Thanks as always to the commenters. Got fewer than usual, so I’ll take as a sign that people are getting sick of this particular hand 😉
Youngifted1 puts it simply and succintly: “a set of queens is too strong here not to bet”. Although our opponent knows we’re capable of trapping and of pot-controlling seemingly strong hands, we’ve still shown nothing but a desire to get to showdown since he first showed aggression by check-raising the flop. We called the raise and checked back the turn. This means both that at least some combinations of AA and T9 are discounted as hands that would have bet the turn, and that Villain probably bets many of his nutted hands on the river for fear that we will check behind. Trentbridge rightly asks, “Holding aces, would villain give hero a second chance to check behind?” That all adds up to QQ being a strong hand.
The catch is that, because of the line we’ve taken and the dearth of whiffed draws, a bet can’t look very bluffy. Villain will be hard-pressed to call with bluff-catchers. Our best option, then, is to bet small and hope that Villain simply can’t resist good pot odds and will call despite the fear that he is beat.
Many commenters cited the risk of a check-raise bluff as a reason to check behind. I want to address this, because it’s a common error in thinking that I see often. River check-raise bluffs simply don’t happen that often. If you are the sort of player who routinely checks behind for fear of a bluff-raise, then you are leaving a lot of money on the table, because many of your opponents probably aren’t capable of this play at all.
In this case we actually are dealing with a player who’s perfectly capable of making such a move if the situation warrants it. Here, however, it does not. The nuts is at least as much in Hero’s range as in Villain’s (I would argue that 3-betting T9s in position pre-flop is more likely than calling a 3-bet out of position with it), so even if Villain could make Hero fold QQ with a bluff, he’d still run into the nuts often enough that he wouldn’t be exploiting us with a bluff. QQ is among the worst hands I’d bet for value here, so there’s no shame in folding it if raised; game theoretically speaking, bet-folding is exactly what you’re supposed to do with the bottom of your value range.
Results
Here’s the whole hand as it actually played out:
PokerStars – $2000+$100|30/60 NL – Holdem – 9 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4: http://www.pokertracker.com
BB: 9,290.00
UTG: 9,903.00
UTG+1: 11,228.00
Hero (UTG+2): 10,517.00
MP: 7,131.00
MP+1: 11,411.00
CO: 14,790.00
BTN: 6,490.00
SB: 9,240.00
SB posts SB 30.00, BB posts BB 60.00
Pre Flop: (pot: 90.00) Hero has Qh Qs
UTG raises to 120.00, fold, Hero raises to 360.00, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, fold, UTG calls 240.00
Flop: (810.00, 2 players) 8h Qc 7s
UTG checks, Hero bets 555.00, UTG raises to 1,560.00, Hero calls 1,005.00
Turn: (3930.00, 2 players) Ad
UTG checks, Hero checks
River: (3930.00, 2 players) 6c
UTG checks, Hero bets 1,111.00, UTG raises to 3,060.00, Hero calls 1,949.00
UTG shows 8c 8d (Three of a Kind, Eights) (Pre 20%, Flop 4%, Turn 2%)
Hero shows Qh Qs (Three of a Kind, Queens) (Pre 80%, Flop 96%, Turn 98%)
Hero wins 10,050.00
I was planning one more post about facing the check-raise, but I don’t think it’s necessary. It seemed like pretty much everyone was between betting or checking behind here, so I doubt anyone would advocate for shoving over the raise. It’s a crying call, but given the odds I don’t think there’s any question of folding (which I would consider and probably do if he check-raised big).
Thanks to everyone who participated!
Yahooo ! Got this one right !
You talked about one of my leaks here : I have troubles betting/calling a raise on the river. Here though I would have done it because of the pot odds. I feel like maths can help me out not being a chicken.
Thank you for this hand, learned a lot out of it 🙂
May not be such a leak for you. I’d think most of your opponents only c/r the river with very strong hands. That’s true of all but the best and the most psychotic players.
If he check-raised 88 I think he plays AA the same way at least 50% of the time.
Given you called it a “crying call” seems to me you think so to.
Given he sometimes has AA and you can’t expect him to check-raise 88 all the time is betting to make 1111 more worth the times you lose more with AA and the odd time he has 10/9???
I wonder if he thought you would fold qqq???
Seems like a weird merge bluff/raise for value check-raise by villain! 🙂
Very interesting hand!!!
Interesting question. You’re saying is it worth betting since when I’m ahead I’ll win only 1111 more often than not and lose 3333 when I’m beat? TBH I wasn’t really expecting the small c/r from him. I think he might actually c/r larger with stronger hands, because he wouldn’t perceive them as thin value. I also think he can call with hands worse than 88, maybe down to AQ or AK. So all the extra calls from those hands outweigh the risk of reopening the betting for him to squeeze a little more value out of his AA, I think. Good question! Oh and no way he was turning 88 into a bluff there.
Upon further analysis, I concluded that I couldn’t check behind twice with a set of Queens.
I would have bet either the turn or river (maybe both) and I wouldn’t have liked the CR on the river, but would have called.
Interesting that you value bet what you perceived as the bottom of your value range, and said that you should usually bet fold the bottom of your range in such spots. However, you managed to get CR by a worse hand that presumably thought it was raising for value. Then you called because of the pot odds and were right.
Bet Folding obviously would have been a terrible mistake in this specific hand as it played out, but as you said, he can’t really CR many worse hands for value and most opponents can’t CR bluff on the river. I wonder what he would have done if your shoved (fold?)?
Tough spot. Happy for you that he didn’t bomb the river!
Glad you asked, that’s something I should clarify. By definition, I’m value-betting my value range. If I’m not value-betting it, then it’s not in my value range 🙂
Things get more complicated when there are more cards to come, future betting streets, the possiblity of check-raising, etc., but very broadly speaking, game theory suggests that you should value bet the top of your range, check the middle, and bluff with the bottom. The top of your value range should re-raise if raised, the middle should call, and the bottom should fold. So I’m talking about bet-folding the bottom of my range, just the bottom of my value range, ie the hands that are just barely good enough to bet for value.
As for why he CR, I think he leveled himself. In other words, he probably planned to check-call, but then thought that I wouldn’t have bet such a small amount with a hand better than is, so he tried to raise for thin value. I think he probably would have folded to a shove, but who knows: people don’t like to fold sets.
I wonder in hindsight if you shoved the river if he would have called. I guess your thinking would be that he only calls when he beat you, but if the river check-raise was a value raise, he may have looked at your shove as a bluff and called.