I think I would've checked the flop and put an end to the trapping shenanigans on the turn. You're still going to get called by any ace which is what you want. When the ace comes on the river I'm checking, the only thing you could achieve by betting would be pushing out anyone with the other nine, but they'd still probably call you and maybe even raise you back unless you pushed all-in.

I think he could have made this move with any heart, knowing that if you didn't have the J you'd have a hard time calling. He's made great use of his position but I stand by my first sentence:

There are 8 possible hearts he could have and only one of them beats you, I think you're winning in this spot 7 out of eight times, factoring in the chance of a stone cold bluff. If you really think he's scared of you then it makes his move even more likely to be a desparate attempt to get ahead. I'm good enough to know when I'm being outplayed and when that happens I start gambling, it could be what he's doing here.

Plus if I was in his place with the nuts I wouldn't lump it all in like that in what sounds like a grinding heads battle. I'd raise it back for another thousand or so knowing I'd get a call from almost any heart. His all-in smells to me of desparate bluff.

Jezza's answer is has a lot going for it but personally I've faced too many cold decks and vicious beats (against players I knew I owned) to pass up a chance like this, I'm calling and I'm happy with my decision if I've got it wrong.

Good thread sir.

In winkie's place I'd put you on bugger all. Not betting the flop or turn would make me think you've got no piece of the board, which makes betting out on the end look like a last ditch attempt to nab a pot nobody else wants. It seems inconceivable that you'd check a nine twice and then bet out when it was at it's most useless. At no point in this hand would I be close to putting you on what you were actually holding.

If I had my brave hat on I'd have done exactly as winkie did, unfortunately my testacles shrink the closer to the bubble I get, and so I probably would just let you have it and said something lame like "nice bluff, you can have it this time".

In your spot I think I would have been a lot more confident. I've made such a good job of looking like a no-hand-holding pot thief that I've almost begged him to raise me back with any picture card. Now I'm sure the nine is good and I call, hoping to be hailed by one and all as a poker master.

If he shows the dreaded ace I think I could handle it. It would be just punishment for arsing up the hand so spectacularly.

I don't want my response to sound critical because from all the posts of yours I've read Tight End, I rate your poker brain very highly. All the more so for being able to post a hand that isn't all that flattering. I look forward to hearing how it ended. Please let me be right.

Bob

I don't know, I think Matt could be right about Wycombe not winning the premiership next year. Gorman's good but that would be pushing it.

Anyway Mr F, what I actually said was "the site is set up so that good players that play consistently good poker will win in the long term."

So you're still screwed.

Although in truth there is a slight bias towards anyone with a funny name. Which explains why the player "nuttypoolog" does so well.

An automatic all-in in any situation when heads up. I'd say anything from KK to AA, but if you're one of those crazy loose players maybe QQ.

Any other hand you'd want to take additional factors into consideration.

This answer is a bit lame but "any situation" is a lot of situations. Imagine playing someone who folds the first 40 hands he gets and then moves all-in pre-flop when you hold JJ. What would you do? I'd lay that puppy down and keep taking his blinds. It's a pretty extreme example but not impossible. If I looked down to find A10 off in this scenario I wouldn't be able to fold them quick enough.

You might need to narrow the question down a bit to get a good technical answer.

It's too tight for my liking. I reckon if you were put in this spot ten times you'd be ahead in at least 7 of them.

I don't think we know enough about your opponent to put him on AA or KK, you'd need a better read than the info we can get from this hand. In $20 sng's I've seen moves like that with all kinds of rubbish. I might play it a similar way if I was you opponent holding as little as 7h8h, especially if I have a stack in front of me as this player did. In tourneys aggression pays off and this hand is an example of that.

I'd say you were letting past beats cloud your judgement here. It's good to learn lessons from previous mistakes but don't become one of those bitter, twisted "I never play low pairs because I never flop a set" type-people. Stay rational.

There are ways to play that would've gained a little more info here. A min re-raise pre-flop would normally bring a giveaway all-in from any big PPs, likewise, as ACE2M says, a check-raise on the flop would be a good information getter. But you weren't to know you'd need this info later in the hand and you can't be blamed for the way you played it.

Personally, I'd have got all my chips in after he raised pre-flop. If he has the best of me well good for him, he should be raising his big PPs more than that pre-flop or he's going to get hurt. If I win the hand, which I think you would have, then I'm going to finish in the top two, and that's where most of the money is.



 

ifm, it wasn't your criticism of the play I had an issue with, it was the way you phrased it. For a place full of sunshine and smiles (yeah I'm talking about the Blonde Forum) the words "terrible call" were harsh and unjustified. As far as your play goes it looks as though you'd be the only player on this thread to get away form the hand with most of your stack in tact.

I think the case for all-in has already been beautifully made by us chuck-it-all-in merchants by rivered, M3boy and myself, so I just have one niggly issue with the case for the other side.

It seems to be common opinion that AJ can't be moved from this pot and is going to get all his chips in regardless. Well that's not really how I read the hand. Canuck bet into the flop with a sort of tickly bet which induced a bluff from his opponent. Using my expert powers of deduction (sarcasm) I reckon he was trying to represent a Q. Had Canuck or DC moved all-in before him I'm pretty sure he'd have laid down the hand as there was no chance to win the pot without a showdown. Canuck's bet opened the door for AJ to make a last ditch attempt to steal the pot.

I'm not saying Canuck should've moved all-in on the flop (you all know the point in the hand where I would've pushed) as that could've been suicidal with the paired board. I'm suggesting that perhaps the player isn't as big a fish as it seems and may lay down AJ pre-flop to the re-raise, because the rest of the hand gives no genuine evidence that he won't. He made the last six of this tourney, maybe he's actually quite good. No, that's just silly talk.

I agree with most of what's been said so far. After the flop you played it right and got unlucky. After reading the initial post I thought calling the all-in was a good move. After reading your response to ifm's criticism, I'm now of the opinion it was a great move. Changing your mind because you've gained more info about your opponent's hand shows a quick thinking adaptability that will serve you well in all forms of poker.

My concern is your thought process pre-flop. You seemed more concerned with DC in the big blind than by the tight player who has just raised your blinds. To me you took the one course of action that had the least to recommend it. By calling the raise you gave DC value to call too. If you were so bothered by his presence in the hand the last thing you'd want to do is let him in it and take him on where any pro is most dangerous, post-flop. You had them both covered and you had every right to think you had the best hand. Sounds like an an ideal chance to put all your chips into one teetering pile slide them in the middle and declare "I'm all-in fishies, call me at your peril!"

So I'm with M3 on this one. It's not the most sophisticated move but it would do the job here.

Bob

Thanks everyone! It's good to be here.

Though Mr F's hand analysis is frequently excellent it'll be nice to have people who aren't stinking fish-bags look over my play once in a while.

I've looked on other poker forums before but they were full of opinionated know-it-alls already, so there was no use for me there. Besides, any group of people that get Mr F up to Birmingham for a weekend and rinse his cash out of him are truly wonderful people. I look forward to meeting and congratulating you all personally.

Bobwah

Well alright then, what kind of ravenous hand vulture would I be to leave it there.

With only the flush draw to fall back on, JP would've known the chance of winning the hand at this point was only 40% at best. Hence the semi-bluff. The idea of the semi-bluff is two-fold; disguise a drawing hand and try to win the pot without a showdown. In this case it's more about winning without a showdown and not having to draw to the flush. By making the move JP's given himself a better chance of winning the pot.

The problem is the way the hand was played suggested very strongly that the semi-bluff would be called. The guy bet out convincingly after being re-raised a considerable amount pre-flop, to me that says he's hit or has a very strong drawing hand, neither of which is good news to JP. I'd say if you played the same hand ten times you'd be lucky to get one fold in that spot. So the odds remain firmly in AQ-man's favour.

Personally I'd have folded to the flop-bet, but I see huge value in making this sort of move early in a tournament. To JP's credit it was the pre-flop re-raise that makes me certain that his later semi-bluff was a wasted effort. Being bet into was a big sign of the opposition's strength and moving all-in despite this was a little bit poker-by-numbers. But as I mentioned before I put this down solely to frustration, JP is a class act. 

To say he put all his chips in with rubbish isn't fair because the theory behind it was sound. And he was better off being called by AQ than he would've been against a bigger flush draw, that would leave just 4 outs.

I think I'm done but I'm happy for my reasoning to be torn apart. It's the only way I'll learn

Bob

In answer the original question, no I don't agree with that guy. He was wrong to say it and what he said was wrong. That's a double helping of wrongness.

While there was a certain amount of cock-waving I liked the play. There's too much going on in the hand to go into it in minute detail but I think on the balance you showed a much greater understanding of successful tournament play than AQ man.

I love the fact you had the balls to re-raise pre-flop with suited rags, though I prefer them spaced a little more closely (7-9 or 8-10 say). In these dark days where everyone has read the same FPP-purchasable poker books you need to think outside the box to get anywhere. You may as well make these gambling plays in the second level rather than five hours in.

Having said that, once he'd bet out so convincingly I think trying to get him to fold with the all-in raise was very ambitious. I think you probably knew that you were taking the arse-end of a coin-flip but frustration got the better of you. In his place I'd have called too. If you won't see through the hand with AQ when you flop an A then why play it in the first place.

Bob

Thanks guys, I think I'm going to like it here.

Been a while since I got addicted to an online forum. Ah the heady days of the student tenpin bowling scene...

Now I must go and add my tuppence to every other semi-interesting thread!

Bob

I can't believe I've signed up just to publicly defend my actions against that trouty Mr F.

I am said "mte" who made this move. Allow me to give a little more detail on the hand: The three smooth calls were all from middle to late position, so I had no reason to believe anyone was using the ol' flat-call-utg-with-aces trap. Also, I hadn't made this particular move at any point in the tourney up until this point. The smooth callers had no reason to think that I'd do anything but decline my option and take a cheap flop. I figured the very worst I could be up against would be a low PP that had been cowardly unraised in late position. Oh yeah, and let's not forget this is a 45-man turbo, if you just sit waiting for big PPs you're going to come 34th, FACT.

What makes Mr F so smug about this is that he knows how the story ends. Using his phenomenal power of hindsight, he can safely say I did a dumb thing.

The action folded round to the SB who called with AK. I lost.

Luckily it was only six dollars, and even more fortunate is that it was Mr F's money.

Who's the fish now, Mr "let my ultra loose mate who thinks he knows everything about poker play on my account" F?

Clue: It's you, fishy fishy fish fish.

Okay I've got it out of my system. Nice to meet you all!

Bob