Monday, August 20, 2007

Additional thoughts regarding the previous post

So far, quite a few comments came, regarding my post from yesterday. So, I figured, there are few things that maybe I would point out to you here. For me to pull the move on the river that I did, so many things had to be in place and in that hand, they were. This is a little more than I usually like sharing in terms of my thought process through a hand but it's been an interesting exercise for me too so here goes.

A) The river bet had to be enough to make an impact. In other words, if I made a bet of about $300, he definitely would've called with QQ, just from a sheer pot odds perspective.

B) The villain had to be a good player who is capable of making that laydown. A lot of people seemed to not be able to believe someone would lay down QQ there.

C) The move I make had to be consistent with what I normally would do and had to be credible enough.

In order for point A) to happen, the pot size had to be managed. In other words, if anyone bet out on the turn, I wouldn't be putting this post because I would've folded. Either that or I make my move on the turn but most likely, I just fold on the turn. And, if I make the move on the turn, I get called and lose my money.

In order for point B) to happen, I had to know that the villain was a good player. For those that questioned someone tossing QQ there, ask yourself based on the sequence of things happening, what I can have that he beats. There's only one and that is AJ. And even then, an all in on the river makes no sense if I had TPTK. In other words, if you're a good player, your thought should be, why would someone risk all their chips if they already had a hand which conceivably could win at showdown? The answer is, you wouldn't. Unless it's a value bet. So the fact that I risked my entire chip stack which is only slightly less than the pot amount had to make him think that maybe I had a monster. Which is probably why he also wondered if I had a straight. But then he quickly mentioned in the chat box that the only thing that didn't make sense was the call on the flop. Unless I already had a set there. It would cost him a third of his stack to find out if I'm bluffing (which at this point, would be hard for him to figure out what I am bluffing with unless he knows that I'm capable of floating the flop bet). And realistically, what hand wouldn't have connected by the river that doesn't beat QQ?

I have been at the table and I was very loose to start with but tightened up and when there was a big pot brewing and I went to showdown, I had a good hand each time. So I had a solid image there. Villain was well aware of this. For sure. So, let's say he thought I had JJ. Well, he's beat. TT? I catch it on the river. 99 or 88? Why would I call the bet on the flop? 77? Set on the flop. Any pair lower than 7s (except 4s where I flop a set) also are gone in terms of my possible holdings because why would I call a decent sized bet on the flop with a pair lower than 2 of the 3 cards on the flop? For a two outer? In an instance where I could be already behind a set? In other words, there were so many hands that beat him and so few hands that he could beat at this point that if he was truly as good a player as I thought he was, he couldn't have called. The only argument one might make is that at the end, even with my all in, the pot odds was offering him 2 to 1 so that could have swayed him to call. Which is probably another thing that was on his mind.

But, that's if he had QQ. If he had 88 or something, he would've acted the exact same way I think so it's possible I had him beat from the beginning. Even though he said he folded QQ, he could be lying.

In terms of C) this is clearly what I would do if I had a set or if I caught a set on the river. I would've played TT exactly the same way. And JJ. Reason being that on the flop, basically, there were no draws. The moment I narrowed down the ranges of two other players, I knew that there were no realistic draws out there. And the pot is big enough that on the river, I'd shove with a monster and yet it won't even be "overbetting" because there's enough odds that any other player would've probably called me with QQ. Maybe even AJ. But I will say this. If you are truly a good player, usually, you're wary of calling a pot sized all in with just one pair. If your one pair is only good enough to beat TPTK, then all the more so.

And these are the reasons why I got away with that hand. And take this for what it's worth. No way I make that play against anyone but a select few that I peg could make that lay down. I'm not saying I outplayed him or anything. I just knew that he was the only guy capable of making that laydown there. Most other players, I would choose a different spot and wait till I have a big hand.


Fuel55 said...

You're still a fish!

cmitch said...

dont worry fuel thinks everyone is a fish.

Thanks for the rail support last night.

Sia said...

I actually agree with A, B and C. The tricky thing on the river for me was the value bet v. the overbet for value. I see your point that a value bet would have given him PO so I guess you had to move all in or you'd get a call. I ABSOLUTELY think that someone might throw away QQ there. Personally, I probably wouldn't have because of my feeling on your river bet .... but I wouldn't have felt comfortable with my QQ at all. Bottom line, your river bet would be very very hard to call with just an overpair.