Reading Cash Hands: TPTK at the River

OK thanks to everyone for your comments on yesterday's post, where to review I asked about this situation, which follows up on my opponent having called a preflop raise, checked and I checked behind on the flop, and then he check-called my 80% potbet on the turn as well:



So here he has now led out at the river for $26 into the $38 pot, the first time he has actually bet in this entire hand, after a seemingly harmless river card. I asked would you raise, call or fold here, and got a lot of well-reasoned responses.

First off, of course you don't raise this, I agree with the unanimous opinion of the commenters. It's not that my hand couldn't be best here. Rather, by betting out he is representing something strong himself, and I think it is highly likely that any raise I put in with TPTK will only be called by those hands he might have to bet out on the river that would also beat my TPTK (set, two pairs, straight). I only even asked about raising to try to mimic the real-life choices I had when I played this hand. I can't raise here because with just one pair best kicker, I have just about the worst hand of all the possibly "good" hands out there.

Now, on to whether to call or fold, the commenters came in about 90% in favor of calling. I cannot believe this. Seriously. After all the guff I've taken here for calling with just top pair in cash games, now I post this hand, where the guy played the hand for sure like someone with an actually strong holding, and everyone says I should call. I guess people's willingness to call at the river with just TPTK is why I've been having such a consistently profitable run at the cash tables, so I shouldn't complain. But IMO this is a clear fold.

Sure, sure, anyone can make up a reason why so-and-so's betting actions look weak. But I'm not buying it. In this case, my opponent checked the flop and then check-called the turn. In light of the fact that he also called a preflop raise from me, this is not a weak betting pattern. It's a strong one. It screams out "I slow-played a good hand and finally got you to bet the turn!" It's how many people would play a flopped set -- call the preflop raise with a hand like 88 or TT, check the flopped set (donk!), check-call on the turn and then bet 70% of the pot at the river. Again, if he had just limped preflop, then his check on the flop and the turn seem more like weakness to me. But he called a preflop raise with his hand, then check-check-called the turn. And then the most telling part of all about this hand -- he led out at the river.

Here he is leading out for a significant bet at the river, knowing that I just bet 80% of the pot on the turn, suggesting some strength in my own hand. Again if I had checked the turn and then he led out on the river, I think the majority opinion that he's bluffing is more of a real possibility again, because I haven't shown any strength in the hand up to that point. But when I've already indicated strength -- poth preflop and again on the turn, and that I'm willing to put real money up on my holding in this hand, and then him to bet out at the river, this hand was played strongly by him, not weakly.

And even look at the size of the river bet. Some of the commenters referred to the "big" bet he made at the river ($26 into a $38 pot), and others called it a "blocking bet", which is typically a smaller than normal bet to try to control the pot size. So we've got different commenters measuring the size of the bet in different relative terms. And it turns out, there's a very good reason for that happening: because my opponent's bet size was perfect! In my mind, betting 70% of the pot on the river is not a blocking bet. I mean, sure he might want to play a small pot with top pair good kicker or a decent two pairs and want to prevent me from moving in on him or something, but I think generally speaking a blocking bet of that nature is going to be somewhat less than $26 into a $38 pot. Similarly, $26 into a $38 pot is not a "big" bet on the river that should scream weakness to you. No, I really think that $26 into the $38 pot is exactly what the guy with the good hand would bet here. Think about it. He's got pocket 8s, so he calls my preflop raise, and then he flops a set so he donkingly checks the flop. He then check-calls on the turn, and then on the river he wants me to call, so he bets out for the first time in the hand, even in the face of my strength on the turn, for 70% of the size of the pot. It's brilliant. It's a bet I'm going to call with any strength in my hand, and yet it's not so small that he fails to get value out of his set or two pair.

One other quick point about the comments, and then I can show you what really happened in the hand. Many of you said I'm probably beat by two pairs or a set, but that I should call anyways given the amounts involved, I can use the information against him later, etc. This is scary to me. This isn't some tournament, where you've got 10,000 chips and a huge chip lead, and you have to call a small stack's 200 chip allin bet, so you can afford to make the call even though you're probably beaten, just to try to snap somebody off with two crappy cards thanks to your bully stack size and the fact that these chips do not correspond to actual monetary cash-value amounts. No, this is a cash game. It's actual cash money at stake here. And you guys are suggesting that it's pretty clear I'm beat by a set or two pair, but I should just throw 26 actual dollars away just to see it. Or I should pay 26 actual dollars for information I can file away for later.

You may not think I'm right about my read of my opponent's strength in the hand, but I know I'm right about this: If you're going to play cash poker, you're not helping yourself if you constantly make calls for more than a tenth of a buyin when you know deep down that you're beat. As I said in tournaments there can be a number of situations where you call even though you know you're behind, mostly due to extreme stack sizes in one direction or the other. But in a cash game, unless you have pot odds working for you, calling 80% potbets when you know your one pair is beat is a losing proposition. Bank on that. Gnome correctly pointed out in his comment to yesterday's post that pot odds dictate that I need to be ahead 41% of the time in this spot ($26 to call / $64 in the pot). From my read, I have to say it was nowhere near 41% that I was ahead. My opponent's betting pattern, from before the flop right up to his 80% potbet on the river, led me to believe that he was probably ahead with an 80-90% probability.

Thus, I folded:



Now as you know, when a player folds heads-up on the river, the other player's cards are not automatically shown, so I shouldn't be able to tell you what he actually had. But in this case, the guy was kind enough to flash me his cards after he took in the $64 pot. Put your guesses together, and scroll down below to see the final screenshot:





















Ha! You effing donks! He called my preflop raise with King-friggin-9 (soooted donk!), and then followed that +EV call up by also calling my potbet on the turn with just an inside straight draw and an overcard. Well donk, I mean well done to him. And well donk to you all as well, most of you who predicted that he was in fact weak. Your reasoning was silly for the most part IMO, but you got lucky. The best part of the whole thing is just how I've gotten berated here over the past couple of weeks for calling with just one pair in cash games, and now suddenly today it's like "oh you should call with your TPTK, his 80% potbet on the river after I already bet out the pot at him on the turn screams of weakness." I love it. Come play me at 1-2 any day you guys. Except the guys who said I should fold. You're the real players, the guys I don't really want to see at the tables. But bring on the calldonks. If you think you had a 40% of being ahead here, please come find me at a cash table and donate.

OK a few more quick things before the weekly signoff. First, for the Lost fans out there, there is just tons of speculation around about what really happened in this week's episode, and what is planned for the finale in two short weeks. Let me present you with one picture, which is a blowup of an actual frame from the episode on Wednesday. In fact, they showed 11 frames during the scene where Ben and Locke went to see Jacob, where they actually showed Jacob's face for a split second. Just 11 quick frames, nearly as quick as the blink of an eye, but it was in there, right around the time when he speaks to Ben. And right here is the blowup of that picture, because there's been a lot of speculation as to just who this Jacob is:



There he is (hopefully you can all see that image on the blog, my server is giving me some trouble so I don't know for sure -- if not you should be able to see the closeup image here). Jacob's face, from frame 11 of the split second where they showed him in this week's episode, superimposed next to Locke. What do you think? Personally I'm not seeing any real resemblance, but there's a lot of people out there saying a lot of crazy sounding things about this screenshot. So take a look and let me know if you have any thoughts. In the meantime, one theory I like is that Ben actually cannot see or hear Jacob, but that he somehow knows Jacob is there anyways, and that when he heard that Locke actually did hear Jacob speak, Ben was enraged with jealousy, leading to the shooting. I also enjoyed the theory that all that black powder that Locke saw surrounding Jacob's house was really the black smoke, in its resting form where it comes back to every night on the island. Apparently we've only ever seen the smoke during the daytime on the show (I guess that's true actually). Interesting theories. Still no idea what this all really means. And there's one other interesting theory I heard that is actually based on a direct quote from the show's producers from a few weeks ago, when they said we will learn something in the finale that "will be like finding out the room you're sitting in is actually much, much larger than you had thought". And yes I totally paraphrased that quote purely from memory from two days ago, so it's not going to be exact, but that is basically what they said. Anyways this quote from the producers his leads me back to a theory I had heard a few weeks back, that there is actually some kind of underground Zion-like city on the island that we will soon find out about. That would be very interesting, would certainly give us a nice way to introduce some new characters on the show, and something which I would enjoy cliffhanging about for the next 9 months until the show starts up again with Season 4 in February 2008.

Ok enough about Lost. For now. A couple of quick pimpages here now. First and foremost, the FTOPS begins tonight at 9pm ET on full tilt with the $216 buyin nlh tournament that is FTOPS Event #1. I qualified for this event a week or two ago so I will be in there this evening for sure, and I know that jeciimd qualified last night as well, and I imagine a number of other bloggers will also be showing their faces in this thing this evening. So come by and rail us as we fight it out to be the first blogger to take down a major FTOPS tournament (a few guys have come pretty dam close). On Saturday is FTOPS #2 which is $109 PLO with rebuys, and Sunday is FTOPS #3 which is the $322 buyin nlh tournament, but I will not be playing in either of these due to familial engagements, but I will be in #1 on Friday night fo sho.

In other news for this weekend, tonight at 9pm ET is also The Donkament to top all donkaments, Katitude's $1 rebuy private tournament on full tilt. This thing is always a blast, and a great way for everyone to stop by and let off some poker steam after a rough week at the tables. Push your stack in as soon as you see any of those sooted donk cards, allin with every hammer, do whatever makes you happy and gives you the best poker therapy, and then just buy in for another one dollah. It's always a blast and I plan to be there tonight at 9pm ET on full tilt, password as (almost) always is donkarama.

And lastly but certainly not leastly, come out and play in Al's Sunday night 7pm ET Bloggers/Chasers Bracelet Race, also on full tilt:



This one is open to bloggers and non-bloggers alike, and as always is located under the "private" tab under "tournaments" on the full tilt interface. Some come one and come all on Sunday night at 7pm ET for a chance to send one or more bloggers to the World Series of Poker!!