Hand reading 201: strong vs. weak overcalls, and when to play it fast
by Adanthar on 05/24/07
To start off, I'm going to talk about a hand that was actually posted in BBV. I had a couple of people disagree with me in that thread about it, but I'm very, very sure I'm right. The hand in question:
PokerStars Game #10068071900: Hold'em No Limit ($2/$4) - 2007/05/23 - 15:26:24 (ET)
Table 'Errai' 6-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: MrteddyKGB ($388 in chips)
Seat 2: XTBCX ($191.70 in chips)
Seat 3: gambler2k4 ($878.05 in chips)
Seat 4: 007james007 ($298.60 in chips)
Seat 5: MrDima ($425.80 in chips)
Seat 6: Stoffer77 ($209.40 in chips)
gambler2k4: posts small blind $2
007james007: posts big blind $4
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to gambler2k4 [Ks Qs]
MrDima: folds
Stoffer77: calls $4
MrteddyKGB: calls $4
XTBCX: folds
XTBCX leaves the table
gambler2k4: calls $2
007james007: checks
*** FLOP *** [Qd Qh 5c]
gambler2k4: checks
007james007: bets $4
Stoffer77: calls $4
MrteddyKGB: calls $4
gambler2k4: calls $4
*** TURN *** [Qd Qh 5c] [As]
gambler2k4: bets $20
007james007: folds
Stoffer77: folds
MrteddyKGB: raises $20 to $40
gambler2k4: calls $20
*** RIVER *** [Qd Qh 5c As] [Qc]
gambler2k4: checks
MrteddyKGB: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
gambler2k4: shows [Ks Qs] (four of a kind, Queens)
MrteddyKGB: mucks hand (AA)
gambler was frustrated that KGB checked behind the second nuts here. Now, there's no question KGB played it bad on three streets, but the river was actually quite good and this is a spot where people should frequently save themselves a lot of money (but rarely do). Consider the action:
-In a 4 way QQ5r pot, BB minbets (who cares), the first limper calls (this can be a 5, a pair, occasionally ace high), the second limper overcalls (this is usually *not* a 5 or worse, although really bad players will sometimes still have ace high, and occasionally something like 88 will show up here) and now the SB makes it call #3. What does SB, a regular actually dropping down from 5/10, have on this completely dry flop? Hint: it's not a 5. Even without any reads, you could check/fold unimproved AA on the next street here and be right 9/10 of the time - even if SB is bad enough to have nothing, there are still the other guys to worr about.
-The turn is an ace and now SB leads into the field with a large bet. This one's pretty simple: either he's a giant clown with an ace (if you're KGB holding two of them, that's sort of unlikely) or he's been badly slowplaying a Q (pretty much 90% of the time). When KGB raises and gambler calls, since even a complete idiot isn't likely to think A5o is still good here, that changes to around 95%.
-The river is a queen. Gambler puts his opponent on an ace and 'of course' checks. This is a terrible play as no opponent in his right mind would value bet this river with an ace (even the Zeebo theorem doesn't usually work on a guy with a 5 in this spot), but KGB has two aces. Does that change anything? A cursory look at this hand says 'not really' - there's just very little way for gambler to end up with the last ace in his hand at this point, and he's certainly getting checkraised by the last queen. Therefore, what KGB has is a crying check behind. In fact, if I were him, this is the rare spot where I don't even bother calling a river bet with the second nuts, either.
---
I recently played a 20/40 limit hand (yes, I know, bear with me) with the same idea. In a very good 8 handed game, 2 people limped, the button raised, SB called, I called with Kxs in the BB and 5 of us saw a flop, which came KJJr. It was checked to the button, who bet; SB called, I overcalled, and both people called behind me. The turn was another jack; if it were not disrespectful, I would have open folded.
Certainly, when the button bets, he often/usually has me beat here, but not always; it's a big pot, he might have raised some other suited king (giving me outs to split) or QTs, even if he has AK I'm only losing a small amount in equity by taking a card off for one bet, etc. When the SB calls, he can have QT, 99 (it was a good game), some sort of AQ/AT type hand, and so on. As long as he isn't slowplaying a jack *most of the time*, my overcall is still marginal either way. But when both limpers call after me, either we're playing a live game where everyone is drunk and hasn't looked at their cards yet, or at least one jack - and probably both the other kings - are out. It's simply almost mathematically impossible for me to have > 1 out. While the third jack makes my third nuts look pretty, it doesn't actually mean much except that I'm now drawing dead.
---
This leads me to the title of the article- in a game with thinking players, or at least players that understand the other guys have cards, too, overcalling on scary boards is a tell that cuts both ways. Note that in the second hand, I overcalled on a KJJ board with a king/no kicker, essentially a bluff catcher, counting on my overcall to shut down the action from anything worse and telling me whether I had the best hand; to some extent, you can use the 'implied strength' of this kind of overcall to your advantage. But after that point, on a board that scary, slowplaying is useless because your hand is just as face up whether you raise or call - and you really shouldn't be calling the bottom 95% of your range.
There is absolutely no need to make your opponent feel that acutely aware of his need to fold the second nuts.
Comments
lakong says
On the quad hand, I can't agree with you more. The check by Gambler made so little sense. I just don't see anyone betting that river, given the turn action. What hand is going to call any bet -- only a Q? He showed strength by leading the turn and then calling the raise. It's just so likely he has the Q, why would KGB bet here?Regarding your analysis of the flop action. I think you might be reading too much into everyone's actions here. On paired boards and a small bet like that I think most people are just calling to 'see what happens'. Almost regardless of what they have.
What do you think of the PF limp by KGB. I guess it makes some sense if he feels there is a strong likelihood of a raise behind him. Probably makes sense to mix this type of slowplay into your game from time to time. Your thoughts on this?
- S
05/26/07
Adanthar says
The flop action calls are more of a 'see what happens' thing in SSNL and below. In MSNL+, even the fish will usually sense danger after a few calls. In fact, even if you give them all a range of (ace high or better) on the flop and assume none of them pay any attention at all, you'll find it's actually mathematically improbable for there not to be a queen somewhere in there.The PF overlimp is really bad in 6 max without a very specific set of table conditions that is somewhat hard to come by. I won't say I've never done it before, but you waste so much PF EV if it fails to work that you had better be very sure of both a big raise behind you and probably a call. In full ring, it's actually more attractive and very underrated at 2+2 (shhhhh) although it still needs a very good read on the people behind you to pull off.
05/26/07
Post your comment below
