Monday, May 6, 2013

Calling with King high...

I played an interesting hand the other day.  I "played up" to 3/6 on SWC and ran into a TOTAL LAGbot who was playing a 50/30 or thereabout.  I raised KQs UTG and get him as the second caller:

(Sorry for the raw format; I don't believe there's a hand converter available just yet for SWC)

Game: NL Hold'em (120 - 600) - Blinds 3/6
Site: Seals With Clubs
Table: NLHE 9max 3/6 #1
Seat 1: a*m (1877.66)
Seat 2: A***1 (564)
Seat 3: P***a (596.33)
Seat 4: a***8 (715.91) - sitting out
Seat 5: W***a (250) - waiting for big blind
Seat 6: P***f (543)
Seat 7: M***s (571.57)
Seat 8: K**pFloppin (679.73)
Seat 9: P***o (855.26)
P***a has the dealer button
P***f  posts small blind 3
M***s posts big blind 6
** Hole Cards **
Dealt to K**pFloppin [Ks Qs]
K**pFloppin raises to 18
P***o calls 18
a*m calls 18
A***1 folds
P***a folds
P***f has timed out
P***f folds
M***s folds
** Flop ** [6h 3d 8h]
K**pFloppin bets 35 Standard cbet
P***o folds
a*m calls 35 When he calls, I'm 95% putting him on a flush draw.  He's the type that raises all hands, and has no problem stacking of top pair, which is how he's built his 1877 chip stack - aggression into the fear of the normally low stakes players.
** Turn ** [5c]
K**pFloppin checks I'm going to check for pot control just in case he shows up with something stupid.
a*m checks
** River ** [2s]
K**pFloppin checks Another blank, but it makes a backdoor 4 straight4's are in his range, but I can't ever see him checking through all the way like this.  He's got a flush draw, but the question is: is it Ace high - or worse.
a*m bets 70
K**pFloppin calls 70
** Pot Show Down ** [6h 3d 8h 5c 2s]
a*m shows [Kd Th] (High Card King +T865)
K**pFloppin shows [Ks Qs] (High Card King +Q865)
K**pFloppin wins Pot (266.18) with High Card
Rake (6.82)

By the river, he has position on me and has checked through the turn.  If he has *ANYTHING* here, he's betting the turn, as he's proven time & time again to do - in fact, I'm surprised he's not betting the turn with the naked draw.  Not only is he LAGgy, but he's aggro when he senses weakness.  I'm fairly (more than 90%) certain he's on the flush draw - the question is how good of a flush draw does he have?  He's shown to 3bet any good Ace broadways, so I can more or less discount that from his range.  I can beat all K high or worse draws.  The main concern I have is if he shows up with the Ax flush draw, or nipped a low pair.  If he nipped the low pair, I can easily see him checking through to get to showdown, but leads 70% pot; he wants to win the pot outright without a showdown.  Although the 2 completed the 4 straight, he's rarely showing up with Ah4h, the other concern (again, he didn't bet the turn).  Since there's much more to his range than Ax (50% VPIP, after all), I snap call his bluff on the river with a bit of a gulp.

He got very pissed at my snapping his bluff - he got up and left immediately.  Fun times when you can call K high and win :-).  Definitely not an everyday occurrence.


  1. Well done. Love the logic train.

  2. Don't know WTF happened to the post... It's fixed now to the best of my memory.

  3. How is the site anyway? Lots of traffic?

  4. So, you are "95% sure" he has a flush draw, from him calling you for one c-bet, for 30 cents. That is the worst piece of poker logic I have seen in at least a year, and the call on the end with King high probably makes it into the top 10 worst plays ever profiled on this blog. Which is ree-holey saying something.

    1. Stop trolling. I assume you either don't read or understand English: "If he has *ANYTHING* here, he's betting the turn, as he's proven time & time again to do - in fact, I'm surprised he's not betting the turn with the naked draw."

      Are you a*m, as depicted in the hand above? You say we've played together, but I see no evidence that suggests that. You say I'm a terrible player, yet your statements are continually unsubstantiated, lacking proof. You say this is "into the top 10 worst plays ever profiled..." yet it was the correct call. What else?

      I'm assuming you're the same troll, since you refuse to use a name, as the troll who gave such a hard time talking about the thin value betting a few weeks ago. What I don't understand is that you take such issue in the move I make, yet you don't give an alternate - nor do you acknowledge that the read was spot on. What say you?

  5. You said you were 95% sure he has a flush draw, by the guy calling ONE bet, for 30 cents. There is simply no getting around the laughability of that assertion. That kind of results-based thinking can of course only lead to losses. You don't get to be 95% sure of anything because a guy calls one tiny (and I do mean tiny) bet, and if you say you are, you are either full of turkey, or a poker noob who doesn't even realize it.

    Not debatably yours,

    1. Hey monkey! I was wondering if you'd ever be back. Why are you harassing me? Nothing better to do with your time? You've never written anything constructive - as in how you would have played the hand different, or what I did wrong in the hand.

      A few constructive questions for your response, which is a rinse & repeat of your original post:

      A. 35 chips = $3.90 figuring 1 BTC = $112 at the time the hand went down. Moreover, 35 chips = ~6 BB.
      B. What kinds of conclusions are you drawing from his call on the flop?
      C. What kinds of conclusions are you drawing from his check through on the turn? To be sure, I'll help you out with my myopic view of options as to what's going on:
      1. Perhaps he's slow playing a monster, in position, on an increasingly coordinated board.
      2. As per my read, he's drawing and taking a free card.
      3. You have the "perfect" read, which I can only believe you're going to say you do - and he's floating in position, but he chooses not to take control of the hand when I check to him.
      D. I guess based on your lack of constructive criticism, you're folding the river bet? Or perhaps you're raising, turning your hand into a bluff?

      Not sure about any of these answers - you don't say what you're doing, but only offer how badly I personally played the hand... yet you don't acknowledge that the decisions I took are the correct decisions.

    2. Oh yeah, and one last thing... Since he bets 70 chips on the river, I assume you're snap calling that because... "it's only 60 cents!"? That seems to be the basis for your logic, so I'll go with that in the lack of your response to my direct 4 questions. Just curious to see what goes on inside the mind of a monkey such as yourself, so I can play you better the next time we supposedly meet up.


Blog Archive