Poker Nations - Poker Players Social Network - Play A Hand With Anthony - $15K Guaranteed - Part VI

Forums » Hold Em Strategy

Back To Topics

Play A Hand With Anthony - $15K Guaranteed - Part VI - Conclusio

Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 23, 2009 8:47:23 AM EDT

Report

Continued from Part-V

Full Tilt Poker $15,000 KO Guarantee No Limit Hold'em Tournament
- t60/t120 Blinds - 6 players -
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BB: t6128 M = 34.04
UTG: t12040 M = 66.89
MP: t3590 M = 19.94
CO: t3710 M = 20.61
BTN: t9220 M = 51.22
Hero (SB): t6155 M = 34.19

Pre Flop: (t180) Hero is SB with T T
UTG calls t120, 3 folds, Hero raises to t400, 1 fold, UTG calls t280

Flop: (t920) A J 5 (2 players)
Hero bets t575, UTG calls t575

Turn: (t2070) 4 (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks

River: (t2070) 2 (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets t1992, Hero requests TIME......Hero calls 1992

Villians shows 66 and Hero wins the pot.

Here's my analysis on the river (as I've already provided my thoughts in previous threads on preflop, flop and turn play)

Villians turn check is what really stood out for me here. When he cold-calls my flop bet, I figure I'm beat and I'm ready to give up on the turn. But when he checks behind the turn, to me that says he doesn't have:

AJ
55
JJ
AA

because those hands are going to want to protect themselves from draws. Now, let's consider some other hands Villian might have that beat us:

Ax
Jx

If Villian has one of these pairs, why bet so much on the river? More than likely he'd either check to see a showdown, or make a smaller bet if he believes he can extract value from me.

Betting almost the pot, especially given the way I've played the hand (i.e. unlikely to pay off a monster, it doesn't look like I'm happy with my hand on this board, given the turn and river checks) isn't likely to get me to pay him off, it just doesn't add up.

I requested time to figure my way through this. If he has a monster he bets differently to protect it. If he has a marginal hand with showdown value that beats me, he likely checks that or bets much smaller.

If I fold here I still have over 5K in chips, but Villian is dragging a 4K pot. If I call and win, I'm up close to 10K in chips, but if I call and lose I'm down to a little over 3K.

I figured with blinds at 60/120, having "only" 3K wouldn't cripple me. And I really felt like Villian was making a move with a missed draw on this river, so I made the call and caught him on the bluff.

In this scenerio, you have to consider how certain hands are going to be played in these spots. Villian didn't tell a believable story on the turn or river. Those were where he messed up and gave me a way to make the call on the river.

If he bets the turn I'm gone, after his flop smooth-call. So make sure if you're running a bluff against an observant opponent, than you consider the story you're telling. Make sure you bet like you would if you actually held the hand you're representing, that's how you can fool players like myself (sometimes anyway)
Michael Santora
- 5 posts
October 23, 2009 8:49:05 AM EDT

Report

Sick call, congrats.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 23, 2009 8:56:52 AM EDT

Report

Toro wrote...
Sick call, congrats.

I don't know that it's "sick". At first I was like fuuuuuucccck! when he made that huge river bet. But then I just took my time and went through the hands that play in the way he did.

It just didn't add up. Can you think of any hand that beats me here that plays it this way? That doesn't protect against the flop draws? Or that has so much strength it can make that massive river bet AND expect me to pay it off when I've shown significant weakness by checking the turn and river?

If he had a monster here (let's say A3 that gets there big time on the river) I'd expect him to try and bet smaller to get a curiosity call out of me. He certainly can't expect me to pay off a 2K bet there when I've checked the turn and river.

As such, his bet, to me, just screamed "I'm taking this pot and you can't call!" and I decided to disappoint Villian by doing the opposite of what he wanted.
Michael Santora
- 5 posts
October 23, 2009 8:59:41 AM EDT

Report

Suppose he over bet the pot AJ. I and a lot of players will make a big overbet with a monster like A3 or to bluff.
Rusty Shackleford
October 23, 2009 9:00:43 AM EDT

Report

It's really not all that sick the way the hand was played. As AJ says, the turn check was very telling. It's harder to put villain on an A and even to some extent a J/GK when he didn't take the lead with draws out there and AJ giving up. I'm honestly more scared of a J than anything else here, because it's the kind of hand he'd "bluff" with here that actually beats us.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 23, 2009 9:05:15 AM EDT

Report

Toro wrote...
Suppose he over bet the pot AJ. I and a lot of players will make a big overbet with a monster like A3 or to bluff.

If he had AJ, why doesn't he raise the flop to protect against flush and straight draws?

If he has a river monster (the A3 for example), why make a pot-sized bet when I've essentially given up with a turn and river check (i.e. he can't expect to get any value from a pot-sized bet with a monster here)

If he has a rivered monster, I expect a smaller bet to try and squeeze value, rather than scare me away.
Michael Santora
- 5 posts
October 23, 2009 9:21:55 AM EDT

Report

anthony wrote...

Toro wrote...
Suppose he over bet the pot AJ. I and a lot of players will make a big overbet with a monster like A3 or to bluff.

If he had AJ, why doesn't he raise the flop to protect against flush and straight draws?

If he has a river monster (the A3 for example), why make a pot-sized bet when I've essentially given up with a turn and river check (i.e. he can't expect to get any value from a pot-sized bet with a monster here)

If he has a rivered monster, I expect a smaller bet to try and squeeze value, rather than scare me away.

No, lol. You are AJ not his hand. I'm saying if I have A3 sometimes I'll make a big overbet to make it look like a bluff. Or I may just bet pot or I may bet small. It depends on what I think i can make you call with.
Rusty Shackleford
October 23, 2009 9:25:52 AM EDT

Report

Toro wrote...
I'm saying if I have A3 sometimes I'll make a big overbet to make it look like a bluff. Or I may just bet pot or I may bet small. It depends on what I think i can make you call with.

Whatcha gonna do? Sometimes you get suckered... but how often is that compared to the times it's just a fish giving you his money? If it were you in the hand and not a station, it kinda changes what he thinks of the bet anyway.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 23, 2009 10:36:23 AM EDT

Report

Sure Toro, I understand what you're saying. That's how Farf was a level ahead of me in thinking in the last home game (where he shoved KK against my preflop raise heads-up). I didn't think he'd shove a hand with that strength and paid him off and got myself busted with KJ headsup.

In this instance, I've seen my opponent playing very marginally from out of position numerous times, and showing down very marginal holdings, so I didn't believe him to be tricky enough to make such a play.

In addition, even if he is sophisticated enough to make that kind of play, then surely he'll notice I checked the turn and river, so there's little chance I'll be paying off a 2K bet. he'd be better making a 25-33% of the pot bet with a monster, and hope he gets looked up by someone who thinks he missed the draw.

In this instance, I just felt like my opponents actions were not consistent with a hand that had me beat, as the vast majority of those are checking the river with showdown value, or betting for value, not trying to get me to fold.
Chad Cook
October 23, 2009 11:02:30 AM EDT

Report

nh sir
Ken Furem
- 8 posts
October 23, 2009 11:19:33 AM EDT

Report

Well I think your logic is fine here--but you were fortunate he wasn't making the same play with a hand like Q-J. It would play the exact same way from the villains point of view. I also think you're putting too much significance of the check on the turn----could mean what you say, could also mean whatever. I think that you made a good analysis, but would you have played it the same way if he played it for your stack (which was I think the correct move if he thought he was making a play)
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 23, 2009 11:36:58 AM EDT

Report

I think with a hand like QJ, most of the time on the river, as played up until that point, Villian is happy to see a showdown and perhaps have me turn over pocket 9's or something, rather than bet into what may be an Ace.

If villian shoves the river, I want to puke, not sure if I can call that. Part of the reason I called here was also that there's around 4K in the pot, so I'm getting 2:1 on my call, and losing doesn't cripple me (3K at the 60/120 level if plenty to work with)
Ken Furem
- 8 posts
October 23, 2009 12:54:01 PM EDT

Report

anthony wrote...
IPart of the reason I called here was also that there's around 4K in the pot, so I'm getting 2:1 on my call, and losing doesn't cripple me (3K at the 60/120 level if plenty to work with)

To me, that's the reason it was a correct call.
Tony Greaves
- 2 posts
October 24, 2009 5:37:09 AM EDT

Report

Nice play ... (slightly SICK)
Troy M
- 11 posts
October 25, 2009 4:00:18 PM EDT

Report

fwiw, when you look at the hand from a vacuum, the results don't justify how this hand was played on any street postflop. Actually, I don't even like that this hand is getting so much attention or that the results were posted at all because it's promoting a wrong message -- it's suggesting to the less experienced players that, despite misplaying a hand over multiple streets, we can justify a badly played line by making a successful hero call or sick bluff. If you'd called and he showed the 43 of diamonds or set of aces instead, would you be posting this hand? No, because it was also a misplayed hand, but now with a bad river call on top of it. Think about that.

tl;dr - Don't post thinly veiled (or unintentional) brag hands or soul reads in strat forums.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 25, 2009 4:04:06 PM EDT

Report

Advent, you and I have vastly different perspectives on strategy. You call things "spew" and this or that, and that's fine, your perogative.

But I feel I pointed out Villians hand range and play style, and my thought process why Villians "story" didn't add up. So this isn't a "brag", but an attempt to make players think critically about hand ranges and the story their opponents are telling.

Please, enlighten us with the hands you believe beat us that Villian plays like this, because I just don't buy it. I've checked both the turn and river, do you honestly believe Villian is going to make a huge bet AND expect to get paid off by a player who's shown nothing but weakness the past two streets if he's got a monster worthy of that type of bet?
Rusty Shackleford
October 25, 2009 4:22:02 PM EDT

Report

adventTM wrote...
fwiw, when you look at the hand from a vacuum, the results don't justify how this hand was played on any street postflop. Actually, I don't even like that this hand is getting so much attention or that the results were posted at all because it's promoting a wrong message -- it's suggesting to the less experienced players that, despite misplaying a hand over multiple streets, we can justify a badly played line by making a successful hero call or sick bluff

Not to pile on, but I understood the point AJ was making. Maybe he didn't play it perfectly on the earlier streets, but in the end he made a decision for the reasons he gave, and I understand and agree with it. So it's not like he's completely going out on a limb here.

adventTM wrote...
If you'd called and he showed the 43 of diamonds or set of aces instead, would you be posting this hand? No, because it was also a misplayed hand, but now with a bad river call on top of it. Think about that.

He's not gonna have 43 or AA here based on the play of the hand. That's the whole point he's making re: his river call; Almost none of the hands villain could have here would follow this line.

adventTM wrote...
tl;dr - Don't post thinly veiled (or unintentional) brag hands or soul reads in strat forums.

How is he not going to post them if he didn't intend them to be brag posts? I mean, do we have to stop and think "How's advent going to view this thread?" and nix it if we think you won't like it? Maybe it's not us but you who needs to take a step back and think about things before you act.
Troy M
- 11 posts
October 25, 2009 5:54:36 PM EDT

Report

anthony wrote...
Please, enlighten us with the hands you believe beat us that Villian plays like this, because I just don't buy it. I've checked both the turn and river, do you honestly believe Villian is going to make a huge bet AND expect to get paid off by a player who's shown nothing but weakness the past two streets if he's got a monster worthy of that type of bet?
3 points to make here:

1) Assessed his hand range in Part V. Lots of Xd3d combos, slowplayed sets and slowplayed two-pairs.

2) I've seen stranger lines by worse players when they're holding a hand strong enough to treat as the nuts if it isn't already the nuts. Do I expect a weak-passive villain to do this with the goods, thinking it's going to get paid off because it looks bluffy? Without more reads on this villain, absolutely.

3) Villain, even if they're pretty bad, probably knows you never have a 3 here. Aside from that, we've labelled them as weak-passive. All in all, it's not really a polarized spot and our risk is a lot higher than our reward, so it's a very bad spot to even try to pick off a bluff. Strategically, it's much better to just let him have it all the time here because you're letting him make you play so volatile that you're willing to hero-call relatively large bets in pots that are too small to justify the risk-for-reward factor. No matter what, this river call is a big leak.

btw, 64, I acknowledge that he has a good explanation for doing it right there and right now. I just strongly disagree with the necessity of putting himself in that spot in the first place, of which there is very little, and I insist that many people will misinterpret what he's trying to get at because they can't help but associate what can be considered a good river call with an overall subpar hand.
Rusty Shackleford
October 25, 2009 6:19:13 PM EDT

Report

I'm not in love with the way he played the hand either. I'm sure he acknowledges this. But that doesn't mean he's shouldn't be allowed to post it. His point is, and I assume this is the whole reason for posting it:

anthony wrote...
In this scenerio, you have to consider how certain hands are going to be played in these spots. Villian didn't tell a believable story on the turn or river. Those were where he messed up and gave me a way to make the call on the river.

Now you can tell me all about the Xd3d and flopped sets in your "range", but the fact is, he (and I) don't buy it, because he's betting to induce a fold, not a call. If they were in the range AJ gives him (given the action), he wouldn't be calling with the next best thing to air, now would he? So agree to disagree, but I think you've done enough censoring.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 26, 2009 12:54:30 AM EDT

Report

adventTM wrote...
3 points to make here:

1) Assessed his hand range in Part V. Lots of Xd3d combos, slowplayed sets and slowplayed two-pairs.

On the flop there are flush and straight draws. Please tell us which slowplayed "sets" and "two pairs" you believe Villian will legitimately have in these spots, and that just cold-call the flop AND check the turn with flush and straight draws out against them

2) I've seen stranger lines by worse players when they're holding a hand strong enough to treat as the nuts if it isn't already the nuts. Do I expect a weak-passive villain to do this with the goods, thinking it's going to get paid off because it looks bluffy? Without more reads on this villain, absolutely.

In my experience I don't expect this. Really bad players, when they make a very strong hand (i.e. let's say he's got A3 here and rivered the straight) are more prone to either shove all-in (I've got a straight, that requires I bet as big as I can!) or make a ridiculously weak bet to get paid off (i.e. min-bet up to 1/4th to 1/3rd of the pot, not a pot size bet)

I've already established Villian is bad by the way he's played a number of other hands, so I think you're giving him too much credit for his potential thought process here

3) Villain, even if they're pretty bad, probably knows you never have a 3 here. Aside from that, we've labelled them as weak-passive. All in all, it's not really a polarized spot and our risk is a lot higher than our reward, so it's a very bad spot to even try to pick off a bluff. Strategically, it's much better to just let him have it all the time here because you're letting him make you play so volatile that you're willing to hero-call relatively large bets in pots that are too small to justify the risk-for-reward factor. No matter what, this river call is a big leak.

Not if you've deduced that there aren't any hands that beat us that this particular villian is going to make a "go away" bet with. If he had an Ace he's likely betting the turn, and if he had a Jack he's likely checking the river.

btw, 64, I acknowledge that he has a good explanation for doing it right there and right now. I just strongly disagree with the necessity of putting himself in that spot in the first place, of which there is very little, and I insist that many people will misinterpret what he's trying to get at because they can't help but associate what can be considered a good river call with an overall subpar hand.

Again, my point with this hand is to consider how certain holdings Villian could have would be played on specific streets. I don't believe there are any hands that beat us that take this particular line, which I've already outlined.

So his river bet is clearly a bluff, and that is why I called. Regardless, you and I are both too stubborn to see eye to eye, so I'll agree to disagree and move on.
Tony Greaves
- 2 posts
October 26, 2009 4:29:48 AM EDT

Report

If he bet 1/3 of the pot on the river then what ?
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 26, 2009 4:35:07 AM EDT

Report

GhostPhil wrote...
If he bet 1/3 of the pot on the river then what ?

Then I'm getting more than 4:1 on my call, so I only need to catch him making a weak bluff with a smaller pair or a busted draw 20% of the time for a call to be correct
Troy M
- 11 posts
October 26, 2009 8:28:48 AM EDT

Report

anthony wrote...

adventTM wrote...
Please tell us which slowplayed "sets" and "two pairs" you believe Villian will legitimately have in these spots, and that just cold-call the flop AND check the turn with flush and straight draws out against them

I'm not going to. You're a poker player and you're the one who played and posted the hand, so you're smart enough to know what two-pairs and sets are possible on the flop. If you really need some clarification, I meant any of them. I also meant turned two-pairs and rivered two-pairs, aces up. You are also smart enough to know what that means.

How about YOU tell me what hands this weak-passive villain can have that meets ALL of the criteria:

1) Limp-calls preflop
2) Check-calls flop
3) Checks turn
4) Is beaten by TT on the river
5) Donkbets full-pot on the river as a bluff.

Now, we're going to assume you're assessing this range before you actually made the call, so don't be results-oriented on this one. If you can't figure out any real specific hands aside from a busted flush draw, all the more reason to fold.

In my experience I don't expect this. Really bad players, when they make a very strong hand (i.e. let's say he's got A3 here and rivered the straight) are more prone to either shove all-in (I've got a straight, that requires I bet as big as I can!) or make a ridiculously weak bet to get paid off (i.e. min-bet up to 1/4th to 1/3rd of the pot, not a pot size bet)

I've already established Villian is bad by the way he's played a number of other hands, so I think you're giving him too much credit for his potential thought process here

I'm not. Donks, as a whole, are erratic, and should be played against accordingly -- in other words, the most profitable way to play against most of them when it comes to big pots is to be nitty, period. From my perspective, we have more than enough reason to believe that folding 100% of the time is clearly better than calling, and not nearly enough reason to think otherwise.

Not if you've deduced that there aren't any hands that beat us that this particular villian is going to make a "go away" bet with. If he had an Ace he's likely betting the turn, and if he had a Jack he's likely checking the river.

lol...he's WEAK-PASSIVE. You said it yourself. Are flopped pairs really the only made hands you can think of that villain could even have here when he donks the river? Aren't you even aware that he could just expect you to bet the turn when he checks, which makes the top of his range more than plausible? I mean, I still don't understand how this river call can possibly be condoned rather than discouraged completely.

Again, my point with this hand is to consider how certain holdings Villian could have would be played on specific streets. I don't believe there are any hands that beat us that take this particular line, which I've already outlined.

You didn't even assess a range of bluffs villain has here. All you said was, "he's not making any sense, so he can't have a made hand, so he has to be bluffing!" Not very clear and concise at all considering you're trying to justify a ridiculous call.

So his river bet is clearly a bluff, and that is why I called. Regardless, you and I are both too stubborn to see eye to eye, so I'll agree to disagree and move on.

I'm not being stubborn. I'm just being logical about this, as you haven't given me any reason to change my stance on the subject.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 26, 2009 8:42:21 AM EDT

Report

Advent, I've already spelled out that the hands that beat me here don't play in the way villian did. They either play stronger on the flop or turn, and certainly don't make a pot-sized bet on the river (they either shove, or make weak value bets)

Therefore, in my estimation at the time, I determined Villians holding to be a bluff, as his bet looked like he didn't want a call.

There's a variety of hands I beat on the river that will try to bluff, any flush draw obv. Then hands like QT/KT, pocket pairs below 10's, etc.

Anyway, as stated, you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on strategy, so let's just let it die, because we're both going to get frustrated if we continue to rehash our arguements and not find a middle ground.
Anthony Martino
- 494 posts
October 26, 2009 8:54:45 AM EDT

Report

Also, in the first post of my series I state:

Villian in this hand has been playing very loose and passive preflop

"preflop" is the key here. I don't believe I said he's passive postflop, just very loose and like a calling station preflop