This hand came up when I simulated a game of limit draw with three reasonably good players. Look at my other post (1000 hands from the button) for more info.
On this particular hand, the button decided to raise with a jack-high four-flush. He was mainly trying to win the blinds. He had been raising with pairs of eights and better, and semibluffed with most flush draws.
The small blind had trip fours and reraised. He had been reraising the button with aces, any two pair and a few come hands earlier.
Before the button had a chance to consider his next move, the big blind capped the betting with trip aces. This was the only pot in that session (1000 hands) that got capped by the big blind. Because the small blind had a somewhat tight range, it seems safe to assume that the big blind would muck most hands worse than aces up. He might occasionally decide to cap with kings up and an ace kicker (this is probably a "cap or fold-situation" with two pairs).
The button decided that there was a reasonable chance that he was drawing live, so he called after some deliberation. The small blind called quickly, and had to decide how many cards to discard. He drew two cards. He thought that the most probable hands for the big blind were higher trips or a pat hand. He would almost certainly check after the draw unimproved. If he made a full house, he would bet into the other players.
The big blind discarded a king, and drew one card to AAA6. The button drew one card, hoping to make his flush.
The small blind looked at the two cards he had drawn. He saw a pair of treys, making him a full house. He bet out. The big blind had caught another king, and was cursing his kicker choice. He decided that the small blind was a good enough player to have high trips or better unless he was bluffing. The big blind also thought that it was unlikely that the small blind would draw two cards to high trips. He just called, hoping for an overcall from the button if trip aces were the best hand.
The button had caught his jack-high flush. He had to be worried about the action in front of him, though. If he decided to raise now, it would be obvious that he either had a complete hand or was bluffing, so it was unlikely that both his opponents would call a raise. He also thought that there might very well be a better hand out there, so he decided to call.
I've thought a little more about this hand, and decided that the small blind might have made a costly mistake. Once he drew two and saw that the big blind drew one card, he should possibly have made a check instead of a bet. The big blind would probably bet his trips, and the button might raise with his flush. At that point, there would be a reasonable chance of someone else having a full house, so the small blind could just call and hope for an overcall from the big blind.
The decision to draw two cards can also be questioned. It's obviously the best choice when one of the others have a pat hand. If there's a chance that drawing one card will induce a value-bet from the big blind with aces-up or small trips or a bluff from one of the opponents, it might be better to draw one card.
This hand is a little bit hypothetical, of course. The arrangement of three good players in the same draw game is probably not a common one, and should normally be avoided if your goal is to make money. Against less skilled players than the ones I described, I think it's quite possible that the pot gets capped after the draw anyway.
I made a post about this hand in the 2+2-forum. The responses were that you should normally try to play against weak opponents, and I agree that a bet is probably going to extract more value in that scenario. I think that a check might be an optional way to play the hands against two very skilled opponents. I think that a check would have won at least three bets in the hand I just discussed. This is just one specific scenario, of course. A bet might be more profitable if your opponents had other kinds of hands. You might get called by an opponent with small trips that wouldn't bet if it was checked to him.
The conclusion I've made is that it's probably better to bet out against weak opponents. Against tough opponents it's a good idea to mix up your play, so perhaps you should bet sometimes and check sometimes in similar situations.
No comments:
Post a Comment