Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Poker Education & Beginners Questions / Old Hand Analysis Section /

Nut flush on the river - would you call?

 
Old
Default
Nut flush on the river - would you call? - Thu Nov 10, 2011, 03:54 PM
(#1)
Schnech's Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 104
I guess today is my "fun hands" day.

I didn't have any information on the player, but found in the first 20 hands at the table, that the action was pretty weak. I guess that made me raising AQs from that early position - though I got through to the blinds. The guy in the small blind was pretty loose passive in the first 20 hands.



What do you think, given the action? Would you make the call? I mean I get great odds on this one - that is for sure. I don't know if I like my play on the turn, but I kind of wanted to find out, where I am at in the hand. What do you think?
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 04:20 PM
(#2)
mtnestegg's Avatar
Since: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,336
At 3.4/1 on your call, you only have to be right roughly 1 time in 4 to make that call profitable. If your read that this guy is passive is right, after he jams the river, are you good 1 time in 4? When LAPS (loose passive) players suddenly turn aggressive, they generally got the goods. tricky lil spot, if your initial read is right, but I.m a donk so i'm probably calling but seeing my chips go elsewhere on that paired board
Oops.misread this one a bit sorry... You said SB was passive, not BB With no real reads on him its a call w/o scarin' too much of the crap outta me...

Last edited by mtnestegg; Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 07:01 PM..
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 04:33 PM
(#3)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schnech View Post
I guess today is my "fun hands" day.

What do you think, given the action? Would you make the call? I mean I get great odds on this one - that is for sure. I don't know if I like my play on the turn, but I kind of wanted to find out, where I am at in the hand. What do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnestegg View Post
At 3.4/1 on your call, you only have to be right roughly 1 time in 4 to make that call profitable. If your read that this guy is passive is right, after he jams the river, are you good 1 time in 4? When LAPS (loose passive) players suddenly turn aggressive, they generally got the goods. tricky lil spot, if your initial read is right, but I.m a donk so i'm probably calling but seeing my chips go elsewhere on that paired board


Yeah, I call those all the time - not sure what my rationale is ... I guess pot odds. Although, honestly with me yeah it's probably more being unwilling to let go, even though the signs were there. Sometimes I feel like such a fish

They have 88?
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 04:42 PM
(#4)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,809
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
I like the raise preflop. If you're going to get into the hand from UTG, do NOT limp.

On the flop, you can raise, but calling with top pair, 2nd best kicker and nut flush draw is a good place to be, so you may not want to chase off the opp by raising.

The opp isn't playing this one passive, as they're betting every street first, instead of checking to you. By them betting the flop and turn, they've got either an A, 2 pair, a set or 2 clubs (KQ?). Calling your raise pre and then leading out with the flop screams to me that they have Ax.

I like your turn raise. The opp calling it would reaffirm my range of A, 2 pair, set or outside chance at KQ/KJ clubs.

The opp check/raises you on the river when a club hits. Now, I'd narrow their range to KQ/KJ clubs, 2 pair with K kicker (AK initially), or a full house. You need to put in $1.85 into a pot of $8.31, or 22.6%. If your hand wins 22.6% or more of the time, then it's a correct call.

If I had to put the opp on a hand pre, that works for the hand, it would be AK.... and the opp will show up with AK or KQ/KJ cl or Ax that doesn't hit a full house) more than 22.6% of the time... so I'm calling it.
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 05:02 PM
(#5)
Schnech's Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 104
Thanks again. That really starts to get funny and - more importantly - very helpful! to you guys!

Well it took me a long time, I was actually also worried about 88s here, but I also sumed this up and thought, he would definitely shipped it on the turn.

So this is how this turned out:

 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 05:09 PM
(#6)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schnech View Post

I didn't have any information on the player, but found in the first 20 hands at the table, that the action was pretty weak.
Oh, by weak I thought you meant passive, not aggro leaky from oop

Here's one of mine:



I wish I had just called on the river.
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 05:23 PM
(#7)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,809
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
Sam, in yours, there are a few different things......

first, on the flop, you had to put 44% into a flop that you MIGHT have 40% equity in (if you win with a club). That makes the flop call marginal at best, and most likely a fold.

When you hit the club on the turn.... if you're going to call a river bet... ship it right then and there. Do not let the opp see the river without paying for it. You don't want to let them see a board pair or another club without making them pay the max to do so.

You really should have shipped the turn in that one.
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 05:50 PM
(#8)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
Sam, in yours, there are a few different things......

first, on the flop, you had to put 44% into a flop that you MIGHT have 40% equity in (if you win with a club). That makes the flop call marginal at best, and most likely a fold.

When you hit the club on the turn.... if you're going to call a river bet... ship it right then and there. Do not let the opp see the river without paying for it. You don't want to let them see a board pair or another club without making them pay the max to do so.

You really should have shipped the turn in that one.
Thx JWK for the feedback

I only play this way at the $1.50 tables because people don't fold, so the implied odds for flush draws are massive. Like what you said about pot odds being dicey there ... even assuming the initial raiser would call the reraise for an extra 90 chips, making it 180 for me to call to win a pot of 675, the implied odds are more like 180 for me to call to win 3000 by the river because people will still call a shove with just a pair, 2pr, set, etc. So that's why I did it.

And then same thing about what you said about shoving on the turn ... nobody ever folds at this level with hands like TP and flush draw, or 2pr or a set, especially when they have my stack covered. So by waiting I guess I feel like that gives me more ... like if I want to shove on the river, people will still call, but if the river card is bad then I've still got the option of withdrawing from the hand, or at least pot-controlling (sometimes).

But I've been worrying a lot lately about some of the habits I've been picking up at this level. Because the play's going to be so different at the $3.50 level - like I'm sure it would lose me more chips than it would win ...

Last edited by TrustySam; Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 05:58 PM..
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 06:23 PM
(#9)
JWK24's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 24,809
(Super-Moderator)
BronzeStar
that may work with alot of players in the $1.50... but watch out making an assumption that all will play like that. I've seen alot more than 1 shark in those!
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 07:02 PM
(#10)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
that may work with alot of players in the $1.50... but watch out making an assumption that all will play like that. I've seen alot more than 1 shark in those!
Make that "nobody with a VPIP of 79%" ... those two were really loose.

On the other hand, yeah there are some real sharks for sure . I try to avoid the regulars like 'catburglarrr', but these games are so popular, there's always some at every game - I only play one at a time, and give the tables 100% attention, but even that's not always enough.

It's all good though - even when I lose, it's a chance to learn more about leaks. So no plans on moving up anytime soon.

 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 08:28 PM
(#11)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
To OP:

Everything here is pretty standard and straight forward until the turn.
Pre-Flop, AQs is a strong enough hand to raise in EP at a loose table, especially one somewhat passive.
Flopping top pair with the nut flush draw, then seeing a donk lead by a player you are reading as loose and passive MAY be an indication you are behind.
that gives you every reason to pot control in hopes of spiking the flush, OR in hopes of getitng to the river somewhat cheaply in case you are beaten.

I do not really "get" your turn action though...

Not only does the small turn raise deviate from what may be valid reasons for vfollowing a pot control line, your turn actions may well have opened you to a "mistake fold" on the river.

A small raise on the turn should only be made when you are CERTAIN you want that raise called, or whether you are CERTAIN that if the villain calls or raises you are not going to put any more money into the pot without improvement. Neither was really the case in this hand.

Consider...

Your turn raise was to an amount only about 1.2 times the initial raise (45c was the bet, you made it 55c more to go). This is quite small.

You really should be raising in NLHE only when:

A) you think you have a good chance of holding the best hand
B) you think by your raise you think you can get a better hand to fold

The villain has led into you twice now, and your read is that he is loose and passive.
That means despite you holding top pair/2nd kicker, until and unless you spike the nut flush, you cannot really be "sure" whether you hold the best hand now.
That means you really cannot raise to keep in line with reason #A above, right?

A small raise is really not going to "work" to fold out hand stronger than your top pair/Q kicker plus A hi flush draw hand.
It COULD work to fold out better hands if you held bottom pair (or nothing at all), and you thought the villain might not hold a top pair hand, but it ain't working to fold out top/2nd+...uh uh, now way! That means you cannot really be following reason #B above either, right?

BUT...

NLHE is not a "science", and open-ness of the betting structure allows for some potential "cross over" of reasons for a bet or raise.

This leaves open the "reasonableness" of you raising the turn instead of continuing to control the pot, simply because the villain MIGHT call that raise on a lesser Ace than the one you are holding, and you want that extra value in. BUT...

The thing is, a SMALL RAISE leaves too much "power" within the villain's stack to work for anything except a hand you are really certain is the best. On the stack sizes in this hand, any raise you make on the turn MUST serve to clarify your river decision, or else you are better off CALLING the turn bet to see if you can make your nut flush. If that small raise gets called by the villain, you are in the same spot you'd be in by checking in terms of whether or not he holds AK or 2 pair+, but with MORE money at risk.

A more "standard" raise sizing would have been to about 1.5 times the bet ($1.15 to go) on the low end, and 2.5 times the bet (~$1.60 to go). Personally, I'd be partial to making a raise as large as about $1.75 to go here. Why?

Well, a raise such as that will still fold out worse draws, but the raise you made "should" fold out worse draws too.
If the villain is so "bad" that he would call your small raise on a lesser club draw, an extra 50c or 60c may well not cause him to fold either.
At least if you both miss flush draws on the river, and the larger raise got called, you have MORE money in than you would have had with the smaller raise.

If the villain calls the larger amount, you also know you are not betting anything on the river without seeing another club.
You might CALL something on the river, but the larger raise has served notice that there is a strong chance you are not on the best hand, so if the villain jams and you still have just 1 pair, you can probably fold. It also means that if you do make your nut flush, you are certainly calling, even if you see the board pair (as in the actual hand).

The larger raise also is better because there is a minor chance that a bigger raise MIGHT fold out hands like A4/A8 who believe it is you on the set, or you might have made a better 2 pair on the T. Sure, this is a tiny chance versus a loose and passive palyer, but the chance with a bigger raise is far greater than with the smaller raise you choose to make.

As played, the board pairing AND you making your flush puts you in a "trick bag" of either passing up extra value with the A high flush (by checking behind due to the board pairing, or seeing a check/raise jam that may be a made boat. Personally, if I am not willing to raise larger on the turn, I simply cannot justify betting this river here; there is jsut too much chance the villain will either FOLD lesser hands, or jam on a C/R.

That means if I had maintained a pot control line on the turn, I can keep it up rather than try for what might be "thin value" on the paired board (granted, it may seem wierd to think of an A hi flush as "thin value", but as played here it probably is). I can also leverage this "thin value" a little bit better, by making it LESS POSSIBLE for a non FH hand to shove over my river bet on the paired board club.

If I had raised MORE on the turn, the pot is probably grown enough that any A pretty much has to call my bet on the river, and I am going to get paid. Also, the larger river raise makes a shove by me totally "reasonable", and that negates any possibility of a re-jam but the villain that I MIGHT be scared to call.

So...

I think the only foot you put "wrong" in this hand really was setting yourself up for a HARDER river decision than you needed to. You could have either checked to maintain a pot control line on the turn, or raised MORE to either clarify a decison to either fold or check behind on the river (without a club showing), or to make putting the rest of your chips in on ANY club a lot easier.

I cannot say you played the hand "wrong", since in the end you had the heart to go ahead and call the jam after you made your value bet on the A hi flush, but there is a chance you may have LOST VALUE and COST YOURSELF MORE than you had to, if you were behind. There definately is benefit in not putting yourself in "tricky" decision spots, because the fewer you are in, the less chance there is you make a mistake. so while you did not really make a mistake here, you MIGHT have...

...and taking a different path may have made the potential for a mistake less.

Last edited by JDean; Thu Nov 10, 2011 at 08:33 PM..
 
Old
Default
Thu Nov 10, 2011, 09:40 PM
(#12)
TrustySam's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,291
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWK24 View Post
Sam, in yours, there are a few different things......

first, on the flop, you had to put 44% into a flop that you MIGHT have 40% equity in (if you win with a club). That makes the flop call marginal at best, and most likely a fold.

When you hit the club on the turn.... if you're going to call a river bet... ship it right then and there. Do not let the opp see the river without paying for it. You don't want to let them see a board pair or another club without making them pay the max to do so.

You really should have shipped the turn in that one.
JWK - it might not sound like I'm listening sometimes, but I am

I think I've had such good results some of the time with those implied odds hands (suited, lower pocket pairs), that I've come to associate good things with them, and therefore play them way too often. Especially when the blinds are higher, I'm new to a table, etc.

I couldn't stop thinking about your comments, and so I cooled it a lot with the 10FPP 10th Anniversary qualifier and had really positive results - had a much MUCH less stressful go of things than I did yesterday playing KQs, 66, from early/middle. And it was a really nice change!!

So thanks for your help


PS JD - thanks for that post as well ... I'm having to cool it on the cash games because people get so wild ... and then I get wild, and then well, the pots just spiral completely out of control and then I wonder how I managed to lose $5 at a penny table - yikes! I haven't gone back to look through my hand histories for the cash tables, but that's something I've been meaning to do ... I'll be sure to look for tricky spots were there were opportunities to take a different line like you suggest
 
Old
Default
Fri Nov 11, 2011, 04:13 AM
(#13)
Schnech's Avatar
Since: Jul 2011
Posts: 104
JWK: Thanks for this extended analysis. That was a really good read and it helped me a lot!

I really get your point with putting myself into difficult decisions and I think that this is one of my biggest leaks. I am struggeling way to often between maximizing value and cutting losses.

But I guess it is a good start to reflect on the own play and try to understand what goes wrong in specific situations. After a longer downswing, I am seeing an upswing at the moment and try to maintain this!

Thanks to all you guys!
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com