The other night I played a hand in a $20-$40 hold 'em game that I thought would make an interesting essay. I made a couple of unusual decisions that would be considered controversial at best, or just plain wrong at worse. So here goes.
It was a late night game that was action packed. A live player under the gun raised, an even liver player in middle position called. I held ace-king offsuit so I reraised. The two players already in both called, and no one else played The three of us contested the pot.
The decision to three bet with the ace-king should be pretty automatic. First, there is a good chance that I have the best hand. Also, if I can keep the pot three-handed I will frequently win without improving. The idea that you should only call to see if you survive the flop is almost always wrong in this situation. By keeping it short handed you do not always have to hit the flop to win.
The flop came eight-seven-deuce of three different suits. To my surprise, the first player bet, the second player called, and I raised. The first player reraised, the second player called both bets, and I called.
My thinking here was two fold. First, I am aware that after I had showed a lot of strength before the flop by reraising that it could be very dangerous when the first player leads. He should know that I will automatically bet, so why does he lead? It appears that he is either completely out of line, possibly on a straight draw with a hand like ten-nine, or it is possible that he has a very big hand. I also felt that I would have pretty good control over this player. Even though he was fairly live, he did not seem overly aggressive. I was fairly sure that my raise would buy me a free card no matter what he held. Obviously I was wrong. Also his reraise probably means that he has either flopped a set, has an over pair, or has a hand like ace-eight. If he has an over pair it is probably not aces, kings, or queens or he would have made it four bets before the flop.
On fourth street an ace hit. The first player, to my surprise, checked. The second player checked, and I checked. This is clearly the most controversial play of the hand. When the first player checked, I felt that if he had an overpair to the eights he might now fold it, even though I considered him fairly live. On the other hand if he made aces-up or had a set I would be checked raised, and my check might get him to bet a weaker hand on the river.
The last card was a card that I was not real happy to see. It was another eight. The first player checked, the second (very live) player bet, I called, and the first player called. The second player (who had just bet) threw her hand away without even turning it over. I showed my ace-king and the first person then mucked his hand. I strongly suspect that he had an overpair to the eight on the flop. It seemed that my fourth street check not only induced a bluff from the player in the middle, but it made the first person overcall.
It might seem that this hand was played brilliantly since I won a nice pot. But I was also lucky that my hand was best. The question is, did I really play this hand optimally, and would you play it the same way or employ a different strategy? All comments are welcome and can be posted to our forum.
©1998, Mason Malmuth, All Rights Reserved.
Posted by Jim Geary on 21 May 1998:
Okay, I'll hazard a couple of comments.
0) Firstly, thanks for bringing this to discussion. I appreciate your opening yourself to criticism for the intellectual vigor of this forum. Having said that...
1) I just think a very good player would learn not to limp in with ace-middle suited upfront. Abdul claims this hand has +EV when you barge in; seven-handed, I'd think that's even more likely to be a strong play, tho there is certainly no shame in dumping. Acknowledged that you pointed out that this may be the only lacuna in his game. Still, it just seems easy to learn.
2) Did you put limper on AQ or AJ when you checked the turn? If so, wouldn't they have popped the flop? I'd still be obligated to call them down, but I just don't think this is a likely holding - given how he played it postflop. If you didn't put him on flopping two pair, were you just trying to hand your opponents some rope? If that's the case, isn't it optimistic to be expect to be snapping off bluffs AND overcalls? If that's not the case, don't you think you should have continued to bet? I'd be upset if I checked a free card that turns out to be paint costing me the pot. The other possibility was you were expecting check, check, bet, you raise, trying to end the discussion right there. Then once BB bet, you decided to just call it down. Even then a raise may still be in order; at least one of them has gotta be throwing in some dead money.
3) On the river, I think I'd check raise risking the chance someone stumbled into their kicker making two pair. I just cannot see from how the betting went that anyone flopped two big pair.
This seems like it should have just played out as a rather mundane hand. AK raises preflop. AK hits, bets, bets, bets, wins against a worse A. I await some reason I hadn't thought of above for your play, but I think I would've just played it straightforwardly.
Last Modified 2/9/00