The Poker Ethicist: Heads-Up Displays
As “The Poker Philosopher”, and in honor of one of my favorite non-poker blogs, I occasionally consider the ethical dimensions of a high-profile controversy in the poker community. In this edition, I address a long-standing controversy in the online poker world, in response to a question about Heads-Up Displays (HUD’s) posed in a recent comment. Older editions of The Poker Ethicist are available in the archives.
In response to a recent post I made about using a HUD, commenter “Elmer Fudd” asked,
“I would like you to comment on the ethics of using a HUD in the first place. It most certainly gives you an edge over players that don’t use such software and provides you with stats that you couldn’t readily obtain during a live game. I guess I’m an old-fashioned poker purist, but anything that gives you a slight edge over other players is cheating. “
I would say anything that gives you an unfair edge is cheating. Sleeping and eating better than my opponents gives me an edge. Reading more books than they do gives me an edge. Using a second monitor gives me an edge over opponents attempting to multi-table on a single monitor. Yet none of these is unfair, because my opponents have equal opportunity to take advantage of them.
An edge becomes unfair when it violates the rules of the game as defined by the casino or site hosting the game. Even if you disagree with a particular rule or believe that other players are violating it, violating it yourself is unethical because it is essentially dishonest. By playing on a particular online poker site or at a particular casino, you are promising your fellow players that you will abide by a particular set of rules. This defines the parameters of the game, the ways in which players may and may not seek an edge.
When I sit down at a live game, I accept and agree that physical tells will be part of the game, and that signaling to a partner at the table will not. My opponents, in turn, agree to the same. They know that to keep up with me in this contest, they will need to practice their face-reading skills but not their sign language. If I were colluding with another player, this would gain me an unfair advantage, because it is one my opponents are not expecting me to have and one that they have themselves agreed not to pursue.
On sites that allow them, HUD’s are a legitimate part of the game. Insofar as they do not violate a site’s terms and conditions, then everyone playing on the site implicitly agrees that they are allowed. Some may use them more than others, and some may choose not to use them at all. Similarly, I might choose not to attempt to pick up physical tells during a live game, but this does not make it unethical for my opponents to do so. As long as I have the same opportunity, the playing field is level.
Using a HUD on a site that prohibits it, even if you were to find a way to make the HUD work and to evade detection, would not be ethical. Doing so would violate your agreement with the site and with your fellow players on that site. It would give you an edge that your honest opponents would not enjoy, and this would be unethical.
Online poker is not merely a derivative form of live poker. It bears many similarities, but also many differences. Just because something would not be allowed or possible in a live setting does not mean that it is unethical when done online, any more than a rule prohibiting cell phones at the table at the Rio would it make unethical to use a cell phone at the table at MGM. Different venues have the right to establish their own rules. Some players may prefer the rules generally found in a live setting to those found online, but they may not impose their preferred rules as an ethical obligation on their online competitors.
What’s Your Play? HUD Edition: Results
Thanks to everyone who sounded off on the special HUD edition of “What’s Your Play?”. As always your comments were thought-provoking, and I was actually led to conclude that the answer isn’t as open-and-shut as I thought.
I’ll start by giving you the results, and then I’ll let you know how and why I made the decision that I did and what my thinking is on the most relevant HUD statistics.
UTG ($1570)
MP ($1124)
Button ($2200)
Hero (SB) ($1000)
BB ($1017)
Preflop: Hero is SB with 7
, K
3 folds, Hero bets $40, BB calls $30
Flop: ($80) 6
, 8, 6
(2 players)
Hero bets $55, BB calls $55
Turn: ($190) K (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $150, Hero calls $150
River: ($490) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $772 (All-In), Hero calls $755 (All-In)
Total pot: $2000 | Rake: $3
Results:
Hero had 7, K (two pair, Kings and sixes).
BB had A, 10 (one pair, sixes).
Outcome: Hero won $1997
When I checked the river, it was with the intention of calling a reasonably sized bet. If Villain bets something in the neighborhood of $300, he can conceivably be value betting as wide as A8, and my K7 is an easy call. As many of you pointed out, the overbet almost certainly polarizes him to air or hands that are better than mine. I suppose he could be shoving a worse K, in which case we’d chop, but that’s not going to be a major consideration.
I don’t know enough about this player to tell you just how wide he’s value betting the river or whether he’s capable of overbetting as a bluff- some people just don’t do it.
When someone is representing a narrow range, a key question for me is how wide his range is for getting to this point in the hand. Without knowing anything a player’s specific river tendencies, I’m comfortable assuming that the likelihood of his bluffing a particular street increases considerably when he can get to that point in the hand with a lot of air.
Good players are almost always capable of having relatively wide ranges for betting. In other words, I rarely take a bet as evidence that a guy has a hand. Likewise, most good players will recognize that they can call a raise in position blind vs. blind with a lot of hands, so regardless of what his pre-flop statistics look like, I’m going to assume his range isn’t all that narrow pre-flop. As Chris M. points out, his 3B% is potentially relevant for ruling out some of his thin value range such as KQ/KJ/KT. This is potentially a tough decision even we can rule out KT+, as many commenters did, and I also don’t know that a number would actually give us that information. I can tell you that my 3B% is generally pretty high in Villain’s shoes but that I often flat-call KT and KJ.
The decision point that is most likely to narrow Villain’s range is the flop. Moreso than betting or raising, calling is generally an indication that a player likes his hand at least a little bit.
I take it as a given that any good player with a wide flop calling range is going to be aggressive on the turn. Presumably if he calls the flop with a weak hand, it’s with the intention of bluffing the turn, so I rule out TAFq as a deciding factor.
RAFq is problematic for a few reasons. For one, the deeper we get into the hand, the less reliable our statistics become. Compounding the problem is the fact that this is a rather unique situation. Thus, I don’t expect to find much useful information in this statistic, nor did many of you.
When I posted this question, I intended for FCB to be the correct answer. However, several people made a compelling case for FAFq, enough so that if this were a test I’d give credit for either answer. I may have been biased because Villains FCB was actually extraordinarily low, such that it was even more of a determining factor for me than it otherwise would have been. Over nearly 400 hands, I’d seen him fold just 10% of the time to a continuation bet.
What this tells me is that he is fighting hand, probably too hard, for every pot in which he is involved. As soon as I saw that, I clicked “Call”. Not only does this very low number suggest that Villain can get to the river with a wide range, but it also tells me something about his approach to the game. He is clearly willing to put players to the test, and that seems to be exactly what was going on here.
I took it for granted that a low FCB would imply a lot of floating, but the people arguing for FAFq, primarily Shawn and Drew, raised a good point. It’s possible that he prefers attacking continuation bets by bluff-raising rather than by floating. Thus, it’s theoretically possible that even if he has a low FCB, he nevertheless does not get to the river this way with air because he would have raised rather than called his air on the flop. The FAFq statistic would help us figure out whether this was the case.
I think that would be more relevant if his FCB weren’t so absurdly low, which of course is information that you all did not have. Had his FCB been more like 40%, I would definitely want to look next to FAFq to figure out whether he was raising or calling his air on the flop.
As an aside, I find it odd that Villain chose to turn AT into a bluff on the turn. Perhaps he thought that my checking a good barreling card indicated that I could beat A-high. I’m sure he realized that he would have the best hand more often than not on the flop, and I’d expect a lot of people just to check it down.
Thanks again to everyone who participated.
PS If you’re interested in learning more about floating, I recommend Float On, a strategy article that I wrote on the subject.
What’s Your Play? HUD Edition
The first video in my new four-part series about HUD-based decision making and using statistics to exploit opponents has just gone live at Poker Savvy Plus. In conjunction with that, I’ve got a twist on the old “What’s Your Play?” series. In this hand, calling or folding are your only options, and it’s an extremely read-dependent decision.
Take a look at the hand, and then sound off on the question I’ve got for you at the end:
Full Tilt No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (5 handed) – Full-Tilt Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com
UTG ($1570)
MP ($1124)
Button ($2200)
Hero (SB) ($1000)
BB ($1017)
Preflop: Hero is SB with 7, K
3 folds, Hero bets $40, BB calls $30
Flop: ($80) 6, 8, 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $55, BB calls $55
Turn: ($190) K (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $150, Hero calls $150
River: ($490) 3 (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets $772 (All-In)
Suppose that you were going to have to make this decision. I tell you that he is a winning regular at these stakes, and I offer to give you just ONE of the following statistics that I have on him, based on a sample size of 397 hands played in 6-max games. Which would you choose and why?
Voluntarily Put Money In Pot (VP$IP)
Pre-Flop Raise (PFR)
Three-Bet Percent (3B%)
Aggression Factor (AF)
Fold to Continuation Bet (FCB)
Flop Aggression Frequency (FAFq)
Turn Aggression Frequency (TAFq)
River Aggression Frequency (RAFq)
I want to wait a few days to give everyone a chance to comment, so I’ll post my thoughts on Sunday.
Poker Stars Team Online
A few weeks ago, I hinted at a big announcement. It got delayed by a few weeks, but today I am proud to announce that I will be a member of Poker Stars Team Online this year.
I can honestly say that it an honor to represent Poker Stars. Not only do they offer the best games and the best customer service of any site I’ve ever played on, but they are by far the most trustworthy and upstanding. To the Poker Ethicist, that stuff is important.
When I see Poker Stars reps soliciting players’ opinions on poker forums or talking about recent game changes on theTwo Plus Two Pokercast, I am always impressed by the level of thoughtfulness that goes into their decisions. Even when there are changes that don’t benefit me personally, it is reassuring to see that they are not made arbitrarily. There are people who understand poker and look out for the interests of all of their players, not just those who play high stakes or high volume, calling the shots, and the result is the best online poker site on the internet.
So if you see me at the tables (soon to be sporting a headshot of yours truly as my avatar), be sure to say hi- I’m now contractually obligated to talk to you!
Setting Effective New Year’s Resolutions for Poker Success
Happy New Year!
The beginning of a new year is the perfect time to re-evaluate your priorities, set new goals for yourself, and start planning for how you will achieve those goals. This is the first in a series of posts about using goal-setting to help you achieve poker success.
Dream Big- Start with some lofty aspirations that you may or may not be able to achieve this year: “Become a winning player”, “Learn Pot-Limit Omaha”, “Move up to 2/4″, etc. These generally aren’t things that are entirely under your control, and you should be ambitious in setting them. Think of it like winning the pot in a poker game: it’s something you’d like to do, but you can’t just will it to happen, and sometimes it’s something you won’t achieve. Still, it is the aspiration that motivates the rest of what you do.
Plan Concretely- The resolutions that you make should be specific and concrete: “Play X hands”, “Spend X hours/week reviewing your play”, “Start using a HUD”, etc. Such resolutions are the ones most likely to influence your behavior, which is the ultimate goal. If you simply resolve to “Get better at poker”, that probably won’t motivate you to do anything in particular. Think about how you want to get better at poker and what steps you need to take to make that happen.
Aim Reasonably- Your resolutions should encourage you to stretch yourself, but they should not be unattainable. If you only played 100K hands last year, you probably shouldn’t resolve to make SuperNova Elite this year.
Keep It Under Control- Unlike your goals, your resolutions should be entirely within your control. Don’t resolve to earn a certain amount of money or maintain a certain win rate. That’s nearly as foolish as resolving to take fewer bad beats this year. You can’t guarantee those things, and building your resolutions around them is setting yourself up for failure. Recognize the things that are under your control and think about how you can use them to maximize your chances of seeing the results you want.
Keep a Timetable- If your resolutions are year-long, which I recommend, track your progress along the way and set benchmarks. Know how many hands you need to play each week, and be aware of whether you are still on track. If some of your resolutions depend on others (“Buy Hold ‘Em Manager” and “Learn to Use a HUD”, for instance), set a deadline for completing the first that allows you time to complete the second.
Have Consequences- Like a lab rat, you are motivated by punishments and rewards. If you are falling behind on one of your resolutions, you must have a course of action for correcting yourself. For instance, if you fall behind on your resolution to watch three training videos each week, perhaps you will stop watching television and use that time to get caught up. Conversely, when you reach key benchmarks, give yourself a reward. If you are on pace for all of your resolutions after three months, treat yourself to a new monitor, a buy-in to the Sunday Million, or a massage.
Be Creative- There is more to getting good results than improving your strategy. Perhaps you also need to improve your eating habits, exercise more regularly, clean up your workspace, or make your accounts more secure.
Don’t Neglect the Rest of Your Life- It takes more than a successful poker career to be a happy and complete person. So be sure that you are also setting goals and setting aside time for other things that are important in your life: friends, family, hobbies, volunteering, etc. You shouldn’t do these things just to improve your poker game, though you may well find that that’s a happy side effect!
Tomorrow, I’ll post my resolutions for the new year to provide some examples of the above concepts. I’ll be asking you about your resolutions, as well, so start thinking about it now!
Call-Call-Shove
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $6.00 BB (9 handed) – Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com
UTG+1 ($600)
MP1 ($600.10)
MP2 ($309.35)
MP3 ($1521.45)
CO ($1167.20)
Hero (Button) ($618)
SB ($663)
BB ($600)
UTG ($444)
Preflop: Hero is Button with A, 10
5 folds, CO bets $15, Hero calls $15, 2 folds
Flop: ($39) 3, Q, 5 (2 players)
CO bets $24, Hero calls $24
Turn: ($87) K (2 players)
CO bets $60, Hero calls $60
River: ($207) 7
(2 players)
CO bets $138, Hero raises to $519 (All-In), 1 fold
Total pot: $483 | Rake: $3
Results:
Hero didn’t show A, 10 (nothing).
Outcome: $483 returned to Hero
Obviously these flop and turn calls are pretty thin. I do think that if he checks the river I can showdown the best hand a fair bit of the time. The fact that I can occasionally pull off something like this helps to justify the earlier calls. It’s a good time to bluff when I have the bottom of range and the only draw on the flop got there. I think I can rep not just a straight but also 33 and 55. It’s a narrow range, but I don’t think he expects me to bluff often in this spot, either.
The Reid Bill
Obviously I’ve been closely following discussions of the “Reid Bill” that would pave the way for licensing of US-based online poker operations following a “blackout period” during which it would be unlawful to offer such games to American players. I have no inside knowledge of the issue myself, but I believe I am well-qualified to sort through the conflicting opinions on this legislation and reach the following tentative conclusions:
Prospects Are Bleak
The online poker language is not in the tax cuts bill that is going to the floor for a vote. Reid is talking about trying to attach it to something else, but this seriously hurts its prospects for passage. Many on 2+2 are relieved by that, but I am not so sure it is good news. The picture of an unregulated future painted by both the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) and others in the know is rather bleak.
The Status Quo is Bad and Getting Worse
This is the major point that the bill’s detractors largely fail to acknowledge. Things are not just fine as they are now. It may seem that way, especially if you are a small stakes player who hasn’t dealt with moving large sums of money, but the sites that still serve US players face major hurdles in doing so.
The Department of Justice, in shutting down the payment processors that move money back and forth between online poker sites and American players, has greatly increased the cost of doing business for the sites. Not only must they continue to find new and ever more shady (and presumably expensive, given the risks they are running) processors, but they must also eat the costs every time the DOJ seizes funds from a processor. Every time you hear about a processor getting shut down and tens of thousands of dollars seized, that is players’ money that the sites, to date, have always reimbursed in the interest of keeping business flowing. There may come a time when a site decides it is no longer worth it to keep reimbursing these funds and will simply send an e-mail to affected players: “Your withdrawal of $XXX has been seized by the US Department of Justice. If you wish to dispute this seizure, you can file Form DJ-889-7b in triplicate with the DOJ within 30 days of this notice. Thanks for playing at Cereus!”
If you aren’t aware of these payment processor complications, it’s because you have always dealt in small (<$2500) transactions and/or because the sites do their best to insulate you from these difficulties. No matter how bad things get for them and how much money they are putting up on your behalf, their incentive is still to convey the sense that all is well and you can continue to play worry-free. They are shouldering the risk themselves, and while they are certainly being well-compensated for that, there will eventually come a point at which the cost of doing business is simply too high.
So far, it’s only been money at risk, and the sites are making enough of that. Should the DOJ start indicting the individuals believed to own these sites, those individuals may lose their will to fight in a hurry. This is a particular risk for Full Tilt Poker, with its purported owners living high-profile lives in the United States.
My point is that there probably will not be much warning beyond what we’ve already seen. The sites have no incentive to hint at the complications they currently face, as this would only cost them business. Think Netteller. Everything will be fine until one day it isn’t.
Professional Poker Players Have No Bargaining Power
The PPA has done an admirable job of marshalling what influence it has. Some politicians are more honest about this than others, but the unpleasant reality is that nobody gives a shit whether you can make a living playing online poker. We are not in a position to dictate the terms under which online poker is licensed and regulated in the United States.
Those decisions will be made by interests and lobbies far more powerful than we. Whatever happens with online poker in the long-term will be the result of negotiation between social conservatives who generally oppose gaming and major US-based gaming organizations such as Harrah’s. Foreign sites like Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker do not get a seat at the table, and those of us whose who earn a living at the virtual tables don’t either.
The influence of gaming companies, especially in Reid’s state of Nevada, is immense. They literally are the economy of that state, employing a tremendous proportion of the population and generating much of the state’s revenue. We are not in a position to dictate anything to them. The best we can hope to do is capitalize on the ways in which our interests align.
This Bill is the Best We Are Going to Get
Democrats lost a lot of ground in the mid-term elections, including control of the Senate Finance Committee and the House of Representatives. This bill is far from ideal for the professional player, but there is no reason to think that we are in a position to hold out for something better. Even individual Republicans who themselves have no ideological objection to gaming still have trouble supporting it for fear of alienating socially conservative constituents. If this bill fails, then we will have to hope that Democrats rally in 2012 and bother to revist this issue, and even if all of that happens, they are still going to be beholden to the US-based gaming industry, which is still going to insist on preferential treatment.
Even to talk about our “holding out” for something better is naive, because the truth is that our consent isn’t needed or wanted. We aren’t in a position to block this legislation even if we wanted to. Whether we professionals like it or not is immaterial.
As an academic matter, should we like it? The “blackout period” is unfortunate but not unworkable. I sympathize with the many pros are not able to absorb 15 months’ of vastly diminished income, but in the long run it’s a price worth paying for licensed online poker that can be advertised on US television, funded by US banks, etc.
Is the “blackout period” a deal-breaker? Perhaps not. It seems that Senator Kyl, not the gaming companies, is the source of this provision (though he still opposes even this version of the bill). He is a powerful adversary and not an easy one to move, but there are powerful and monied interests on the other side of this issue as well. The best we can hope for is a last-minute compromise on this point, but even if it can’t be achieved, the impression I get is that a bill containing blackout language will be better than no bill at all.
Other provisions, such as the size of the tax on revenues, are generally considered to be more than reasonable. Considering how hard governments rake their lotteries, we may even be getting off easy on this point. Given the opportunity, would we want to trade the blackout period for far higher taxation? I wouldn’t think so, which is all the more reason to prefer this bill.
The prohibition on non-US players, once a US-based market gets up and running, is the part I find most puzzling. I suppose keeping everything domestic makes matters much simpler, but it also forfeits billions of dollars in potential revenue. From the perspective of the US government, revenue from non-citizens is far more valuable than revenue from citizens, and if anything about the bill changes in the next few years, I would expect it to be this.
What Can We Do About It?
At the legislative level, very little. Pardon my cynicism, but the major decisions will be made by interests far stronger than us. We may have some room at the margins to haggle with details (according to the PPA, they were able to do away with pernalites for players on illegal sites that appeared in an early draft of the bill), but we simply don’t have the influence to fight the US gaming industry on their core interests, which unfortunately do include getting a leg-up on their foreign competition.
There is speculation that, should this legislation pass, it may be possible to play on second-tier sites such as Bodog and Cereus during the blackout period. I would advise you to be very careful if you do so. The long-term prospects of these sites will not be good in a world where they must compete, without access to the US market, against not just Poker Stars and Full Tilt but also gaming giants like Harrah’s.
Their incentive will likely be to make what short-term profits they can before being driven out of business by some combination of the DOJ and their competition. When they decide to close up shop, it will likely be without warning, and they may well take your money down with them. This wouldn’t even have to entail outright theft, though I wouldn’t put that past them, either. An unexpected occurrence such as a major crackdown on their payment processors could render them suddenly illiquid. If you believe that Cereus keeps player deposits in a separate account that is not used for operating expenses, I have some real estate to sell you in Florida….
If you are a professional poker player in the United States, this legislation should be a wake-up call for you whether it passes or not. You need substantial savings. You need a back-up plan. You need to know where your money is and how safe it is there. Poker Stars and Full Tilt Poker are huge companies with solid long-term prospects that are not entirely dependent on the US market. Even if they stop serving US players, and even in the absence of legislation this is a realistic possiblity, especially for FTP, they are not likely to abscond with your money. The same cannot be said for smaller sites, especially those with a history of putting short-term profits above honest dealings with their customers.
There are no guarantees. As poker players, we ought to be accustomed to managing risk and making decisions with imperfect information. For my money, this legislation is the best bet we have. The next year or two may well be lean years for us, but if the eventual licensing and regulation of online poker in the US is handled well (this is also not a guarantee), then such a bill will be very good for us in the long-term.
In the absence of legislation, things will continue as usual for a few months, maybe even few years, but they will get very bad in the not-too-distant future. I fear that should that happen, we will all look back wistfully at this window of opportunity and regret that the “Reid Bill” didn’t pass. By then, we may be forced to settle for much worse legislation or even a worst-case scenario where the DOJ aggressively shuts down online poker sites serving US customers, seizes funds, and actively prosecutes players themselves.
Joseph Cheong’s “Blow Up”
My latest poker strategy article, Joseph Cheong WSOP Final Table “Blow Up“, has just been published in the December 2010 issue of 2plus2 Magazine. It’s an in-depth analysis of the complex factors at play in the infamous A7 vs. QQ hand, many of which have been overlooked by commentary thus far:
"Though some have questioned it, Duhamel’s decision to risk his tournament life with QQ seems intuitive enough when we see that Cheong is indeed capable of making a move like this. It was Cheong’s play with Ace-rag that really raised eyebrows. The conventional wisdom has been that this was a “blow up”, a spiraling out of control of the disciplined aggression that had kept Cheong in control of the final table for most of the day.
I am not so quick to agree. I can’t say for certain whether his play was correct, but I can imagine circumstances that would justify it. Whether those circumstances existed I don’t know, because I was not at the table that night, but neither were those rushing to condemn his play. The critiques that I’ve read have generally failed to address the possible justifications for this aggressive move. In short, I’ve concluded that while Cheong’s play certainly looks reckless, we don’t have the information we’d need to judge him definitively.
In this article, I will discuss this hand in-depth and look at some of the factors that each player should have been considering at each decision point. Of course, I cannot tell you what they were actually thinking. My intent is only to elevate the level of discussion surrounding a hand that is now a prominent part of poker history."
Have a look and please let me know what you think!
I HAD Top Pair: Results
I recently asked for reader opinions regarding a hand where I had top pair until the river, which brought an Ace but also missed a possible flush draw. Here I’m posting the results and my thoughts. If you haven’t already offered your own thoughts, please follow the link above and leave a comment before reading any further.
First, I’ll show you what happened:
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $20.00 BB (2 handed) – Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com
Hero (BB) ($9526.50)
SB ($3306)
Preflop: Hero is BB with Q, K
SB bets $60, Hero calls $40
Flop: ($120) 3, 10, K (2 players)
Hero checks, SB checks
Turn: ($120) 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $120, SB calls $120
River: ($360) A (2 players)
Hero bets $269, SB calls $269
Total pot: $898 | Rake: $0.50
Results:
SB had A, J (one pair, Aces).
Hero had Q, K (one pair, Kings).
Outcome: $898 returned to SB
Thinking over this session after I finished playing for the night, it occurred to me that a more creative option may have been best in this hand. I chose to value bet because I expected Villain rarely to bluff and always to check behind hands worse than mine. I felt it was close as to whether I’d be ahead of his calling range, but I didn’t want to check-fold.
I want to highlight a comment from Lin Sherman which hit on pretty much exactly what I thought about this hand upon further consideration:
Except perhaps for A6, I can’t put him on a hand that can stand a check-raise. So I check. If he checks, fine, I got to see a cheap showdown. If he bets anything, I raise.
I think betting is all wrong here. If he has an ace he’ll just call, giving me zero chance of getting him off it. If he has less, he’ll probably fold. It would be really hard for him to bluff-raise here, even I make a come-get-me bet. If for some reason I did bet and he raised, I’d probably call, but I don’t think he’s going to raise.
I think this is pretty much spot-on. The only thing I’d add is a possible objection to this line of thinking, which it turns out commenter Christoph already spelled out quite well:
I think villain will often feel obligated to pay off a c/r with Ax, because the way the hand went down, he’ll very rarely have a better hand than that. It would also be a not very standard line to take for value and in my experience (at a lower level) people are more suspicious when they face an unusual line. Even if Villain gives Hero credit to take this line for value, the only hand that makes sense is QJ, sets and maybe AT. If Villain thinks Hero is capable of c/ring the river, I doubt he’d fold Ax to a c/r.
I think Christoph has a valid point here. Against someone I knew to be a very good hand reader, or a Level One calling station, I wouldn’t attempt this check-raise. I don’t feel that this Villain was either, which means that I really have no idea how he’d respond to a check-raise. Given that I also had no idea how he’d respond to a value bet, though, I don’t think I’d have much to lose by going for the check-raise, and I wish I had.
Thanks to everyone who played along. I enjoyed reading all of your thoughts, and I’ll try to get another interesting spot up for comment soon.
What’s Your Play? I HAD Top Pair
We had some fun rivering quads, so let’s play this game again.
Villain views me as aggressive but not crazy. It is extremely unlikely that he is checking behind either a strong made hand or a strong draw on the flop, and he knows that I know that. Other relevant history is that I caught him turning a pair into a bluff when I underbet a river that completed several draws; I had actually rivered a straight.
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $20.00 BB (2 handed) – Poker-Stars Converter Tool from PokerSavvyPlus.com
Hero (BB) ($9526.50)
SB ($3306)
Preflop: Hero is BB with Q, K
SB bets $60, Hero calls $40
Flop: ($120) 3, 10, K (2 players)
Hero checks, SB checks
Turn: ($120) 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $120, SB calls $120
River: ($360) A (2 players)
Hero?
If you bet, be sure to tell us how much and how you will respond to a raise. Likewise, if you check, let us know your plan if Villain bets. I’ll post my thoughts after people have had some time to comment.