OT: poker, how many bets would you go?

[dixieflatline]

I played a pretty interesting hand last night that I thought I would share.

Villian in this hand is in his first orbit of our $2/4 6max game. I do have about 100 hands on him at a full table where he showed up a little bit loose and a little bit passive(27/4 for you pokertracker people). Villian is in the cut off(one off the button) and Hero is in the small blind with red kings.

Preflop: folded to villian who raises, button folds, Hero three bets, BB folds, villian calls.
Flop: Ks 7d 2s
Hero bets, villian calls
Turn: 5c
Hero bets, villian calls
River: 7s
Hero bets, villian raises, hero three bets, villian four bets, Hero...

I'm playing on a site that will let you go to the electronic felt heads up. Villian has about 20 Big Bets left and Hero has Villian covered. So the question is how many bets should Hero put in here assuming villian keeps raising?

edit: Hero has a full house here so he beats any flush.

[rkmsuf]

edit - I'm a moron.

[QuikSand]

27/4 isn't a little passive... it's rock-tight, at least with respect to raising. Do you think he'd raise preflop with 77? I really don't. (Though only 100 hands makes those numbers a bit soft)

[Radii]

He's played it *just* like a flush draw, and not like a set of 7s at any point in the hand, so I'd be pretty suprised to see quads. That being said, most players won't go too much further that this without the nuts... I think I 5-bet and if he puts in a 6th back to me I'm just calling.

[QuikSand]

He's played it *just* like a flush draw, and not like a set of 7s at any point in the hand, so I'd be pretty suprised to see quads. That being said, most players won't go too much further that this without the nuts... I think I 5-bet and if he puts in a 6th back to me I'm just calling.

Yup.

[Radii]

27/4 isn't a little passive... it's rock-tight, at least with respect to raising. Do you think he'd raise preflop with 77? I really don't. (Though only 100 hands makes those numbers a bit soft)


I wouldn't expect him to raise PF, but surely he raises the flop or the turn?

[QuikSand]

I wouldn't expect him to raise PF, but surely he raises the flop or the turn?

Tough to say, someone that timid preflop might have "monster under the bed" issues -- worry about the flush draw might prevet playing the hand aggressively, thinking "I always get sucked out by these drawing hands."

I'm still with you overall -- I read a flush, raise it to five bets, and if he reraises again, I'll just call.

[Subby]

Do you have a pf aggression factor reading on this guy?

77 is a standard raise from the CO in sh play, so I don't think you can discount it. I still think he would have popped you on the turn if he had a set, so imo, you are safe to bet until he calls. Or is out of money.

[QuikSand]

77 is a standard raise from the CO in sh play

For a guy who raises 4% pf the time preflop? That's what worries me here.

This story might not be worth posting unless the guy has 77, so there's some meta-thinking involved... but I still like my second-nut hand here most of the time. I think I'm with radii that I'd call a sixth bet and no conintue to reraise... but 77 just doesn't compute to me at any step to this point. I think this guy would limp with 77 preflop, and raie it on either the flop or turn... his play to this point sure looks like an ace-high flush to me.

[Subby]

For a guy who raises 4% pf the time preflop? That's what worries me here. Yeah, over 100 hands of full ring. I think you need to treat this guy like an unknown - and an unknown will open raise 77 from teh CO more often than not. An unknown will also raise the turn when bet into with at least one overcard on the board. He didn't. I think this guy flips over A7s, personally.

[QuikSand]

I think this guy flips over A7s, personally.

I'll take that bet.

[Subby]

I'll take that bet.
Sucker.

[Subby]

I obviously meant AQs :D

[Butter]

I don't like these poker cliffhanger threads.

[Vegas Vic]

4% PRF is a bit low, but it's not a very large sample size. Given your opponent's numbers, he's not a total donk and he has a clue.

Having said that, I would go 8 or 9 bets on the river, then just call. At that point, this particular opponent can read a board. I have a rule of thumb that if I don't have the nuts, I'm not going more than 8 or 9 bets on the river unless it's against a total idiot or maniac.

[QuikSand]

I confess... I don't have much of any idea at what point I'd make a reraise to 8 bets or 10 bets, and when I'd stop. This seems like such an obvious situation where you're ahead of so many hands that might play strong here (big flush, 55, 22, even A7) that it's tempting to keep raising... but if he reraises to six bets, I don't think I'd have the timber to make it seven.

But whether that proper cut off is four, six, eight, or ten bets... I don't have much to go on. You'd think the other guy would blink first with anything less than 77 here...but it's a shame to miss out on free money if he's giving it away with a flush.

[rkmsuf]

I'm more curious on how you'd play the flip side of this question presuming you hold the nut flush only and not the quad 7.

K full of 7 seems like a simple proposition unless there is "meta thinking" involved.

[QuikSand]

I'm more curious on how you'd play the flip side of this question presuming you hold the nut flush only and not the quad 7.

I probably would have raised the flop with the nut flush draw (and presumably I'd have been checkraised on the turn there, or else three-bet on the flop).

I'd probably raise the river then call the threre bets, expecting to see a boat. I don't see any value in making it four bets, especially if I got popped on the turn rather than the flop.

[dixieflatline]

Sorry I was called away there and couldn't get back to my computer to give the results. A little housekeeping first. I did have postflop numbers on him but I didn't post them because 100 hands is still small to get a postflop read and that was full ring and I was worried that those numbers might be tainted the most. Here was my thought process.

When the 7s hit the river and he raised I thought, cool he hit his flush, I reraised but when he 4 bet the thought of 77 crept into my mind. Still it seemed likely that he had the flush instead and I 5 bet, he 6 bet, I 7 bet, he 8 bet, I had been taking a few second on each of my decisions but it appeared he had autoraise checked as the second I would raise it would come right back to me. So I decided that 8 was enough and I just called. He turned over something I hadn't even thought of... K7c.

Apparently he was content to slowplay until the river and then go to war with what was the second nuts(I couldn't have 77, another K7 woud tie). So while he maybe should have popped me on the turn he was doomed to lose a lot of money on this hand. The only hand he had to worry about was KK so I wonder if I could have taken him for his entire stack at that point. Anyone like or dislike how many bets villian put in on the river? Over the next half hour he appeared looser and much more aggressive on the 6max tables than the stats I had for him, but maybe tilt had something to do with that.

[Subby]

A good example of why PT #s can lie. I am probably 24/17 and I don't even play k7s from the co. The fact that he opened with it shows that he is a much different player than the one you had stats on from full ring. Or maybe the sample size skewed the numbers.

[QuikSand]

Still... if you're going to play K7 for whatever reason, why on earth don't you raise with it when you hit two pair? Either raise the flop, or if you think you get better value, raise the turn. What hand are you afraid of on the turn (with those four cards showing) that you now beat after hitting another seven? 22 and 55, that's it. How on earth do you go from a meek caller to an eight-betting maniac by only passing two possible hands with the river card?


As for the unreliability of the PT data -- sure, a small sample size can be deceiving. But it's not like I'll just completely ignore all the countless players in my database who have 50 or 100 or so hands available -- that information (even with its potential for error) is still useful. And I don't think anyone here really made a huge adjustment for what to do in this hand based on the PT stats. (In part because his actions were just inconsistent with any of the most logical hands, possibly excepting a big river flush)

[dixieflatline]

I completely agree with you Quik and Subby. It was a play I didn't see coming at all. If he was looking at my stats(which seems unlikely) he might have seen that I fold to a turn raise a decent amount and decided to milk me for a river bet. Otherwise I don't really get his play. I multitable and rely on the PT stats for hands like this. So when someone does something "out of the box" that can throw me for a loop. I posted this kind of just to make sure I hadn't missed out on an easy $150 here.