peterbirks | A Limit question

Here's an interesting hand from yesterday.

You have A♠, 4♠, in big blind at $4-$8. Three not-too-bad-not-too-good players limp, followed by a guy in Cut-off who plays every hand. You have also observed that he tends to fold flops that he misses, but always to bet if he is first with the opportunity to do so. If raised, he may slow down on the turn, but if just called, he always bets again. Once again, as far as you have observed, if he is just called, he tends to bet the river again, but your sample size here is small. It's possible that he checks the river if he has missed completely. Since you are unsure about this, let's assign a 50% probability to him betting the river, whatever, and a 50% chance that he will check if he misses the river completely.

Five players see flop. $19 in the pot.

Flop is 4♣, 5♡, 8♠,

giving you bottom pair with Ace kicker. The three limpers check, and our friend bets, as predicted. Calling here is compulsory and raising might be a good idea, to get rid of the players with overcards. As it happens, you elect to call, (a) because you have been doing your bollocks and you are playing like a gun-shy wimp, and (b) you think that the overcard guys are going to come in for two bets if they are going to come in for one. On reflection, I think that a raise is better. But, that's history now and it isn't the interesting part of the equation. As it happens, the three limpers fold. Presumably they give your call more respect than it deserves, since you have a reputation as tight-aggressive.

Two players see turn. $27 in pot

Turn is 4♣, 5♡, 8♠, 10♣,

You check. Opponent bets. The question here is, are you getting odds to beat a random hand with your bottom pair. top kicker?

Let's suppose you call.

Two players see river. $42 in pot.

The river brings 4♣, 5♡, 8♠, 10♣, Q♣.

Opponent bets again. Do you have odds to call (a) a completely random hand? (b) a random hand where he will only bet 50% of the time if he has missed completely? (c) a "very loose" player's hand where he will only bet 50% of the time if he misses completely?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Hi Peter,

I don't mind the line of checkraising the flop either to get it headsup, especially since a straight flopped and you are representing a very specific made hand, or something nearly as good such as a set or 2 pair. The problem in the hypothetical example you give and the question of after betting the turn whether you should check/call the river, is that he will often put you on another hand you would have played similarly, which is a suited connector that made one pair and had a gutshot draw but that failed to improve. Thus if you check and he bets, then he can probably beat any low pair and so I would probably fold, especially since 2 higher cards came that could have made him a higher pair (although I might call if a flush had also flopped and I put him on a bricked draw).

My point about losing the value of a checked river which you would have in position but not OOP, is in fact because your likelihood of winning is indeed less than 50% IMO with bottom pair by the time the river comes.

FWIW, you might examine your play in general of such hands OOP to see if that is a leak causing you problems. Avoiding more marginal situations OOP should clearly reduce your variance. And the simple fact is that position is so powerful because you can make more moves and see more checked streets when you want it. Thus, other players are entitled to use their position in a like manner, and it pays to be more weak-tight OOP.

BluffTHIS!

This was a very unusual situation for me. I rarely find myself against this type of player and, when I do, I'm rarely running as badly as I was when this guy appeared. If I was running well and playing with confidence. I would see the flop and then walk away from the hand. It's marginal at best.

I wrote about it because of its unusualness rather than its typicality. It was actually a mathematical question rather than one of "do you call in this kind of situation with bottom pair, top kicker, with players behind and a probable gutshot (at least) out there?" The reason the situation is unusual is that it's almost unheard of for me to check-call-it-down in this kind of situation. I just happened to do so here because I was playing badly at the time.

However, it served to raise an interesting point on how you can play "random card players" and what hands you should rate, and which ones you shouldn't.

PJ

Peter,

Your last sentence is very important. In general I believe you should match strength against their weakness, both the strength of better postflop equity and the strength of position. So even though they rate to have not much but will bet anyway, I believe folding marginal hands still is best OOP. And returning again to the matter of the math question and whether you should call the river, again not being able to get checked rivers OOP with him makes playing marginal hands even worse. Because now he will not only bet bluffs that you can beat, but also very bad made hands that better players would check behind with, like a pair just above your bottom pair.

Bluff

A Limit question

Re: Your Play of the Hand

Re: Your Play of the Hand

Re: Your Play of the Hand