Dissecting a hand

One of the hands from last night is one I have gone over in my head a few times and it still puzzles me.
The players:

Juan; tight-passive player. If he comes into a hand he typically has a good hand. He raises seldom enough that when he does it is a sign he has a really, really good hand. Involved in very few show-downs; either his raise drives people off or their raise drives him off.

Eric "Gypsy"; loose/passive player. plays a few more hands than might be good for him but they are at least playable hands. tends to get good value from his hands, lets his opponents do most of the betting but when he calls it is not because he is bored...he usually has a pretty good hand. also has pretty solid reads on his opponents.

Me: loose aggressive. I play too many hands from out of position and tend to rely too heavily on my ability to get away from a hand if I am beat. I tend to play medium connectors shooting for the straight but I also know when to rein in and play super tight.

The set-uo: I had a Q/9 off suit and was in the midst of a rush. I follow the Doyle Brunson approach to a rush. What I mean by that is Brunson figures when the cards are falling his way he is going to play every hand until he loses one. The Sklansky or Lederer approach is more mathematical. They subscribe to the theory that what happened on the previous hand or series of hands has no effect on the odds of a particular thing happening on the hand you are now in.

For example, if I pick up pocket aces in one hand, pocket 10s the next, then Big Slick, raise them all and show them all down, the statistical mathematical odds I will get pocket aces in the next hand are the same as they always are, no better and no worse than the first time I get them. By the same token if I play a series of hands, say...pocket 10s, J/10, A/9, A/q, 5/7 and they all hit the odds I will hit the next hand are the exact same as for the others, mathematically speaking. If I pick up a 2/7 the mathematical odds that I will make a hand are tiny, almost irrelevant. However, the odds I will PLAY that 2/7 go way up for 2 reasons; 1, when people see me hit hand after hand it is the perfect time to bluff as they are more likely to believe it, so psychologically speaking it is the right play. Until I don't hit a hand or have results as if I hit a hand I will make them believe I have. 2) It adds deception to my game. If I get caught they see that I play hands that are not ALL good and then pay me off when I hit the nuts. 3) okay, I lied, 3 reasons; when I am catching cards in hand after hand I will ignore math and play "the luck".

Sklansky, Lederer, and the other more mathematical players...say, Chris Ferguson...they know the odds of a hand hitting do not change based on whether you have hit the last 20 hands or missed the last 1000. So they approach the game more mathematically. Hands are good or bad based on content, chip stack size, opponents, and position without factoring in whether or not they are "running hot" or "running cold". I cannot criticize their play...they are better than I am by a large margin...but I can't emulate them either.

The Action; I raised with Q/9. The flop came 9/blank/blank, 2 diamonds. I raised. Juan came over the top. Gypsy flat-called. It should have been an automatic call for me; what could they have called my initial raise with that fit this flop? Q/9 is not normally a raise-worthy hand to be sure...but they could not know I had raised with such a weak hand.

To have called my pre-flop and then re-raised Juan had to have something like A/9 or maybe a pair higher than the board...10's or better. Eric, to call...that I can't figure...maybe A/9? A lot of the people there over-value Aces but I could not see Eric calling a raise and call with that. Maybe a pair? So what could they put me on to re-raise me and call? I almost folded. Roman commented something about their hands and I replied along the lines of, "I know what I have and don't see how I can fold it. What I can't figure out is what they have that let's them re-raise and call."

The Turn
Another blank. I raised to "see where I was at". I figured if Juan just called I would check the river, if he re-raised I would have to put him on trips and fold. He folded. Huh? This surprised me. He paid to see the flop; that means I put him on a real hand. He re-raised me after I raised pre-flop and raised the flop. What could he think I had? He could put me on a straight steal on the flop...say, I raised pre-flop with A/q or something similar, it missed me completely...and it would not be out of character for me to make that sort of continuation bet assuming it missed everyone. At the same time, the continuation bet is not automatic from me...I do it sometimes and not others, always trying to mix up my game. If he believed he had the best hand on the flop he had to believe he still had me beat. I have yet to see him show a bluff so he had to have something...yet he folded? Gypsy called.

The River
Queen (good) of Diamonds (not so good). Now I had 2 pair but a flush was out there. Might even have been an 8 that dropped at some point because there was also a long-shot straight draw. With a scare card like that I considered checking...but a scare card can scare anyone. I thought I had the best hand post-flop and post-turn. I went ahead and bet. Gypsy thought about it a long time. When he did not immediately call I discounted the flush. He COULD have the straight...J/10 is a playable hand and that might have gotten him there. However, he needed runner runner to hit it after the flop and still was a card short after the turn. He is too good a player to take such a long shot that far for that many chips so it was not a realistic holding. With some of the Mixer donkeys...yeah, I would believe it. But not Gypsy. I decided his hand was not so strong that I could not call if he came over the top, although I thought I might be beat. After a goodly bit of thinking he called, I showed my 2 pair and he mucked.

After the hand
I thought I heard Juan tell Roman he had an overpair but when I bet again he thought I had him beat which is why he folded. At the time I had not considered an overpair, just overcards. Overcards would not have justified a re-raise, an overpair would. I filed that bit of information away fo later use. Top pair on the board is vulnerable to an overpair in hand and fogetting that will cost me a lot of chips in the long run.

But what did Gypsy have? With a raise and caller in front of him he called pre-flop.
With a raise AND RERAISE in front of him he called the flop. He has to believe he either has both beat or a real good chance to draw out. There are 1 or 2 draws out there...diamond draw, backdoor straight draw.
With a raise and fold in front of him he called the Turn.
He called the river when the queen got there. I showed first. He could not have had either the flush or the straight or he would have shown. He could not have had trips or he would have shown. Therefore he had either 2 pair or an overpair. I guess he could have had the A/9 and stuck until the river and only mucked when he saw he was beat?

I wondered at the time if I had played it correctly. I still wonder and that is mostly because of Eric. I actually think Juan outplayed me on the hand. If he indeed had an overpair then my raise was fine but my call of his re-raise was foolish. Furthermore, betting into him on the turn after he had already shown strength was foolish. He shows his cards so rarely I could have been walking into a buzz saw. Nor could I put Gypsy on a hand. Sometimes this matters, sometimes it doesn't.

Contrast it, for example, with the other Eric's hand where I had 2 pair. At the river I had 2 pair. He made a large raise. The board had possible straight and flushes on it. I had the third nuts...which, when you look at chipping up a maniacal type player is not a good prospect. I almost folded. Instead I decided to ask a question...just one.. "Which do you have...the straight or the flush?" His eyes flicked to the board. As soon as he looked I knew I had him. He did not realize there were straight and flush draws on the board so if he had one it was accidental...my 2 pair were good. I made the call. He could not believe I called and asked what gave him away. I lied. "I just can't walk away from 2 pair." Well, yes...yes i can and have done so. I have laid down full houses before. But not when I have a read telling me I am ahead.

So had Gypsy re-raised I was in trouble. Did I play the hand correctly? Dunno. I do know it reinforces how important it is to not give away information.


One other hand that shows the danger of Juan. This time he raised from early position, Gypsy called and I had the big blind so I called. Flop was q/9/q. More often than not on a scare flop like that lots of checking ensues. So I raised 400. (blinds were 50/100) Juan almost beat me into the pot with his chips and Gypsy called also. Something about Juan's call made me think he had the other queen. Yet when the turn was a Jack and I raised again he folded.

Either he is scary, scary good or I am way overestimating him. If he had the queen that was a HUGE laydown. If he didn't...what was he calling with? A straight draw? He made a quick laydown so he must have believed something about me. Gypsy called. And then on the river I raised 1600. He thought about it for a while before he called. Then he called. I flipped up the Q/J...I had the nut full house. Juan got away from the hand, Gypsy didn't. I have a high regard for both players...what did Juan see that Gypsy didn't?

He was not catching the cards he needed but I expect to see Juan at a lot of final tables if he can make reads and laydowns like those.