I Should Be Able To Make This Lay Down

[shipitfish]

Most of my readers will probably think I am insane for considering this laydown in this situation. I think, however, that I misplayed this hand. I also have somewhat of a moral obligation to post this, as nick_marden once lost a big pot with a very similar situation and I told him what I am telling myself at the end of this post.

I was playing $1/$2 NL HE, $200 max online at Full Tilt Poker. Historically, these games are the types of tight weak games I've written about so often. However, lately, they have been more loose-passive.

I was at a six player table, and a few people had busted. We were dealt a hand with three people suddenly after two people left simultaneously (one busted and one left on his own). I was in the BB with J J. The button, Quyzzie, raised to $7, which was a standard preflop raise. I hadn't been at the table but for a dozen hands, but Quyzzie was playing pretty loose from what I saw, but not with his preflop raises. His vice seemed to be bad one-pair hands on the flop.

The largest stack at the table, who seemed to be a strong player (named Mikechike) made it $20 to go from the SB. I gave Mikechike credit for a big hand here. I figured he had a pair between TT-AA, AK, or AQ.

I had a tough decision. I felt that it was a tough laydown to make three-handed, and a reraise from Quyzzie meant I had to fold preflop. I had $252 behind, Mikechike had me covered ($258), and Quyzzie had only $87. I decided to call the $18 cold, and be done with the hand if Quyzzie reraised or if I missed the set. Quyzzie just called.

The flop came J 5 A. Mikechike paused for a moment and bet $18 into the $60 pot. I actually considered a set of aces as a possible hand. AK was the other very likely possibility, making his bet hoping that someone with a weaker ace would raise . But, I was realistically worried about AA (for all the good it did me).

I decided to set Quyzzie all-in. This way I could look to Mikechike like I wanted to be heads up with Quyzzie, and force him to a decision knowing one player would be all-in. (I expected Quyzzie to call with any Ace, and it seemed somewhat likely he had one — my feeling about his preflop raise was Ace-high.) I made it $67 to go. Quyzzie insta-called (yes, I usually try to avoid that cutesie online poker term.). I really felt he would have thought some about putting his stack at risk with KK or a flush draw, so I was pretty confident he had an Ace. Mikechike called somewhat quickly behind him.

I thought Mikechike might have a flush draw here, but I realized after the hand I couldn't put him on this. The only one that made sense is K Q, and it would have been pretty odd preflop behavior for that holding. In a sense, I think I have to put him on exactly AA at that point, because he'd take the opportunity to protect AK. (Remember, my only read on him is that he's a pretty good, reasonable player.)

Therefore, when the turn falls T, Mikechike checks, and and the pot stands at $261, I think I can check instead of betting my last $166 (which is what I did). Of course, Mikechike "insta-called" in his own right. Mikechike had the only hand that made sense — A A. (For the curious, Quyzzie had A Q — overplaying one pair again. Again, for all the good it did me, my read on Quyzzie was right.)

If I instead check the turn, and that 7 that came on the river arrives, Mikechike likely puts in a value bet. I may have to call up to $100 there, but I might be able to fold for all-in. Indeed, AK seems even less likely when he just checked the turn. Meanwhile, if I check the turn, and the flush doesn't come, how much if any should I call when he value bets top set?

Finally, is this all just a stupid marginal discussion? Should I have made the "more obvious" right play of folding preflop, even though we were three-handed?

I have to admit Mikechike played it as I would have — trying to sell it as a flush draw to two obviously made hands that can't have anything but runner-runner flush outs, and therefore they are left drawing dead on the turn. Even if Quyzzie does have the flush draw, Mikechike can safely check the turn, because I conveniently already charged Quyzzie the maximum to see the river. But, I should have seen past it because no flush draws coincide with the preflop action.

I think I should be ashamed of myself. If it's the 5 J A instead of the A 5 J , maybe the flush draw with an AK becomes more likely and I have to just take the beat. But the board the way it was, I should have walked away $166 richer than I did.

Anyway, all I have left to say to myself (on Mikechike's behalf) on this hand is: Ship It, Fish!

Comments

[patty-bush.livejournal.com]

Do you think that AJ could have been one of his possible holdings as well? Three handed, it would seem some what reasonable to reraise preflop with it, or do you think that's too weak of a hand to reraise with?

Putting players on hands is very difficult for me, it's one of my worst flaws.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I think AJ is highly unlikely. I think he'd probably just call the $7 and take a flop from the SB with that, even three handed. To put that preflop reraise in, I believe strongly he needed AK, AQ, or TT-AA. After the flop action, there are basically only two hands I can consider — AK and AA. I thought at the time K Q was a reasonable (if remote) possibility, but in later analysis, it's clear I shouldn't have been considering that hand at all, since while the flop action is consistent with that holding, it's as unlikely as it is with AJ that he'd reraise preflop from the SB with KQs.

I really feel that I lost the $67 on the flop honorably, but I have to move my read to purely AA after he just calls that. Even though I knew only a little about his play, I have to be able to make the connection and realize the only hand he reraises with preflop and slow plays on the flop is AA.

There's also an argument that I should have folded preflop. I'm really trying to decide which of those two was correct. Steven, are you out there? I need your brilliance on this one. :)

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Oh, another thing to note is the game had just — in the last two hands — gone from a "full" six-handed table to three handed. It's likely that the players haven't adjusted are still playing a fuller game mentality.

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

What I need to know is... how do you have enough time to go through all this stuff in your head in the 15 seconds or so that they give you to act online?

I always have the problem of not having enough time when I play online.

T

[patty-bush.livejournal.com]

ditto

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I didn't start to get good at this until after reading the Psychology of Poker by Shoonmaker. One of his key pieces of advice is to "sub-vocalize all of your reasoning". The idea is that you should say in your head to yourself, "I am doing this because of X, and I think he has Y or Z," rather than taking a gut feeling and going with it. Once you start saying things word-by-word in your head on every hand, you get to doing it quickly. After all, if the thoughts are coming to you anyway, the only hard part is turn them into words in your head quickly. If you are generally a quick thinking in other areas, that's a skill that you can develop by sheer practice.

Indeed, the practice is key. I developed the ability to do it quickly by watching the action of each and every hand, and sub-vocalizing the thoughts every time, no matter who was playing and no matter whether they were calling, raising or folding. Remember, it's a common misconception that you aren't "playing poker" once you folded; you have a job to do after folding, which is the very one I'm describing here. Once you do that over and over, these thoughts just come to you quickly. Obviously, they don't occur in my head in proper English and readable as they do above — I do post processing on the thoughts before posting. But, the basic ideas are there within seconds at game time (except, when as I point out with the KQs in this example, I revise my thinking in at post mortem time). And, the only reason I can do it quickly is thanks to tons and tons of practice over thousands of hands.

If I'd had infinite time online, I would have been able to eliminate KQs and probably been more able to fold. OTOH, I'd also have realized something I realized on the subway about this hand this morning — that it was even less likely Mikechike held AA because I read one of the A's as dead in Quyzzie's hand. So, thinking fast can be a burden, but it can also save you from considering tangents that are best left for the subway, and keep you focused on "just the facts".

In my experience, every time the action is to me, I only need three sentences in my head to choose the (typically) correct play. If you notice my reports of hand analysis, there are usually only three sentences that summarize why I made the act I did. Those are usually the three sentences that were in my head at the actual moment. The rest is fluff to make the thing more nice to read in the blog. :)

[tmckearney.livejournal.com]

Well, based on your recommendation, I just ordered that book, along with 2 others: An Ace on the River (based on patty's recommendation) and Winning Low-Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones (based on Wil Wheaton's recommendation).

I've read a couple of Phil Gordon's books. I liked The Little Green Book.

The other thing I question is, how wmuch money does it wind up costing you while you learn these things? I'm not sure my wife would tolerate me losing a pile of cash to learn how to play poker better :)

T

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I started writing a long response to your comment, but decided it would make a nice new post. I'll put it up on Monday as a new post.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I think I get stacked every time there. Top set over middle set, his hand range is expanded because of the blind war. Him checking the turn with top set is a pretty bad play because of all the draws out there, he should have just gone all in with his set on the turn anyway. Mike just called your flop bet so he could indeed have a hand like KQs or even KTs, he could have an underset to your set, he could have top two pair, he could have AK or AQ. He has a wide range of hands that you are crushing and on top of that you have less than the pot in front of you. It's not like you are calling a pot sized bet on the turn and another one on the river, you are getting 2.5 to 1 on your money if he had just bet all in on the turn with second set. You gotta call, there are too many possible hands he can have that you beat. If the stacks were deeper it would be a different story, but you just don't have enough money in front of you to really make folding a consideration. Well, in my opinion at least. I am a no limit fish.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comments. However, you artfully avoided the other question: should I have tossed JJ preflop when a player I know little about except "seems pretty good" reraises?

[roryk.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. A noob raised on the button and had been raising loose. A good player reraised from the SB. Why does the good player have to have a huge hand? The good player knows the noob could have a wide range of hands, why does his reraise need to immediately mean TT-AA, AK or AQ or AJ or AT or KQ or KJ? Why not 77 or 88 or 99? The button has been raising a lot of hands and could just be trying to win the blinds. The SB is good and knows that so his reraising range could be much wider than normal. You know the good SB knows the buttons range could be wide so you know the SBs range is wider than normal so your range of playing against the SBs range should be wider than normal so I would happily call with JJ there and I would also think that JJ was probably the best hand going to the flop too. Too bad you ran into AA this time and flopped the second set. I think most of the time you stack the SBs more-likely AK or AQ or top two and ship his stack to you immediately.

[roryk.livejournal.com]

There should be a why not in there somewhere after TT-AA, AK or AQ.

some thoughts

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

it's not really a question about whether or not to lose your stack here...the question is actually this: did you play it in such a way that AK or worse will get it in with you? if he's a solid player like you said, then he's not calling your turn push with one pair...especially not with the other guy all-in.

i think you need to check the turn to induce a bet from AK/AJs.

if someone bets, then quickly calls a raise, then checks to the raiser, they almost always have either a draw or a monster.

folding preflop depends on stack sizes. you're on the borderline of the 5/10 rule, so you have to ask yourself: will i be able to get his stack if i hit my set? if he's a good player that will generally not go to the felt with one pair, then i think laying it down preflop is fine.

Re: some thoughts

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

As I suggested in the post itself, I see the merits of checking the turn instead of betting all-in. But, I'm curious: how do you reconcile your very good point of "betting correctly so I get the money in when against AK/AQ/AJ" and "what if the guy does have the flush draw"? As you point out, betting then just calling a big bet indicates "draw or monster". I hadn't played with him for terribly long, but I think this guy wouldn't think AK/AQ/AJ was a monster. But, on the off-chance he does have K Q, don't I need to bet all-in on the turn?

As for whether the guy would get it all-in with one pair, I'm not sure. I think maybe he wouldn't, but many otherwise good players in online $1/$2 games sometimes overplay things like top pair, nut kicker and two pair.

Re: some thoughts

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

i would find it impossible to put him on a flush draw, especially with the Ah on the board. solid players pretty much aren't reraising KQs from the SB...i think the risk of giving a free card on the turn are minimal, and outweighed heavily by inducing another bet (or a check-call) from AK.

something else to think about is that the raise and check-behind on the turn is a play that i would make if i was the one holding the strong flush draw.

Re: some thoughts

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

I am in agreement here; I am pretty convinced that check-behind on the turn was the best play. I am still confused about how I should play the heart coming on the river facing a big bet, though, even if I read him as unlikely for a flush draw.