There is often a sense of relief or quiet elation when, after calling a bet or a raise with a pair that may or may not be good, that card pairs the board, giving the player trips. More often than not that means the player is going to win the hand, but sometimes it's a figurative death sentence. Here's a hand I played a few days ago where that was the case:
Seat 1: UTG ($30.81 in chips)
Seat 2: UTGplus1 ($16.94 in chips)
Seat 3: UTGplus2 ($117.95 in chips)
Seat 4: Donzo ($97.50 in chips)
Seat 5: Small Blind ($202.73 in chips)
Seat 6: Big Blind ($103.47 in chips)
Small Blind: posts small blind $0.50
Big Blind: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Donzo [Ac Js]
UTG: folds
UTGplus1: folds
UTGplus2: calls $1
Donzo: raises $4 to $4
Small Blind: folds
Big Blind: calls $3
UTGplus2: folds
*** FLOP *** [As 8h 9c]
Big Blind: checks
Donzo: bets $6
Big Blind: raises $12 to $12
Donzo: calls $6
Preflop is normal, as we're dealt AJ on the button , raise to 4x with one limper and get a caller in the big blind. The flop comes A89 rainbow and we bet $6 for value. The villain then min raises to $12. At this point we should be somewhat concerned, as the size of the raise is small and gives us roughly 4.5:1 odds to call. There are a lot of plausible hands here, from A8-AK, 88-99, and an open-ended straight draw. However, the likelihood of a straight draw, particularly considering the bet sizing, is low. Regardless, because of the cheap price we decide to call and reevaluate on the turn.
*** TURN *** [As 8h 9c] [Ah]
Big Blind: bets $33.50
Donzo: calls $33.50
The turn brings another ace and the villain bets the size of the pot. At this point we have to think about both the likelihood of a bluff and whether the villain would ever be betting an inferior ace like this for value. It's conceivable that the villain could have AT or AJ, but beyond that there isn't much that makes sense. A min-raise on the flop with A7 or worse would be an odd play, but not unprecedented. There is still a chance that the villain could have 67 or JT for the straight draw and be attempting to bet us off an 8, 9, or larger pocket pair, but in truth, that's aspirational thinking.We have no notes or indication that the player was extremely aggressive and thus likely to play a straight draw in such a way. And while all that occurred to me at the time, I allowed the mere fact that I had improved so much on the turn to blind me to the truth that I could only rarely have the best hand. We end up calling with the assumption that we'll probably have to call a shove on the river.
*** RIVER *** [As 8h 9c Ah] [5d]
Big Blind: bets $53.97 and is all-in
Donzo: calls $48.00 and is all-in
A 5 comes on the river, which brings in one of the two possible straights. The villain shoves for $54 and, getting about 3:1 on a call and ignoring the glaring reality that the only possible hands we can beat are JT and AT, we call and the villain shows AQ.
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Big Blind: shows [Ad Qs] (three of a kind, Aces)
Donzo: Mucks [Ac Js] (Three of a kind)
It's easy to look at a hand like this and say, "I had trips and just ran into a slightly bigger hand, no big deal." To do so is a mistake and fails to recognize that AQ is one of the weakest hands in the villain's range with how the action went down. Remember, not only is the villain's line strong in a vacuum, but the way we've played the hand indicates that we have at least an ace, or perhaps occasionally a straight draw for a very bad player. Therefore, the villain's actions become that much stronger and decrease the likelihood of a bluff or a value bet with a weaker ace. But at the time, I convinced myself that this player might be bad enough to play a weaker ace this way, or just be donking off money on a draw.
The key is not to allow oneself to be seduced by the absolute value of a hand; when we play NLHE, we're not playing video poker, and it doesn't matter what we have if our opponent almost always has us beat.
No comments:
Post a Comment