Check It: DADI |

 




Hugh Done It

I received a comment from HughDuffy, a name that no matter how many times I see it, my brain reads as Hillary Duff (no offense intended). Once I realized that it was not Ms. Duff, I discontinued my email asking for her autograph on my Lizzy McGuire trapper keeper and decided to write this post instead. (I STILL LOVE YOU HILLARY!)

Hugh was involved in a hand I recapped in this post. I will go over it again today, but this time take the hand from Hugh's perspective. Here is Hugh's comment to get this ball rolling:

I looked up the hand you mentioned that involved me. I had 99. I think you're probaby right that I should have bet the pot on the turn although the two calls told me all I needed to know at the time - that at least one of you had a King. Would betting the additional $60 there really induce a fold from either or both of you? I don't know. I'd be interested to hear how you or anyone else would have played that hand from my position.

Since it's always fun to view a hand from a different perspective, let's start from the top, using Hugh's perspective.

Preflop, NumbBono raised to 90 from MP at a 6-handed table. Hugh, in the SB, called with 99. The BB, a handsome individual whom all the ladies love, called. Now, before the critiquing begins, let me just say that I thought Hugh played very well throughout the tournament, so any critique on this one hand is just that...a critique on one hand. Let's proceed with the slam.

The preflop call was Hugh's first mistake, in my estimation. 99 is a very strong hand at a short-handed table. Since he was facing a raise from an active player, Numb's range was pretty wide (at the very least, KQ on up and all pocket pairs). He is either a coin-toss to two higher cards, utterly dominated by an overpair, or utterly dominating an under pair. For this reason, I would have raised to 270 or so, 3x Numb's raise. The reasoning is as follows: the dominating hands (AA-TT) will probably re-raise you big, so you can fold confident that you are out of position, likely facing a dominating overpair. An underpair may call hoping to set-mine or fold, if it is a baby pair (55-22). In either event, you are happy. You either win a few pesos outright without any sweat or you are in a dominating position. Two overcards may also call, unless it is AK or possibly AQ, which may raise. Still, a call is more likely than not and in any event, you are on a cointoss; you may lose a tad here when you fold to the AK or AQ re-raise, but it's better than flying blind the rest of the hand.

Here's a little cheater's info, since we know what Numb and I both had (K6h and KTs, respectively). If Hugh bets there, we likely both fold, and he wins 120 easily. Instead, he ended up losing 300.

The flop came down Kc8x7c, which is sorta tricky for an OOP (out of position) 99. Hugh still doesn't know if Numb has a higher pocket pair. It's safe to assume from my call preflop that I do not have a higher pocket pair. However, both of us could (and actually do) have a King. In this spot, I like a check, since it will allow Hugh to act after receiving more information. He does check, as do I and Numb.

The turn is an 8c, pairing the 8 and filling the flush draw. Hugh bet out 210, and I decided to call, as did NumbBono. Now, in my commentary, I mentioned that I would bet pot there (pot was 270). Actually, that was my error. I originally thought 210 was pot, so I meant that I liked Hugh's play there. I think he took it to mean that I would've bet 270 instead.

Whatever the case, I like the bet there because (a) it looks like we both whiffed on the flop and had abandoned the pot, (b) he couldn't afford to give any free cards in case one of us had a club that would four-flush on the river, and (c) if someone already had the flush, he'd be re-raised and could fold fairly easily. At the time, I thought he had AcX, so I really liked the play. Looking back, with 99 (not sure if one was a club, but it doesn't matter too much), I think a check is in order here. It's just too scary of a situation to be betting out. Someone may've had the 8 and now has trips. The BB may've been playing a weak King. Either of the other players could've checked the flush draw hoping for (or guaranteeing in Numb's case) a free card. If I were to bet here, I would actually bet less that 210. Its probably mostly psychological, but 180 seems more scary to me there, as though he wants the action because he just hit his flush in a pot where it seems like the other players have abandoned ship. I'm not sure if that would have changed anything, but I am merely explaining what I would have done in that spot.

The river was 3d, which is an utter blank if ever there was one. Hugh checked, I bet, Numb called, and Hugh folded. I think this was another error by Hugh. Since we both passively checked the flop and called the turn, I think you need to fire a second bullet here, especially since we all had decent ~3k stacks at the beginning of the hand. With a pot of 900 (my previous calculations from the last review were slightly off, as I said the pot was 840 here), an 800 bet would look awkward and would complete the turned-flush story. That awkward number can scare a lot of people off and overall it would look like a final value bet. If Hugh was called and lost, he would be down to 1500 or so in chips, and would have room to play with the 15/30 blinds. Since he checked, he was essentially giving up on the hand. I picked up on that and decided to make my value-bet of 450, and after Numb called, Hugh made the right move and folded. He could've re-raised big or pushed all-in here as a bluff, which is actually a pretty high-level play based on the action and perfectly reasonable, but the safe move is a fold.

So, there you have it, Hugh. I personally would've raised preflop, ending the entire hand, or fired a second bullet on the river, hoping to represent the flush that no one else seemed to have.

Any other thoughts?

Until next time, make mine poker!

posted by Jordan @ 1:30 PM,

2 Comments:

At 2:55 PM, Anonymous Hugh Duffy said...

Fortunately, my real name isn't Hugh Duffy (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/duffyhu01.shtml) in case anyone is wondering. Not sure why I'm compelled to explain that. :)

I should have explained my POV a bit more previously but I'm at work and was trying to be brief.

I didn't have a club in that hand and I think you're right about 3-betting PF. I suppose I was just trying to be tricky in hopes of flopping a set. In retrospect, NumbBono did have a wide range in that spot but since I don't have any sort of history playing him (or anyone else there for that matter) I don't know that I felt comfortable with that read at the time.

As for the bet on the turn, I was OOP and hoping to take it down there in hopes that the 8 would scare you guys off of your Kx and drawy hands. Your calls told me that I was most likely behind. I see your point about betting less (like 180) but I thought the 210 was fishy enough as it were. Checking seems weak to me.

Firing a second bullet on the river also crossed my mind but again, I didn't have much of a read on any of you guys and didn't want to get cute at that point. I'm not nearly as experienced as the blogger crew so I was just hoping to check it down or fold to any bet. Obviously, I'm a pussy.

Really appreciate the analysis and enjoyed playing with you guys. Hope to do it again soon.

 
At 8:25 PM, Blogger DP said...

Hillary Duff?

Hugh is Marilyn Manson's real middle name. I think of Marilyn Manson.

I'm not as diplomatic as you, Jordan, so I wont even add in a "no offense intended" disclaimer.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home