To recap, yesterday I discussed my pre-flop play with pocket fives. It was raised three times the big blind and electing to see a flop I just called. Jamin felt I should have re-raised to see where I stood. I think both strategies have positives and negatives but neither is wrong and instead depend upon personal style and the situation.
5 people see the flop. The pot is $1.50.
Small blind has $10.84. Big blind has $3.60. UTG has $1.69. Raiser has $9.80. I have $5.26.
The flop is 5h, Ah, Jh. I hit my set but it’s a dangerous flop with so many people in the hand.
Small Blind, Big Blind, and UTG all check. Raiser bets $0.10. I call. Small Blind re-raises to $1.80. Big Blind and UTG fold. Raiser calls. I call.
Here is my first major mistake. But we’ll get to that in a bit. First let’s discuss my calling of the $0.10 instead of re-raising which J suggested.
We’ll start with Jamin’s rationale. He felt I should have re-raised because:
- Sets are not invincible. You may scoff or say “duh” but I tend to forget this all the time. So it’s a good comment.
- I would find out exactly where I’m at and can safely fold to a large re-raise or continue strong if they show weakness.
- I pointed this out and Jamin agreed with me. In rare cases and probably in a game with larger stakes and better places, you might push out a better hand. For example, if I re-raised and then am re-raised by a check raiser, someone holding a bigger set might fold the hand by correctly assuming that at least one of us had the flush.
- A re-raise could serve as a blocking bet. If one of the players has a weak flush and is a passive player, he might let me see a card or two cheaply. Conversely a player with a strong or nut flush might think I have a big hand such as a weaker flush and attempt to trap me. This would also allow me to see a card or two cheaply.
I countered his proposal with the following point:
Often a tiny raise in a situation like this will cause weak players to reveal their hand. So I opted to go along with the 10 cents bet and see if someone gave away their hand. And in my defense, this is exactly what happened. UTG re-raised and told everyone that he had the flush. On top of that, the speed and size of his bet tipped me off that he probably had a weak flush.
However, just because I was correct in predicting what would happen doesn’t mean it was the best move to make. As I said before, UTG re-raised to $1.80. I was all set to fold knowing my set is no good. Then a surprising thing happened. Raiser called. All I could think about was the fact that I was now getting the correct pot + implied odds to chase ($1.70 into $5.20). So I called. I don’t think there is any argument whether it is the correct move to call with pot odds in this situation or not. I know I am behind and need to chase to win. Also, I know that if I go strong and re-raise I will just be called by one, if not two other hands. Conversely, at the stakes I’m playing, if I call and miss I can then save money by folding if I don’t have the correct pot odds or if I hit, they will still put all their money in.
But I didn’t factor pot odds correctly because I didn’t take the time to put my opponents on a hand. We’ve already established that the raiser has a weak flush. So what could I put the caller on? The nut flush draw is unlikely unless he also hit top pair to go along with it. A donkey with two pair is also a strong possibility. Finally, the person could have a larger set could be chasing the full house just like I did. I’d guess that if this situation came up 100 times, you’d see top pair 60% of the time chasing the flush but you’d see two pair or set the other 40%. This would make it an incorrect call because even if I make my full house, chances are it is no good. The set would have made a bigger full house or quads 100% of the time and the two pair would make a bigger full house unless he has the case five. So here Jamin’s strategy would be even better because if I somehow ended up seeing this hand out, I at least was taking a step towards forcing the hand with the best draw out.
Tomorrow we’ll see how the rest of the hand played out.
No comments:
Post a Comment