This week’s WYP didn’t prove too controversial, but it generated some good discussion nonetheless. I must say that I’m a little disappointed more of you weren’t tempted to make the same mistake I did:
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $6.00 BB (6 handed) – PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
SB ($2845.40)
BB ($1543.40)
UTG ($798.80)
Hero (MP) ($1573.80)
CO ($2739.30)
Button ($664.40)
Preflop: Hero is MP with Q♥, K♥
UTG bets $18, Hero calls $18, 2 folds, SB calls $15, BB calls $12
Flop: ($79.20) K♠, Q♦, 7♥ (4 players)
SB bets $39, 1 fold, UTG calls $39, Hero raises to $159.90, SB calls $120.90, 1 fold
Turn: ($438) 9♦ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks
River: ($438) 4♣ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $284.25, SB raises to $2666.30 (All-In), Hero folds
Total pot: $1006.50 | Rake: $3
Results:
SB didn’t show
Outcome: SB won $1003.50
I think the consensus among the commenters is correct and checking is better. Even at the time part of me was thinking it wouldn’t be easy to get called by worse and I could get raised by both better and worse. But, like Fuel55, I then told myself that checking top two would be too weak. Nate made the case for checking very well:
Hero shows plenty of strength by raising the flop, and it’s hard to see Villain having continued with a weak top pair hand with UTG still in the hand. Often I would doubt that Villain has the self-control to check a set or better on the river here, but if Villain is very good, there’s no reason to rule out a big hand for that sort of psychological reason…. Villain should have plenty of better hands in his range, and although KQ isn’t the bottom of our range, Villain can’t have many hands between KQ and what really is the bottom of our range.
PhenomAAoo explains why it makes sense for Villain to check a big hand on the river:
If the river was T or higher, villian would almost always bet to get value and not slow play his set as he is risking hero checking behind. However 4 is a irrelevant card. River is a great card to check Straight and sets, because villian thinks that hero will definately bet his top range.
Jonny brought up one other point that didn’t occur to me but is interesting and worth mentioning:
Another thing is Andrew’s read that villain rarely goes to showdown. If villain is interpreting hero’s flop raise as strong, rather than as a squeeze, then this could indicate that if villain has a one pair hand like AK or KJ he will tend to just bet-fold it on the flop rather than call and attempt to see showdown.
So we’ve established that Hero’s hand looks like what it is, Villain is good enough to check nutted hands on the river, and he isn’t likely to pay off with worse. I don’t see Villain getting to the river with many hands that need to bluff, so I don’t think there’s a case to be made for bet-calling. As Jonny and others said, there’s a good chance he folds one-pair hands to the flop raise if he bets them in the first place. They are just a reverse implied odds nightmare, as even making trips wouldn’t give him a very strong hand should I continue betting.
The one other thing to consider is Shawn’s suggestion of a bluff shove “to make him fold 77 or a chop of KQ”. The trouble is that even if Villain only plays JT when it’s suited he has more combos of those than of 77. Given that we’re risking more than the pot, the shove has to work a lot, and we can’t count on that. After all, Hero’s turn check doesn’t rep strength very well, so there’s no guarantee he even folds 77.
Lessons to take away from this hand:
1. Always be thinking about your opponent’s range. No hand but the nuttiest nuts is too good to check or fold in the right circumstance, and you should be playing your opponent’s cards, not yours. My bet here was Level 1 thinking, plain and simple. Which brings us to…
2. Everyone makes mistakes. I got over tilting about bad beats a long time ago, but when I make plays that I ought to know to be bad, it still bothers me sometimes. I’m trying to get over that, too, because playing perfectly isn’t a realistic expectation and in a certain sense is just as beyond your control as an unlucky river card.
3. The obvious play is usually the right one. Obviously I’ve gone out of my way in the past to find some weirdly played hands for this feature, and that’s to drive home the point that you should be creative and consider all your options, but realistically the play that seems right to you at first glance usually will be right.
Not sure (would need to look for more examples) but I feel there must be a general principle we can take from this which is something like:
If you have played the flop or turn in such a way that you cannot have the nuts, then all else being equal, your opponent’s check-raise range on the river gets bigger both for value and as a bluff. Therefore faced with a check your bet-fold value range should be narrower than usual.
Hmmm actually maybe there are more important factors in this example than whether you can have the nuts, like whether you can have a bluff, and whether your opponent can have a hand he regards as a bluff catcher.
But the point is, because we can’t have the nuts in this specific example, checking 77 becomes more attractive to your opponent since he can check-raise knowing he is basically never beat, and may sometimes get called by worse. From our perspective, that in turn should make betting (either intending to fold or call) less attractive.
For us N00bs….
1) Why’d you check the Turn?
2) If you had shown down your hand, how do you think that would effect the villain’s play against you in the future?
i can try to answer question 1…
1) he checked turn because the most likely draw (j-10) got there and made a straight… so his relative hand value went down and he wanted to pot control i think…
So he was sitting on the nutz of the turn J10 or Top set kk?
We can not say that Hero range was capped on flop.
I guess you can say that this is probably the case on turn.
If this is the case – you can not exlude super wide bluff range with his “perfect” line and his “good spot” image.
When I say this I do not have idea how players disguise their strength in $6.00-BB.
i beleive villian was absolutely correct to check the river, and even turn for that matter, because no player raises the flop and checks behind on turn once 9 peels off. Turn: 9 only helps JT or 99 and no one plays their JT, 99 this way on flop. THEREFORE, villian will expect hero to bet 100% of the time with hands like KQ, AK, AA, QQ, KK.
Therefore, Andrews check on the turn, really caught villian by surprise.
Once River, was 4, villian went for anther check-raise.
FOR RECORD: I am a huge fan of Andrews poker articles and i pretty much read all of them. He is one hell of a player.
Hey, I just came across your blog and love it!!
Onto the hand:
If I’m hero here and had JT here instead of KQ, I would almost never check the turn after making the nuts. I’d want to build the pot!! If Villain thinks this as well, then I would be less likely to value bet KQ on the river.
1) We are deep.
2) His check raise is credible, he can have a set or a straight.
3) We rarely, if ever have JT
Hi Brian, thanks for your post and welcome to Thinking Poker!