What Should Work Dan Have Done?

[shipitfish]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Work Dan and I were playing at the U Club when a fellow dumped a nearly $500 stack to me. He rebought for around $200, and played for a while when the following hand came up between him and Work Dan.

Work Dan (W.D.) called behind this guy, let's call him Stack Dumper (S.D.) (in honor of his earlier dump to me), in late position when S.D. had raised to $10. They saw the flop five handed with $50 and with Dan in position (some earlier limpers called the raise when it came back around to them). S.D. had about $250 behind and W.D. had about $350.

The flop was K Q 9. S.D. bet $5. He'd never bet so little into a big pot like this. Dan made it $30 to go, the rest of the field folded, and S.D. min-reraised making it $60 to go. W.D. thought for a while and called. There was $170 in the pot and the saw the turn 2, which left the board without a flush draw.

S.D. thought for a moment and bet $55. Dan thought for nearly a minute and called. At this moment, I was beginning to feel that S.D. had JT. His play was extremely strange and didn't match up with his past behavior. I had no visual read on him that told me anything, but the betting sequence, especially given that it was so different from his past actions, seemed to shout JT.

On the river, which fell A, S.D. quickly grabbed the $5 chip covering his cards, put it on his remaining stack and pushed for $127 total into a $280 pot. W.D. thought for a long time. He looked at S.D. and said you have Broadway, don't you? You flopped the nuts, didn't you?. S.D. tried his best to look away, and finally met W.D.'s eyes and grinned and pushed his eyebrows up a few times. This, too, was out of character; he was a very serious player who didn't make faces like this and goof off like that. The only visual tell I noticed was that S.D. seemed pretty calm — which I usually read as a bluffer's tell — but I had no visual read when he bet the nuts to compare it to. I continued to think JT and was rooting for W.D. to fold what I thought was KQ.

W.D. thought and thought and finally called, very reluctantly. I just kept saying in my head that S.D. had the nuts. At the moment of the call, I figured W.D. must have had a set; I figured he'd fold KQ. S.D. showed the Q 7 for a middle pair bluff, and W.D. won with 9 9 for bottom set (on the flop).

W.D. and I debated for a long time about how he should have played it. I felt that he needed to decided on the flop or the turn if the guy had JT. If he felt there was a good chance a set was good, he had to move in on the flop or the turn. S.D. would overplay one pair for sure, but he might give up if a third straight card fell, or if the board paired, and he only held a good K. Also, if S.D. has AK, W.D. needed to charge S.D. to draw to a T.

But, after much debate, I realized I wasn't sure how to play it. I wondered some if W.D. could make it $120 to go on the flop and fold to a fourth raise, but that didn't make sense either; the hand seems too strong to fold even on a problematic board. Still, I don't think he's in a good spot when the turn blanks at him and he has to face a bet. Sure, he has position, but he's still trying to decide if the guy has the nuts or not. In the end, I don't know W.D.'s right move here.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/i_o_/]

may be, if SD had a different table image, WD wouldn't call'em.. as I understood, SD didn't play tight most of the game and had close to a maniac image. Its the only way I can explain why WD was calling all the way to the river.. with just a set.

Looking at the timing and "check-reraise slow playing" on turn, SD gave others a pretty good feeling that he actually got the nuts. That was pretty good bluff, you have to admit.

And WD played kinda "u never know with those people".. and at the end he got whole SD's stack, which he partially could loose if he moved in on flop or turn and scare SD out.

I, personally, would never just call all the way to the river with just a set.. If SD had open-ended draw or something, you don't want to give him turn or river to outdraw on you.. I personally would've try to scare him out on the turn.. but it just me :)

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Actually, S.D. had a tight image, just an overplayer of big pairs and top pair. He did the small-bet-reraise thing on the flop, not the turn. It was the right way to bluff, I agree, given that he'd done nothing like that all night. OTOH, I've found that people who suddenly play a hand completely differently are “melting down” as often as they are playing the nuts. I agree with you that W.D. has to make a big raise somewhere in the hand; I'm just not clear where.

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

i think dan played it fine. moving in or raising anywhere along the way is likely only to be called by hands that are beating us. calling down keeps in the hands we're beating. i would have played it close to the same way, although my flop raise would have been pot sized...the raise to $30 is kind of yuck.

[shipitfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I see your point. I always like your analysis because it takes into account how to get money from those hands that beat you. In this situation, I feel somewhat that there is no way this guy is folding top pair (remember: his M.O. is that he almost always overplays top pair). Therefore, we can charge him his whole stack right there on the flop and still get him in with top pair. KT, KQ, KJ, and AK are all auto-calls for this guy if Dan re-reraises on the flop. Given that KT, KJ, and KQ have outs even to bottom set, I tended toward thinking getting the chips in ont he flop was the right play for W.D. Thoughts?

[swolfe.livejournal.com]

i can't see a hand like KT staying in when we come over the top twice on the flop...even in the hands of the worst player. if there were any draws at all other than the gutshot, i'd be more in favor of just pushing the flop, but as is, i see it more as a "way ahead, way behind" situation (even though we have the draw to fill up to beat the straight). when WA/WB and facing aggression it's almost always better to let your opponent keep the lead.