PL Stud Hand in Boston
Tuesday, 7 February 2006 23:25![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipitfishWhile I was in Boston in January, I visited a downtown poker club. It's run by a fellow who used to work at The E. Club in NYC. As I understand it, he commutes down to Boston a few times a week and has some locals who help him run it.
I discovered that folks from the old River Street crowd, such as Ken come by
there occasionally. I saw none of the old group on the two nights I
played there, except for ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
nick_marden who joined me the
second night.
The club was small, with only three tables. As is typical on weekend nights at these sorts of clubs, the one running game was short-handed on this Saturday. I arrived and they were playing $2/$4 limit mixed games, which was great fun and I was happy to play.
The local fish, a fellow named Josh, arrived a while later and immediately bought two grand in chips, hoping a big game would get started. He sat down in our little limit game, which was comprised mostly of off-duty dealers and that night's floorman. Josh got "bored" and asked for the stakes to be changed.
We agreed, after some argument between a newbie dealer and the floorman
that
PL
is too complicated for this n00b to deal
. It was settled; we would
play PL mixed games, including Stud, O/8, and HE, with $1/$2 blinds.
I was excited to work on my mixed game PL play. It's frankly my
preferred form of poker, but something that's tough to find in the USA
and online on a regular basis.
We moved blinds and small pots around for about half an hour, when the
following hand came up during a stud round. I'd be curious to hear
from anyone who has some PL stud experience to tell me if I simply
misplayed this hand. After much thought and input from nick_marden, I decided that I played it correctly, but I'd
appreciate hearing arguments on the subject.
My First $300 Stud Hand
We all had about our initial buy-in of $300, with Josh having a bit
more (maybe $375 or so). I caught the bring-in with 2
, and threw in the $1 without looking. I looked around to
see a 6
, a 5
, and a T
, and a K showing. The 6 called, and Josh with the T raised the pot size ($4). My hole cards, to my surprise,
were Q Q. I thought for a moment about my
next move. I had a strong feeling that Josh had a split pair of tens,
but wasn't totally sure yet. I was only sure that he had at least
that. I decided to call and slowplay, hoping the 6, a very tight
player, would fold.
The 6 unfortunately called behind me. I caught the 4,
the 6 caught a 5, and Josh's T got a 6. Josh bet out $10, and I decided that I had to get heads up,
and raised $25 more. The tight player quickly folded and Josh called.
I was sure at this point that Josh only had merely the pair of tens. I felt he would have reraised right there with jacks or better, because he is an extremely aggressive player (to the point of overplaying his strong but not great huge holdings). In reaction to my raise, he had this "what could he have?" look. I was sure he was confused by the fact that I'd slow-played on third street.
The pot stood at $86 as our boards became (Q Q) 2 4 5 and (T? ??) T 6 7. Josh quickly checked.
I really felt at this point that Josh had yet to improve from the pair of tens. There was no other hand I could really put him on, and he clearly thought that I was weak. I decided to bet $50 into the $86 pot. Josh thought for just a moment and called, swelling the pot to $186.
Sixth street was (Q Q) 2 4 5 6 and (T? ??) T 6 7 2. I had picked up a gutshot, and didn't think Josh had
improved. I didn't think he had a 2 kicker, particularly because one
of them is dead in my hand. Two of the sixes are also dead. If he
had T7 in the hole, I felt he would have raised earlier. In
particular, I thought he would bet out when I hit another straight
card, yet he checked again.
I was very confident that I held the better hand. I bet out $100 into the
$186 pot, which left me with about $150 behind. Josh looked at me in that
"strong means weak" sort of way, and said: Raise, $125 more!
. What
could this near-min-raise mean? I really read it as weak. I know
min-raises often mean strength, but I knew that Josh knew he should
protect two pair more than that. He just couldn't have two pair. The
only straight possibility with an exact 89 in the hole. That didn't fit
any of his betting patterns in this hand, nor did it match how he
typically played draws. I was pretty sure he had on pair of tens. I had
4 live outs to a straight if he didn't.
I did have to consider for a moment that maybe he didn't have split tens, but instead had 77. I didn't think he would have slow played that on fifth street with trips, either. 22, of course, made no sense at all. If he had AA or KK, he'd have protected it more on fourth street. So, I settled for sure on split TT, and an unpaired kicker.
It was only $25 more for me to be all-in, so I said: Maybe I'm the
biggest fish in the world, but I'm all-in
. Of course, Josh called
immediately, which I expected no matter what he held. I announced: I
just have queens
. Josh's jaw dropped to the floor, and said: You
didn't raise early on, I couldn't think you had better than tens!
. I
was so glad; my heart pounded, and the river was sent face down. I caught
a meaningless ace, and Josh looked distraught. He threw his river card
face up. The dealer began to square the pot (Josh had me covered) and it
was moving toward me. Josh shouted, Wait, I have a flush
. As it
turned out, he had started with T
8 and the river card he'd tossed across the table face-up was the
4.
The floorman of the club, a reasonably clueful player, berated us both.
You dumbasses
, he chided, didn't one of you think the other one
had two pair?
The whole table debated the hand for the next round, and
Josh continually pointed out that he check-raised because he thought I was
trying to to blow him out of the pot with nothing
. I entered the
debate a bit, and pointed out that I knew Josh had tens. I bitched a
little bit about the slow-roll. Someone else pointed out that it wasn't
Josh's intention to slow-roll — that Josh was as surprised as I was
to find out he held a flush. I moved on from the point; don't tap on the
glass, after all.
Yet, I am still wondering, did I do the right thing? Do I have to give
him two pair and let his $125 bet take down the $286 pot? My pot odds
were a little less than 1-to-3, so I don't have to be right all that often
to make moving in correct. But, I'm just not that experienced of a stud
player (neither, BTW, was Josh). So, was nick_marden right,
when he counseled me on the phone that I played ever street correctly, and
in saying: You just need to understand, Bradley; Josh is a fish
.
Anyway, whether I played it right or not, I lost a quick $300+ in this hand. In a later post, I'll describe how I rebought and lost another $300 to Josh just few hands later in O/8.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
two things
Date: 2006-02-08 16:18 (UTC)2. Josh is indeed a fish. I thought one of you would lay down one pair here, or have better than one pair. I really did. Anyway, I'm not a stud player by any means, but why didn't you bet $86 into the $86 pot instead of $50? It seems to me that your pretty confidennt in your read, and if you're going to call a pot sized raise because he overplays hands anyways, might as well bet the pot. If he folds, even better. I can't imagine that calling calling here with just one pair is +EV against most players, but even if it is against Josh, its got to be very borderline and you'd rather he simply folded. Also, yeah, I'd reraise this hand earlier.
-brett
Re: two things
Date: 2006-02-08 16:35 (UTC)1: I actually like the club. It's better run than some of the NYC clubs, I must admit. Mainly, I felt the staff were not likely to sell out their players, and I often don't have that feeling in NYC.
2: While I didn't put this in the post, I chose not to bet the pot at that moment because even though I was confident in my read later on, my read at that moment was, "I think I have the best hand, but if Josh raises in this spot, he's beating me". Once he failed to raise that $50 bet, I got really sure about my read. If Josh had raised there, I knew I had an easy fold. I wanted to be sure I didn't get too deep in the pot on fifth street. Also, since I had no draw at that point, I wanted the possibility to fold on sixth street if josh caught an overcard to my queens, paired on board, or even if he caught a spade.
In some ways, it was that total blank on Josh's board on sixth street that married me to the hand. While I can't remember my exact thinking, I know that at least subconsciously, I was sure I didn't want to swell the pot too much on fifth.
That's one of the challenges I have in the little bit of PL stud that I've played. It's usually tough, given the typical stack sizes in a $1/$2 blind game, to fail to become somewhat pot committed on sixth street. I have this gut feeling that I want to make it to sixth street still able to fold if things get hairy. I bet that's where my subconscious mind got the idea of betting only $50.
I think betting any less than that is a mistake, but I do, even upon review, think that it is really the sweet spot for a fifth street bet with a vulnerable hand that I could very well have to dump on sixth. After all, Josh has at least thirteen "scare card outs" (A's, K's, 6's, 7's, and T's) that are going to force me to check and/or fold to a bet on sixth street.
This is a concept of keeping the pot small with a vulnerable hand to see one more card is one I picked up from flop play in HE. While most poker authors and theorist talk about "charging the draws" on the flop, some also recommend from time to time, if you feel heavy flop action will leave you pot committed, to let a cheap card come on the turn and then commit yourself when it's safe and your drawing opponents have much worse odds.
So, why bet $50 instead of check? Well, I knew Josh would check-raise if he was winning, so I get away from the hand right there, and I can firm up my read if he just calls and catches poorly on sixth.
Does this logic seem reasonable?
Re: two things
Date: 2006-02-08 17:04 (UTC)Also, (in my limited poker experience) I've never seen a stud game played above limit. It seems that with so many betting rounds, it'd be easy to end up all-in frequently if you make it past fifth street. Is PL stud common?
Re: two things
Date: 2006-02-08 17:42 (UTC)Limit poker is nearly non-existent outside of the USA. You are quite correct, that in the USA (and online, since most online sites are USA-centric, even if the servers live on Indian reservations and off-shore municipalities), that games other than Omaha and HE are rarely played in a PL/NL structure. Outside the USA, they play most things PL, including all the games we see in limit structures here, Stud, Stud/8, O/8, lowball draw, etc.
I have played PL stud only in home games (it was popular in Ashley Adams home games in Boston) and at the Aviation Club in Paris. I was at first amazed that the folks at the Boston club wanted to play, but given its "home game feel", it was not terribly surprising.
You are quite right that the many betting rounds quickly lead to getting pot committed, particularly if you are mixing the game with flop based games that require (relatively) smaller stacks. This is why I want to see if I can make it to sixth street without getting too much out there.
Sklansky and Malmuth argue that even in limit stud, the bankroll requirements are high because the luck factor is bigger than any other form of poker played regularly today. Lots of betting rounds with lots of cards mean lots of opportunities to get lucky. There is no doubt it's a high variance game.
OTOH, keep in mind that stud has a lot more automatic decisions compared to flop based games. The range of hands you have to consider someone having in, say, HE, is much larger than in stud. Plus, you see much of your opponents whole hand and you aren't sharing cards. So, the times that a card comes to simultaneously improves both you and your opponent are rare, whereas in HE and Omaha, it's very common.
Re: two things
Date: 2006-02-08 19:37 (UTC)Thought you might find this interesting: http://www.cardsquad.com/2006/02/07/nyc-poker-raids/
There's a link to a 2+2 forum on the subject, 2+2 is blocked here at work so I'm not sure if there's anything interesting there.
Re: two things
Date: 2006-02-08 17:24 (UTC)1. You'd really like to take this pot down right now.
2. Josh might perhaps sense weakness in your $50 bet and realize a raise would win this pot.
I don't necessarily agree that you're "keeping the pot small." Really what you're doing is trying not to get committed with such a vulnerable hand, which funnily enough is exactly what wound up happening.
I was also influenced by my initial througts that calling a pot sized bet from a reasonable player with a pair of tens on fifth street seems like suicide. And this seems like much, much more than overplaying.
I'm going to take a longer look at this later, but I'm curious about the differencein pot size and stack size on that 5th street bet.
Again, like I said, I know basically nothing about stud.
Re: two things
Date: 2006-02-08 17:59 (UTC)Honestly, I do think Josh's whole play was suicide. Like many fish, he's aggressive at the wrong times. He could have check-raised me on fourth or fifth, or even bet out one of those rounds and probably won the hand when I statistically had the better of him. I can't put him on rolled up tens or other such hands because he would have slow played early. His idea, I think, was to let me "bluff" at him over and over, and he was going to catch me, but then got scared when I got that gutshot on board. Yet, this hand troubles me so; I want to keep telling myself I made a read like a pro and played it just right, but losing (which was just statistically unlucky, of course, given the true cards), combined with the fact that I am so inexperienced at PL stud makes me wonder if that's just a bad case of poker ego.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 17:25 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 18:02 (UTC)Actually, sixth street was the very moment where I was ready to be pot committed; with his combination of "just call" on fifth and checking out on sixth when I have a gutshot on-board, my read became pretty solid that he had an unimproved pair of tens. Unlike fifth street, where I knew I'd have to fold to a check-raise, I was more or less prepared to get it all in when he blanked on sixth street and I picked up a draw.
There is another odd thing about stud that is relevant here: the hidden river card. Stewart Ruben talks a lot about this in Pot Limit & No Limit Poker (co-authored with Ciaffone). The river is difficult to play because instead of being able to see what draws were missed or reached (as we can in widow games), you must here consider that your opponent has an entirely new, hidden holding at the most crucial moment of the hand. I'd much rather have a strong, solid, confident, developed-over-many-betting-rounds read on my opponent's starting hand and get a lot of money in on that, than to check behind on sixth and have to play guessing games when he (remember, he's overly aggressive when he senses weakness) undoubtedly bets out the river holding a new hidden card.
In fact, I think checking sixth is giving up on the hand. If I don't hit the straight or trips on the river (7 outs), it's very difficult to call a big bet from Josh. Indeed, at that point, I can't know if queens up will be good because he's gotten a hidden card that could have easily made him Kings up or Aces up (remember, I was worried that he had TT with a hidden overcard kicker). My only hope is that he checks again, which he's highly unlikely to do.
Honestly, I do think Josh's whole play was suicide. Like many fish, he's aggressive at the wrong times. He could have check-raised me on fourth or fifth, or even bet out one of those rounds and probably won the hand when I statistically had the better of him. I can't put him on rolled up tens or other such hands because he would have slow played early. His idea, I think, was to let me "bluff" at him over and over, and he was going to catch me, but then got scared when I got that gutshot on board. Yet, this hand troubles me so; I want to keep telling myself I made a read like a pro and played it just right, but losing (which was just statistically unlucky, of course, given the true cards), combined with the fact that I am so inexperienced at PL stud makes me wonder if that's just a bad case of poker ego.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-08 23:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 11:22 (UTC)Sincerely,
Former "noob" dealer
almost there.
Date: 2006-12-13 02:28 (UTC)Someone advised you that you played every street correctly. I don't exactly agree with this analysis. Instead of hoping that the 6 would fold on 3rd street to your flat call, I would have raised. Considering the pot odds your call offered him, he probably wasn't taking too much the worst of it if he was holding a three-straight or a small pair. At any rate, he folded on the next street, so you probably cared little whether or not he stuck around on 3rd. However, the raise would have been a signal to Josh that you had a hand that could beat a pair of 10s.
Your idea was to slow-play your queens. If you had held a better kicker (i.e., Jack or higher rather than a deuce), I would be inclined to agree with you. But not in this case. You correctly made him for the split pair of 10s. But you had no idea what his hole kicker was. I hope I'm not being confusing. My point is that if he's holding an Ace, King or Queen with the 10s, his pair becomes MUCH stronger than without. This is because if he pairs his kicker and you pair yours, he's way ahead of you. This is straight out of Chip Reese's Stud section of the original Supersytem.
Bottom line is that (Q-Q)-2 is not as strong against (10-x)-10 in Stud as pocket Queens are against pocket 10s in HE. The kicker really makes a difference. You're still ahead of your opponent, but this is not a hand that you can afford to slow-play.
I've been reading your blog (excuse me, poker journal) archives pretty much all day today, and I respect your body of work. I've learned a few things from reading your hand analyses. A few quick hits:
-Sorry about the anti-climatic WSoP run. What can you do? Hope you had fun.
-I like the way you've structured your home game. My blogging partner and I are considering using that as a template out here in Los Angeles (www.uclarounders.blogspot.com).
-It's good to have some intelligent discussion of cash game play out there -- not enough in the "hard" literature.
Good luck! And don't give up on Stud. Chip Reese's outline is the best I've seen around. I started playing $4-8 as my regular game at the Commerce after reading that, and I'm loving it.
Re: almost there.
Date: 2006-12-13 02:43 (UTC)my play on 5th street would depend on my read of Josh. if i felt he thought he was behind, I would make the same bet ($50) on 5th St and then finish him off on the turn by moving in. I doubt he would be able to call that amount with a measly pair of 10s (again, assuming he thought he was behind). if my read told me he was fairly unsure of where he stood, I would make the pot bet on 5th st. this results in one of 2 things. either he folds here and you pick up the pot right then (unlikely), or he reluctantly calls. if he makes this call, you can make another pot bet on 6th st, representing the straight. unless he's a total donk, he has to fold here. and even if he doesn't, you're still ahead with your queens and a gutshot. you're giving him a tougher decision, and taking the bluff-raise play away from him. you're forcing him to consider if you actually may have him beat.
one could argue that you got it all in with your Queens vs. his 10s. but it turns out you weren't really that far ahead -- you also had the straight draw but he had the flush draw. he also could have paired any of his cards (assuming you didn't pair yours). i guess my main point is a Stud hand before the river often has a lot more outs than a hold em hand on the turn. so you want to put the pressure on your opponents earlier rather than later, because if they call on 5th st, there's a good chance they're going "down the river."
Josh and the Club
Date: 2007-02-03 23:51 (UTC)I'm guessing he came in with a big plate of sushi or some messy food that you really didn't enjoy watching him eat. That would be typical.
The club wasn't run too poorly, and actually was a nice place to make a bit of money on the weekends.