As the self-proclaimed Devil’s Advocate of Poker Bloggers, I can’t help but sometimes question some of the ideas of my fellow bloggers. One of the most prolific, intelligent and thoughtful bloggers around, Hoyazo, started a series of posts last week about playing top pair, middle kicker in an all suited flop out of position. His opinions are always enlightening, even if I don’t agree with a particular point. Basically, as poker players, we should all be students of humanity at large. Even if Hoy and I would play the same hand in different ways, its worth it to me to learn how he or anyone else would analyze the hand. This isn’t even just for later use against Hoy. Rather, its a way to open my mind up to the various ways people analyze poker.
But this is all a preamble to say that, now a week or so from first posting, I still can’t get that hand out of my head. Simply put, Hoy decided to bet out once the flop came, and by the river eventually got his sole competitor (others folded earlier in the hand, post-flop) to fold. While the results were nice, I have personally seen this very situation occur a few times in live games, online and hand histories over the last week, and I just cannot agree with Hoy’s decision to bet post-flop. Rather than just talk loosely, though, let’s walk through the hand, so that I can explain why I think Hoy’s play in this particular hand was flawed, even if it was profitable.
Let’s set the scene: We are in a large field tournament on FT, with a $26 buyin. We are still in the early rounds, with blinds of 15/30 and a 1500 starting stack. We get K9h in the BB. UTG, UTG+1 and UTG+2 all limp. The SB limps, and we check.
So far, so good. I don’t see a need to raise out of position, but an argument can be made that, with a pot of 150, a raise might be able to take down the pot, since all of the other players merely limped. Still, its early in the tournament, and if we hit a major hand, like a flush, straight, or two pair, we want a lot of players in the hand so someone will pay us off.
After we check preflop, the flop comes down KT6, all spades. Frankly, right here, I give up on the hand, unless I can see the rest of the cards for free. I say this because K9 of hearts on a King-high board with all spades, in a tournament, is a great hand to go broke on. You can easily face a made flush, KT two pair, a superior King like KJ, KQ, or less likely AK, or a flush draw that won’t let go of their hand.
Generally, when you bet, you want to have a reason. That’s logical enough. In this situation, betting can only be justified in a few ways: (a) force everyone out and win the pot immediately, (b) force most players to fold, thereby creating a HU situation that can be more manageable, (c) keep players in and build the pot, or (d) to get information to determine if you are ahead. Those are the possible reasons, but if you go through them, you’ll notice that you cannot succeed in any of these goals without risking a lot for very little.
If your goal is (a) force everyone out and win the pot, you are going to have a hard time at it. First off, no flopped flushes will fold, so you run the risk of betting into a superior hand that you cannot beat without going runner runner full-house. You may be able to succeed in knocking out superior Kings, like KJ, if they fear the flush. You will probably have problems pushing out anyone with an Ace or Queen or even Jack of spades without betting a significant amount, more than pot, since there are a bunch of donkeys that like to draw to a flush in the early-goings of large field touraments. So, basically, you need to raise a high amount to push out all hands that you beat easily, all hands that have a better King, and hopefully any flush draws. But you will be called by dominating hands, and you’ll likely be called by hands that can easily draw out on you. My point is, why do all this for a mere 150 pot, of which you only contributed 30.
If your goal is (b) force most players to fold, thereby creating a HU situation that can be more manageable, I commend you. This is the only time I think it is acceptable to bet out. However, I still don’t think its advisable. The other guy is likely going to just call you if he has a strong flush because he wants to encourage you to keep betting into him on the turn. If he has a weaker hand like KJ (which still has you beat) and he thinks you are on a flush draw, he might call too, waiting to see what happens on the turn. If he has a flush draw with a monster card like Ace of spades, he’s going to call only so he can see the turn for cheap. So, you might be HU, but you have no idea what your opponent has and you’ll be acting out of position the rest of the time. If the next card is a spade and you check, the other guy can bet out no matter what he has. If it isn’t a spade and you check…well, same thing. The only time you’ll get info is if your opponent has two-pair, a baby flush, or a set, in which case he might raise to push out drawing hands. But at that point, you are behind, so all you learn is that your flop bet was a bad move.
If you want to (c) keep players in and build the pot, or want to (d) get information to determine if you are ahead, a small bet will work. But you fall into the same problem as (b). You’ll never know what you are facing and you’ll be out of position, unless your opponent re-raises, in which case you have to fold and you’ve lost that extra bet.
For these reasons, I’d check on the flop and be ready to fold. Without position, its hard to tell where your top pair is, and you run the risk of creating a situation where you are betting into a superior hand the entire way.
I have to admit that I like Hoy’s move here, even if it wouldn’t be my move. He opts to check-call. After checking, UTG+2 bet 90 into the 150 pot, and Hoy and UTG+1 were the only caller. This isn’t a bad play, since its still cheap (90), and we might be able to make a play depending on the next card. However, we are still out of position, and we don’t know if UTG+2 is betting for value or semi-bluffing or bluffing altogether, or if UTG+1 is drawing or is slowplaying.
The turn is an offsuit 7, and Hoy opts to bet 390, just under the 420 pot. His reasoning is logical. The non-suited card followed by a bet by Hoy will scare out the players drawing to a flush. The pot-sized bet also gives them terrible odds if they are foolish enough to call. But this still isn’t the optimal play to me, mostly because it ignores the possibility that someone has already flopped the flush, a set, has a strong King like KQ or AK, or has two-pair (KT). In those instances, Hoy is likely to face a flat call (from the flush) or an uncallable raise from the set or two-pair. He might be able to push out any superior Kings, but that’s the only hands he is behind who will fold right here.
As it were UTG+1 folded and UTG+2 called. Even though Hoy has a caller, he’s essentially flying blind. If the river has a spade, should he check/fold? Probably. So, that’s a bad scenario, that’ll happen more than 20% of the time. Essentially, Hoy loses to any spade, regardless of his opponents’ cards. His total losses, assuming he folds to a river bet if a spade hits, will be over 500, which is more than a 1/3 of his stack…on a hand like K9h…out of position. That’s just too much to lose on a marginal hand and a marginal flop.
But what if the river is not a spade. That’s what happened. The river was an offsuit 3. He basically puts his opponent all-in for 460, and his opponent folds. Congrats to Hoy, who may have had more info than I had when retelling it here, but that river bet was dangerous.
The size of the bet isn’t going to vary much, since our opponent’s stack is less than 50% of the pot. Instead, we need to consider what our opponent will do given the range of hands he may have. The range, as I’ve mentioned, has not narrowed a bit. He could have a flush (89s), or he could have nothing, drawing to a flush (As2c). If he has the flush, he is calling, and we are just handing him our money the entire hand as we bet our top pair into his flush. If he is behind, he is going to fold, in which case…why bet?
Instead, I’d check here. If you sincerely believe that he is behind, you’ll want him to bet out, in which case you’ll get the rest of his stack. If you think you are behind, check-folding is not the worst idea in the world. After all, I don’t think you should’ve been playing this hand in the first place.
If this teaches you anything, it should teach you the importance of position. If you were in position the whole way, the analysis changes because you could see how your opponents reacted. Instead, we are acting first, and are left in the dark.
This, by the way, is not a knock on Hoy or his game. I admire Hoy’s abilities and success at poker. This is only a commentary on a particular situation, with reference to Hoy’s posts, which were so damn informative that I’m thinking about them a week later.
Until next time, make mine poker!


