Max Raise: 100
This game was four handed. Luke was first act and called the big blind. Oli then folded on the button, and I was on the button with ADJC. I decided just call and then the big blind, Liam checked. It may have been the correct play to raise at this point but I like to mix it up - this is very important when you have been playing against the same players for around a couple hours everyday for 2 years . I felt that I had good implied odds if I hit the flop with jacks or aces as top pair. I also felt calling was safe, since being first to bet, I felt that if I raised on the flop then I would only get called by top pair or better as it was extremly possible for me to have just about any top pair calling as the small blind. If I had raised pre flop Luke and Liam both would have folded and there would be no story.
Flop is JH 10C 2H. Me and liam both checked, then Luke bet 50. i raised by 100, and then Liam after thinking for a while reraised another 100. Luke called.
Luke had called in first postion which he did a few hands later with Aces, and I read him as a flush draw, JX, pocket 10s or better. I read Liam as having two pair or maybe a set of deuces. If he had QJ or worse he would have folded to my raise or maybe called, if he had a flush draw I thought he would of just called. It was an extra 200 to call, and I folded.
The turn was 6S and Liam bet 100 again followed by a quick call by Luke. At this point I shook my head and said I think I folded the best hand, and then Liam says to me, "I think you did". The river was AS and both players check. Liam shakes his head, and after a while Luke shows 8 high - 8H7H and Liam mucks his hand.
I felt cheated after this hand, if Liam wanted to give Luke his own money why did he have to make me give him mine as well. Liam made a stone cold bluff after a raise and a check raise. Its interesting that if Liam had bet the river he would of won the pot, but the fact that he didn't means that he put Luke on a hand not a flush draw. I put Luke on a made hand, because he to my knowledge he prefered to check/call flush draws with 2 others in the pot (I'm refering to when he re-raised Liam). So if Liam didn't put Luke on a flush draw what the hell was he thinking!?!?!? Lets look at it from his perspective.
The player in first position calls as does the small blind. You have less than 8 high so the correct play, which was even obvious to Liam is to check and see a flop. I check and hitting nothing he checks. Luke then raises in last position, maybe positional stealing had got to Liam and he lost all his rational at this point?? I then raise, a check raise in my mind says at least top pair if I'm not bluffing which is unlikely. Perhaps he thinks Luke tried to take the pot in last position and puts me on JX and thinks I'll lay it down to a second check raise. Luke calls and I fold, 1st objective accomplished, hes got out the player who he suspects has the best hand out, though I bet he was hoping he would take the hand right there and then. He and Luke have a history of big pots against each other, when they are both convinced the other one is bluffing so the winner is the one lucky enough to have the best of the two marginal hands. But after a string of losses against Liam, Luke doesn't get as carried away and so Liam bets again in the hope Luke will fold. Luke doesn't and calls. Thers no hope really that Luke will be pushed out of a 1200 pot by a bet of 100 so Liam gives up the hand and checks.
If Luke had folded after Liam's raise I would of just called Liam down and won the pot, and if Liam had folded like any sane person I would of won the pot. Luke played this hand correctly in my view, though I would of just called Liam's raise in his position, and you never know, had he done this I may have called, then won the pot after it was checked down bar maybe a river bet which I would of called. At the time I couldn't understand what Liam was doing, and I felt 10x worse than having a bad beat. Though now I can see what he was trying to do, looking at how he must have read the hand considering his actions. I think this hand demonstrates how different short handed poker is to the normal 10 player games. There is no moral to this story, all I can say is "Thats Poker".
Give me your thoughts on both the hand and the article. Thx
Welcome to PokerForums.org
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Thread: Hand Analysis
February 22nd, 2006 #1
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- PFO Points
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)