Another limit hand

Here's a hand that didn't go so well. In fact, I ballsed it up, but I didn't balls it up as much as it seems. In fact, the whole thing creates an interesting area of limit hold 'em research.

$15/$30 Hold'em
Table Table 34811 (Real Money)
Seat 10 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: radsun ( $741.5 )
Seat 2: pmoneybags1 ( $3855.72 )
Seat 5: KINGDAVID666 ( $1376 )
Seat 6: ChoosyMother ( $586.36 )
Seat 9: powerful32 ( $1477 )
Seat 7: Birks ( $1582 )
Seat 10: Alvie19 ( $683 )
Seat 4: WhiteBubble ( $806 )
Seat 8: Bonsai05 ( $664 )
Seat 3: TheSpartain ( $702.5 )
radsun posts small blind [$10].
pmoneybags1 posts big blind [$15].

** Dealing down cards **

Dealt to Birks Kd Ac

TheSpartain raises [$30].
All intervening players fold
Birks raises [$45].
All intervening players fold
TheSpartain calls [$15].

Flop 7s, 9c, 5h
TheSpartain checks.
Birks bets [$15].
TheSpartain calls [$15].

So far, nothing unpredictable. I may have this guy dominated, or he may have a pair, or he may have Ax suited where x is one of the flop cards.

Turn As
TheSpartain checks.
Birks checks.

I can see this check causing heart palpitations throughout limit hold 'em land, and I'm not sure that I am happy with it myself. However, it had worked well for me a couple of times previously where in one case I had the other player dominated and he bet the river, while in the other he had Ax (where x was paired) and I was drawing to three outs. However, this time, it went a bit belly-up.

River 6h
TheSpartain bets [$30].
Birks calls [$30].
TheSpartain shows [ 6s, 6c ] three of a kind, sixes.
Birks doesn't show [ Kd, Ac ] a pair of aces.
TheSpartain wins $202 from the main pot with three of a kind, sixes.

There's a whole bunch of mathematical calculations I could go into here (and indeed I may do so some day, when I am less tired) to see how miinus EV my check is on the turn (let's ignore metagame concepts for a moment, which I think are seriously overrated in terms of overall win rate).

First we have to assign a range of hands to the foe. Then we have to decide how the foe would play that range. Then we have to assign probabilities to the foe's action if I bet the turn rather than check it. Then we have to decide MY action (do I, for example, fold to a check-raise?). It's no use coming up with "it depends", because you have to analyze the situation mathematically before you can come up with "feel" plays. In fact, all "feel" plays are based on these calculations, it's just that the people using them don't realize that they are making them (which is why "feel" plays often have a habit of being wrong).

At a rough guess, I would say that the looser and more aggressive your opponent is, the more correct (or less incorrect) is a check on the turn. The question is, how loose-aggressive does he need to be? This player was not particularly loose-aggressive. I should have bet the turn, no doubt about it. As it happens, I would probably have lost more money by so doing, since he is just about getting value for his six outs (and, even if he isn't, he's likely to call here). But that's hindsightitis.

Bits and bobs

A good month (more details tomorrow night). And it looks like some bonus sessions will soon be appearing for July 4th (Ultimate's kicks in on Monday for 24 hours). And my new 19 inch monitor should arrive fairly soon.

The Chinese are definitely taking over in the US. Never mind buying oil and gas companies, Huffy, the maker of bikes, has just fallen into the hands of its creditors, the main one of which is, yes, a Chinese bank. This is just the start. Like I wrote, the Chinese have been buying T Bonds and company bonds in the US for many years. I wonder how many Ford bonds they hold?

I am seriously beginning to wonder whether there is any point posting stuff on the two main poker forums any more. It's clear that most players will remain stuck in the context of tournaments that once they get emotionally involved, they become more risk averse. One guy on Gutshot asserted (in response to my comment, "if you get knocked out, so what? There is another tournament tomorrow") "I play tournaments to win" as if my comment implied that I played tournaments with the aim of getting knocked out. What this guy seems to mean by "playing tournaments to win" is avoiding any 50:50 situation where he might get knocked out (even if the odds offered are 6-to-4). This is not playing tournaments to win in any way, shape, or form. It's playing tournaments not to get knocked out, which is not the same thing at all.

But, since these people can't (or won't) see the error of their ways, I think that I will just let them carry on.

And then another guy on The Hendon Mob recounted his play in the Late Night Poker knock out on Party. In essence, he made a play with KQ on a flop of Qxx, and was then raised back. Clearly it had utterly escaped his attention that this was a possibility, because he was now the famous "pot-committed". He called and duly went out to AQ. For god's sake, when will these people think more than one bet ahead? If he had done that he could have either check-folded, check-called, or smacked all of his money in first.

The guy had four possible ways to play the hand and, like so many tournament players in this situation, chose absolutely the worst.

I couldn't even be bothered to post about this one. In a sense, it cheered me up. As DY pointed out, most of them really are utterly clueless, and my major mistake this past year has been giving players at quite high stakes far too much credit.