there that you wouldn't have got just by tabling your whole hand right away like a boy scout should. You discovered just your seven was good. Now you have a better idea of what he had, just a busted flush draw with a small pair looks a whole lot more likely, which helps you take their stack later.


If I felt he would show first and he does, thats his mistake not mine.

Thinking something of this sort as described here as unethical and deciding no to do it is akin to seeing a fish at a table bet big out of turn (when you know they have a premium hand you don't want to play against them) ahead of you when you were going to bet and deciding not to fold, like the "judge tells the jury to dismiss certain remarks.", because it would be against what you were intending to do.

If I make the last aggressive action, and while watching my opponent, I notice he calls and starts to flip his cards over, Im not going to say "Whoa there buddy, don't let me see them, you are supposed to see mine first." Neither would anyone. I am not advocating taking forever. I did say I would have waited and should have been clearer.
Hesitate a bit would have been better to describe what I meant.

I would read the situation and deem whether or not it was appropriate. (appropriate if I can get something without putting off the table or fish) Certainly slow-rolling is terrible, but a little is used all the time by players who try to be cheeky, and is akin to showing a bluff. For instance, if hero tables his hand by flipping both cards over while they are stacked just long enough to show the seven for villain to see then spreads them quickly to show a winner. Total douche move, but happens all the time.

Players, even the most anal retentive in their observance of etiquette will pull this sort of BS just to get a rise out of another player. And it certainly is not fun to have it happen to you. Is it any different that it only took a second or two? I actually see it as worse if you know you have the nuts.



The house certainly cares about the reg fish and whales. (illegal games). If a whale or a reg fish in the game wants to do it, you better believe the house/dealer/and good players let them and cater to them. I have seen games allow whales to ruin cards by bending and breaking them when they lose because they practically donate 2k every week. Sure as hell costs the house money in cards and time to get a new setup out. A guy going on book for a dime or two a week will be catered to. If they want to talk a bit at showdown and stall I will see what I can get out of them, and I will play their game and let them think I am just there having a good ol' time like them. It is as simple as that. I am there to make money.
If there is already guys doing it, and all the good players are taking advantage of it, why not do it too? Because its a jerk move? So is not telling a guy how you knew he had a losing hand and taking his hard-earned money off him only for him to repeat it week after week.

A little back and forth at a card table with real players, who typically act faster than most casino dealers can keep track of, will certainly be allowed if it is profitable to them in the way of info. Anything that separates a sucker from his money with less effort will be used.

These types of players also know how and when to do this in the game. They are doing it with great care as to not put off a fish. House players, dealers, game runners, and solid grinders will all do this.

I know fish who have been told over and over again they don't have to show first and they still do (unprovoked of course) unless they have a hand that they don't think they are winning with (sad part is, they usually do think they are winning when they flip their cards over first and they still lose.)


Poker is war, people pretend it is a game.
-Doyle Brunson.

The way you act drives recreational players away, thus making the game worse for everyone. I'm only thankful you don't play in my games.

 

[Jimulacrum]

The way you act drives recreational players away, thus making the game worse for everyone. I'm only thankful you don't play in my games.

This is the truth. When the rec players get turned off, all you're left with are sharks and problem gamblers, and a house that'll tolerate almost anything just to keep that rake flowing.

I used play in NYC underground games all the time, and I dealt briefly too. The scene was an absolute shit-show. There was maybe one underground game in the whole city worth playing in. The other games were full of the kind of questionable characters you'd expect, with houses that had too many conflicting interests to manage the games professionally. The recreational players would quickly realize that they were in Shadyville and that it was well worth the trip to Foxwoods or A.C.