Opinions Wanted

Samba

Blinds 10/20 Cash game.

4 handed, everyone full stacked with 1.5k, the game has just formed.

I'm on the button and I pick up AA.

UTG makes it $140, I flat call and the blinds fold.

$320 pot.



The flop comes A24 rainbow, UTG leads out with a $200 bet, At this point I have him for a high PP or AK.

So I flat call.

$720 in the pot and the turn brings a 9

UTG Bets 200 again, I call, the turn brings a 3.

UTG goes all in for the remainder of his stack.

What's your move?

Daithio

Call i reckon, but I would have raised him either on the flop or the turn. I mean this is the sort of hand where you're either going to get paid for all your chips or not at all, so you might as well just stick them in.

shoutman

seeing as its ten twenty cash game i reckon this has to be a call.

If it was in a lower blind game i would fold, fearing maybe pocket fives, however it does seem strange that he raised seven times the big blind, so really it looks like he wanted no action.


but in my mind i would have to call it, but as daithio said i would have raised previously
regards

Lafortezza

Any reads on villain? Is he the type to raise suited connectors UTG?

I'd say you're up against an underset.

MrPillowTalk

my money is on 99 for villain

ocallagh

call and close your eyes

the only hand beating u is 55

Marq

shoutman wrote:

seeing as its ten twenty cash game i reckon this has to be a call.

I think that without a read on the villian, this is a call no matter what the stakes. the stakes don't actually change how you should play the game. Only your opinion of your opponent and what you know about them should influence how you play the hand. there are plenty of fish at 10/20.

I think it's criminal not to raise the turn - then you don't face this decision on the river. He is unlikely to fold a lower set or even ace king.

shoutman

point taken marq, just turned nineteen so still learning.

thanks for the advice.

jem

what had he

Ste05

I can't see many people folding this hand, without an absolutely brilliant read on this guy having played with him numerous times and knowing that he could raise this amount Pre-Flop with 55 or 56s, and also knowing that he would play those hands this strongly, it's an auto-call IMHO.....

Samba

I was the villian in question, i sat down and played HU with a similar sized stack (1k) and trebled up on my opponent over 30 minutes, then more people joined the table.

I don't really play cash these days, mainly HU STT's and I was still in HU mode.

So many players give out about luck but the fact is they do not question their own play enough.

It was criminal not to re-raise the turn and had he, I would have folded knowing I was up against a better kicker or worse. When he called I knew I had to check/fold to a big bet on the river as somthing was fishy.

This is a classic case of when slow playing can bite you in the ass

I was holding Ad 5d the button called my all in bet on the river.

I realise that my raise with A5d is questionable, as said above, my head was still in HU mode where it is a strong hand.

Three hands later I get dealt 1010 on the button, i flat call. he was on the sb and min raises.

I call, the flop comes 2 5 10 rainbow, he checks. I go all in, he calls in an instant and shows AA and gets no help.

Again, criminal play.

shoutman

I know its easy to say know but i had a thought while sitting in information systems lecture that the villain of the piece might of been holding ace five suited,
I thought it would of been strange raising before the flop with such a bad hand but still.

and yes very true about the crime committed in not raising on the turn

Marq

That we know that it was Samba who was the villian in this hand makes absolutely no difference. The guy with the aces still played them like a sap (I can say that without offending Samba now), and should still call on the river. Without a read on the raiser I don't think that you can fold top set in this spot. If one had a read on Samba that might suggest that Ace-Five suited would be a hand that he would play in this way, then one would have a decision to make, but one should have tanked it on the turn, thereby removing one's problem.

Samba

I tend to play quite erratic when in HU so not to be read easily, I sometimes raise with cheeky hands, when you hit and win a big pot, you get marked as a fish and you put your opponent on tilt very easily as so many players want to get you back!

He got greedy and it backfired, I rarely ever play cash but the guys knew me from the HU tables, it was perhaps for this reason that he flat called, knowing that i would fold to a raise.

Still poor play especially on a flop like that, he told me that he put me on AK after the hand and he accepted the mistake he made in his play.

TacT

guy was an absolute donkey not to reraise preflop, on the flop and on the turn. Granted smooth calling can be a big pay off but you'd better be damn sure you're reading your opponent for QQ/KK/JJ and not seeing any face cards on the board that will make him a set.

choice 1) Raise and win small pot
choice 2) Call and lose big pot

Not a tough choice is it? :v:

Hectorjelly

Samba raised before the flop, and the board is now A249 rainbow. You have top set. There are only 2 cards that you dont really want to see on the river, a 3 or a 5. Calling here is fine. Rasing makes the hand easier to play but will be less profitable. In fact a 5 will be bad news for samba.

To Tact - your anaylisis is flawed. Firstly it would be great if he hit a set. You have top set. Secondly calling and winning a big pot is possible as well.

TacT

Hectorjelly wrote:

Samba raised before the flop, and the board is now A249 rainbow. You have top set. There are only 2 cards that you dont really want to see on the river, a 3 or a 5. Calling here is fine. Rasing makes the hand easier to play but will be less profitable. In fact a 5 will be bad news for samba.

To Tact - your anaylisis is flawed. Firstly it would be great if he hit a set. You have top set. Secondly calling and winning a big pot is possible as well.

Samba has A5s, not AA. If my analysis is flawed, why did the guy lose his entire stack with his set of Aces that he slow played to a slow death giving Samba a nice double up on his chips?

Where is the flaw? The guy got cleaned with his set of Aces instead of playing them like any sensible person would.

Hectorjelly

TacT wrote:

Samba has A5s, not AA. If my analysis is flawed, why did the guy lose his entire stack with his set of Aces that he slow played to a slow death giving Samba a nice double up on his chips?

Where is the flaw? The guy got cleaned with his set of Aces instead of playing them like any sensible person would.

Slow playing is always a little bit dangerous, but you are being completely result orientated. The only 2 options you gave were to either win the pot on the turn or lose a big pot on the river. This is incorrect thinking and will lead to bad anyalysis.

Samba

The result of the hand is irrelevant.

More often than not that danger card will not land, this was merely an illustration of how slow playing and not raising can lead you into dangerous territory.


I think his call is marginal based on what he has seen of me on the 1v1 tables, I don't stick my entire stack in lightly and he knew this.


If you are going to slow play you must have the discipline to lay down big hands like this.

He was still in decent shape if he folded.

Hectorjelly

Samba wrote:

The result of the hand is irrelevant.

More often than not that danger card will not land, this was merely an illustration of how slow playing and not raising can lead you into dangerous territory.

There are only 2 cards that can land on the river that will leave AAA as not the nuts, a 3 or a 5. There are 52 cards in a deck. You know what 6 of them are. So this leaves 46 cards. 8/46 = 1/5.75, or roughly 20%. So if by more often than not you mean less than 1 time in 5 then I agree.

Samba wrote:

I think his call is marginal based on what he has seen of me on the 1v1 tables, I don't stick my entire stack in lightly and he knew this.


If you are going to slow play you must have the discipline to lay down big hands like this.

He was still in decent shape if he folded.

Your last sentance only makes sense if its a tournament. Call on the river is completely player dependant, based on what you say it sounds like it was a bad call.

Samba

I will have to choose my words more carefully in future when discussing hands with you hector


From his point of view, it was a terrible call, he knows my style of play and he should have respected my river bet but he could not let go of his set.


Still in decent shape = folding was a viable option which he should have chosen based on previous games.

TacT

Hectorjelly wrote:

Slow playing is always a little bit dangerous, but you are being completely result orientated. The only 2 options you gave were to either win the pot on the turn or lose a big pot on the river. This is incorrect thinking and will lead to bad anyalysis.

Fair enough Hector. I still believe it's begging for trouble slow playing when you have any cards to a straight on the board, regardless of whether it's one or two outs out of the deck. Why risk it?

Marq

there are 21 cards that can fall on the river that change the nuts. Four 3's, Four 5's, Four 6's, Three 2's, Three 4's, Three 9's. Obviously, nine of these improve your hand greatly, despite the fact that they make quads a possibility. I still think that I'm calling with aces here no matter what card falls on the river. I think the card that would scare me most if I had the aces in this example would be a six.

Hectorjelly

Marq wrote:

there are 21 cards that can fall on the river that change the nuts. Four 3's, Four 5's, Four 6's, Three 2's, Three 4's, Three 9's. Obviously, nine of these improve your hand greatly, despite the fact that they make quads a possibility. I still think that I'm calling with aces here no matter what card falls on the river. I think the card that would scare me most if I had the aces in this example would be a six.

I forgot about them, allthough assuming neither player is folding a set they dont change the play of the hand at all.

Marq

Hectorjelly wrote:

I forgot about them, allthough assuming neither player is folding a set they dont change the play of the hand at all.

Quite right. The discussion is now purely academic.