Tourney Hand Question

therealzuppy

$100 live freezeout in Sydney, approx 90 players, 30 min blinds, 4th level 100-200, starting stack 5000.

I'm in mid position with 67d and call. I'm first caller. There's a raise to 800 from the cut off and the bb calls. I've been playing pretty tight up to now and have about 12k. Raiser has about 8k, BB similar. I call, purely to see what happens on the flop. I'll let go unless i hit big.

Flop Kh 5s 2c

Everyone checks. Turn 8h.

BB checks, I bet 1200 representing the K obv with the str8 draw. I'm sure the pf raiser doesn't have a k or he would've bet the flop.

Raiser calls, bb folds.

River 10h

I tried to make a call me bet, representing the flush or k so i bet 1500. He called with pocket 9s.

I'd like to think this might've worked against a good player. Comments?

slumped

I like to think that I am a fish sometimes.

Your question is very much a "what if"

Yes it would work sometimes and times it wont.

S

NickyOD

Before you can even think about analysing the post-flop mess you need to sort out the pre-flop mess.

The reason he called you down, was the same reason why he decided not to bet the flop. He's just bad, but open limping with 67 with these stacks is awful.

Mellor

fold pre flop

ozpoker

therealzuppy wrote:

I tried to make a call me bet, representing the flush or k so i bet 1500. He called with pocket 9s.

I'd like to think this might've worked against a good player.

{Ignoring the play up to the river, which the others have covered}

It might have worked against a player insensitive to pot odds. But when you bluff with these "call me" type bets, what you're really doing is 2 things: 1) limiting your exposure and increasing the payoff if the bluff works at the cost of 2) offering great odds to pick off your bluff and thereby decreasing the chance that the bluff will succeed. On the end, you were offering odds of 7000:1500 or ~4.5:1 on the call. This means your opponent has to have the best hand around 18% of the time to make his call EV neutral. As we learned from Harrington, even the tightest rock on the planet bluffs 10% of the time, and most people are closer to 20 - 25%.

If I had somehow gotten to this spot with 99, I'd probably call too. Moral: Make a real bet if you want to bluff and give your opponent a chance to make a big mistake rather than a small one by guessing wrong.

-Oz-

Mellor

ozpoker wrote:

{Ignoring the play up to the river, which the others have covered}

It might have worked against a player insensitive to pot odds. But when you bluff with these "call me" type bets, what you're really doing is 2 things: 1) limiting your exposure and increasing the payoff if the bluff works at the cost of 2) offering great odds to pick off your bluff and thereby decreasing the chance that the bluff will succeed. On the end, you were offering odds of 7000:1500 or ~4.5:1 on the call. This means your opponent has to have the best hand around 18% of the time to make his call EV neutral. As we learned from Harrington, even the tightest rock on the planet bluffs 10% of the time, and most people are closer to 20 - 25%.

If I had somehow gotten to this spot with 99, I'd probably call too. Moral: Make a real bet if you want to bluff and give your opponent a chance to make a big mistake rather than a small one by guessing wrong.

-Oz-

And that is why this might of worked against a good player, but a post oak like this. Alot more than the hand depends on weither or not to do it. Precious action plays a huge part.

phantom_lord

fold or raise pf, fold to the raise if u do limp.


I'd call that river bet pretty quickly with 99.

ozpoker

Oh, and another thing ...

While the OP didn't ask about this specifically, IMO asking questions like this are fairly counterproductive. Everyone that pays the entry fee has every right to play any hand however they see fit. It's important to keep the focus on the things you have control over: your actions and perceptions.

Instead of thinking "Wow, my subtle/super sophisticated/world class play would have worked if my opponent wasn't an idiot", keep the onus on yourself and think "Hmm, I really misjudged the skill level of that opponent. Now I have to adjust and play a more straight forward style against him".

-Oz-

Lissavalley

Fold to the raise pf. Limping is bad but not awful.

Samba

From his point of view why would you check the flop if you had a K?

Your story makes no sense and I would be inclined to call you in his position with 99.

If you want to represent it you have to bet the flop.

Don't limp with 67d if you are going to do anything raise or fold.

therealzuppy

Ok - I would normally fold this one pf to a raise but thought I'd see a flop this time. If I'd had a K in this position, I would've tried to check raise a post flop bet which was something I'd done earlier on the table and I knocked someone out as a result. What was interesting for me with the hand was that it showed clearly the importance of playing your opponent and especially, knowing how good/bad he is before you try anything. I don't normally make too many moves like this and obviously have a bit to learn before they start working..

5starpool

Samba wrote:

Your story makes no sense and I would be inclined to call you in his position with 99.

Well said Daniel.

Slash/ED

therealzuppy wrote:

If I'd had a K in this position, I would've tried to check raise a post flop bet which was something I'd done earlier on the table and I knocked someone out as a result.

Surely you'd only do this with a king with a kicker good enough, like an ace, that you'd most certainly have raised pre flop, and not open limped than cold called out of position? I think the check on the flop ruins your chances to represent the king, I think that's why your post oak bluff didn't work, not that it is in itself always a bad idea. The only hand I'd be worried about there is some kind of backdoor flush, but with the odds given, I'd have to call with 99.