Royal flush?

[Bombjack]

I was 90% sure he had it when he raised all-in on the river, but I was very reluctant to lay down the 2nd nuts. Could / would you?

Seat 1: krist76 - $20.55
Seat 2: Bombjack - $41.49
Seat 3: FiringBlind - $16.81
Seat 4: crazyweld - $13.76
Seat 5: ICALL - $36.43
Moving Button to seat 5
krist76 posts small blind ($0.10)
Bombjack posts big blind ($0.20)
Shuffling Deck
Dealing Cards
Dealing 9♠ 10♥ to Bombjack
FiringBlind raises to $0.60
crazyweld calls $0.60
ICALL folds
krist76 folds
Bombjack calls $0.60 <-- Slightly loose call pre-flop with T9 but it's $0.40 to call a $1.40 pot, so odds are good at 2.5:1, and we're only 5 handed so I'm less likely to be up against a monster
Dealing Flop K♠ Q♠ 10♠
Bombjack checks
FiringBlind bets $0.60
crazyweld raises to $1.20
Bombjack calls $1.20 <-- Bottom pair and straight flush draw, and getting nearly 3:1 on a call. Will improve with any T, J, 9, or spade (16 outs)
FiringBlind folds
Dealing Turn 7♠
Bombjack checks <-- I've made my flush but the A♠ and J♠ are still out there, so I play cautiously and just check. There's not much to be gained by betting here.
crazyweld checks
Dealing River A♠ <-- Great card for me: this was the main card I was worried that Villain could be slow-playing
Bombjack bets $3.50 <-- Value bet that he might call with no improvement on the board
crazyweld raises to $11.96 (all-in)
Bombjack: royal?
Bombjack...

 

[KerouacsDog]

im guessing he had it. but i still have to call. Although he might have a lower spade?

 

[t1riel]

Only one card can beat you, CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jack Daniels]

Bombjack calls $0.60 <-- Slightly loose call pre-flop with T9 but it's $0.40 to call a $1.40 pot, so odds are good at 2.5:1, and we're only 5 handed so I'm less likely to be up against a monster - Actually, you needed to call $.40 into a $1.50 pot, so you were 3.5 to 1 which makes the call even easier.

FiringBlind folds - LOL @ FiringBlind. He must have really been chasing or way out flopped to fold here. It was $.60 to him to call a $4.90 pot. That's over 8 to 1 to lay down.

Yeah, he may have it. But I've gotta call here. It is the only card that beats your flush. And hell, I've never lost to a royal flush before.

 

[scifell]

I dont agree with your check-call on the flop. If you really have 16 outs, then you are a favorite (but still only on a draw) and need to give people a chance to fold thier made hands. If someone has a stronger draw than you, then you are probably crushed and have very little hope, meaning you dont have the odds to call afterall. What exactly do you gain by check-calling here?

A check-raise (or strong bet from the start) on the flop could, if nothing else, give you a hint to the possible straight flush on the way and let you fold without the guessing game on the river (which you now have to take part in). Only you wouldnt have had to risk as much money to get an idea of what they had...

 

[Mad_Mike989]

I would have called as well he may have been thinking split perhaps? I see many people move all in with what seems to be a split happening so it was a possibility? Your second nuts may have been the nuts..but youll never know

 

[Bombjack]

I dont agree with your check-call on the flop. If you really have 16 outs, then you are a favorite (but still only on a draw) and need to give people a chance to fold thier made hands. If someone has a stronger draw than you, then you are probably crushed and have very little hope, meaning you dont have the odds to call afterall. What exactly do you gain by check-calling here?

A check-raise (or strong bet from the start) on the flop could, if nothing else, give you a hint to the possible straight flush on the way and let you fold without the guessing game on the river (which you now have to take part in). Only you wouldnt have had to risk as much money to get an idea of what they had...

The trouble is the outs aren't clean. A Jack will give me a straight, but will lose to anyone with an Ace. A spade would give me a flush but could lose to a higher spade. A Nine would give me 2 pairs but a straight to someone holding a Jack. That's why I thought it best not to raise - just see if I improve and then re-assess. If I held J♠ then obvioulsy my draw would be a lot stronger and I could think about a raise. The check-call is because the pot odds are good - what if someone has say AK of hearts, and is raising to try to chase out the flush draw? I could be suspicious here because the raise looks like it's more for value than to chase people out, but then some people don't know about pot odds.

 

[scifell]

The trouble is the outs aren't clean. A Jack will give me a straight, but will lose to anyone with an Ace. A spade would give me a flush but could lose to a higher spade. A Nine would give me 2 pairs but a straight to someone holding a Jack. That's why I thought it best not to raise - just see if I improve and then re-assess. If I held J♠ then obvioulsy my draw would be a lot stronger and I could think about a raise. The check-call is because the pot odds are good - what if someone has say AK of hearts, and is raising to try to chase out the flush draw? I could be suspicious here because the raise looks like it's more for value than to chase people out, but then some people don't know about pot odds.

Yeah, that's my point. The problem is that you are out of position against a bet and a raise. IMO, you should either bet this hand very strong from the get go or not bet it at all. How, pray tell, do you "re-assess" your position when you make a hand after a check-call? That is exactly the way you played it, and now you yourself admit, on the river, that you really don't know where you are. Isn't that your problem here? [In fact, the river is one of THE best cards you could have hoped for, and you STILL dont know where you are... what cards/plays would have given you this information?] Couldn't you have better known where you were by betting stronger on the flop and potentially lost less money if you were beat, won without a hand, or made more money if you did hit the best hand later?

I understand your concerns, but you didnt really answer my question: what, exactly, do you have to gain with a check-call here?


[Im not trying to argue with you or anything as much as Im trying to understand...]

 

[Bombjack]

There are plenty of situations where a check-call is correct. Say you're holding [7d][6d] and the flop comes [Kd][Qc][4d]. The pot is 1000, and you're first to act. There are 3 players behind you, and they'll call a bet holding a K or a Q or an open ended straight (which gives them 2 overcards to your hand). You're only likely to win the hand if you hit a flush, making you 35% to win.

If you could be sure that you would get 2 callers, then a bet would have +EV (positive expected value), marginally. But you'd probably get 1 caller, who is beating you at this point. Forgetting any considerations about bluffing etc, by betting, you've got more money in the pot when you're the dog, i.e. your bet is -EV.

Now say you check, the second player bets 400, and the other 2 fold. Now it's costing you 400 to call a 1400 pot, or 3.5:1 on your money. You're 2:1 to win the hand so it's a clear call. But a raise would be -EV. (There's other stuff to consider, e.g. the fact that it will cost you to see the river, and if you're second to act a raise isn't terrible, but only to allow you to see a free river rather than for EV considerations.) Also a fold would be -EV, as you're eliminating your 35% equity in a 1400 pot, so the best action is a check-call.

In the originally posted hand, it's really difficult to tell what your opponent has on the flop, as there are so many possible strong hands there. I'm not sure what combination of betting could tell me if I'm beat on the river, except his raise all-in there - plus, any extra bets are costing money if I'm beaten. It's a bit contradictory to suggest either bet it strong or fold - both cannot be +EV. Mine is a drawing hand so I really want to see the rest of the cards as cheaply as possible. If I bet stronger, say with a re-raise on the flop, what would that tell me, if my opponent calls or re-raises? If he calls (as is probable) he could still have either top or 2 pairs, or a strong draw and it tells me nothing, but it's cost me an extra bet with only a draw. If he re-raises he could still have either hand, but I should then fold, and it's cost me an extra bet and denied me the opportunity to see another card cheaply. So a raise has either told me nothing or forced me to fold.

 

[scifell]

There are plenty of situations where a check-call is correct.

Don't insult my intelligence. I know that a check-call is sometimes the best move, and I understand pot odds quite well. I was arguing that *your* check-call was wrong, not check-calling in general.

In the originally posted hand, it's really difficult to tell what your opponent has on the flop, as there are so many possible strong hands there. I'm not sure what combination of betting could tell me if I'm beat on the river, except his raise all-in there - plus, any extra bets are costing money if I'm beaten. It's a bit contradictory to suggest either bet it strong or fold - both cannot be +EV.

That's where you are wrong, as Ive already mentioned. If you believe your draw is clean, then betting it strong is the right move- you are a slight favorite if you get called, but gain additional value due to the possibility that others will fold. If, however, you believe your opponents are drawing as well (to a stronger hand) then you do NOT have the outs you claim you have and are probably not getting the right odds to call- in which case a fold is correct. In niether case is a check-call correct, and trying to get the best of both worlds by splitting the difference and just calling doesn't gain you that +EV you are looking for. You seem to want it both ways, and are making the worst decision in either scenario simply because you cant decide which one is true. Again, you really have nothing to gain with a check-call here, being out of position against the agressor.

If I bet stronger, say with a re-raise on the flop, what would that tell me, if my opponent calls or re-raises? If he calls (as is probable) he could still have either top or 2 pairs, or a strong draw and it tells me nothing, but it's cost me an extra bet with only a draw.

Your check-raise represents significant strength. They could fold to it, which adds to its power in itself. But if they reraise, they are shouting that they have you stomped. This is where you have to make the decision- you have a good draw and play or don't and fold, based upon what you think is likely given the players and odds of thier holdings. [You may have already made this decision before the raise.] A call would be a bit ambiguous, but it would al least tell you that they either think they have you beat or think they can draw a better hand.

If he re-raises he could still have either hand, but I should then fold, and it's cost me an extra bet and denied me the opportunity to see another card cheaply.

No. The point is, if you fold then another card almost doesnt matter. You *could* have no outs at all or maybe only two outs. Seeing another card is practically irrelevant if you are going to fold. But if do play it, believing you truely have those outs, then there is so much more value to be gained by this move than just a call.

So a raise has either told me nothing or forced me to fold.

No, a raise has either made you correctly fold or corretly put more into the pot. And, despite what you claim, it in fact has told you far more than his all-in bet at the end, after he watched you play so weakly.

 

[Bombjack]

Don't insult my intelligence. I know that a check-call is sometimes the best move, and I understand pot odds quite well.

No insult intended. Sorry I explained it...

If you believe your draw is clean, then betting it strong is the right move- you are a slight favorite if you get called

Like I said, it's probable that not all the outs are clean. But you can't tell which outs are clean until you see your opponent's reaction to them when they come up. Taking some kind of "belief" position is just guesswork.

If, however, you believe your opponents are drawing as well (to a stronger hand) then you do NOT have the outs you claim you have and are probably not getting the right odds to call- in which case a fold is correct.

You don't have to be able to call all-in. The pot odds are determined by the pot size. That's why in the scenario of a flush draw it would be correct to call a bet smaller than half the pot, but not an all-in.

In niether case is a check-call correct, and trying to get the best of both worlds by splitting the difference and just calling doesn't gain you that +EV you are looking for. You seem to want it both ways, and are making the worst decision in either scenario simply because you cant decide which one is true.

I disagree. I think this situation is like a flush draw where a check-call is correct. With a flush draw you could be beaten by a higher flush, but that doesn't mean you should dump your cards or start raising to see what they do, and somehow work out that they have two higher cards of your suit. You just have to see the cards as cheaply as possible, then if you make your draw and they start re-raising you, think about the possibility you're beat.

Again, you really have nothing to gain with a check-call here, being out of position against the agressor.

I don't think position's that important in this hand. I'm not trying to be aggressive and force a fold, my main concern is to get the right odds and try to get best value for my hand. If I held the [As], my check on the turn is actually a very aggressive move, which is probably why he checked behind me.

Your check-raise represents significant strength. They could fold to it, which adds to its power in itself. But if they reraise, they are shouting that they have you stomped.

Even if I re-raise, it's hard to think of a situation where my opponent would raise again. If they had the nut flush, they'd probably now go into slow-play mode and just call. So I still haven't gained any information when the flush card comes on the turn. They could also still have AK, KQ or a set.

The point is, if you fold then another card almost doesnt matter. You *could* have no outs at all or maybe only two outs. Seeing another card is practically irrelevant if you are going to fold.

I think you have to weigh up the probabilities of their having a better flush and call if you're getting the right price.

a raise has either made you correctly fold or corretly put more into the pot. And, despite what you claim, it in fact has told you far more than his all-in bet at the end, after he watched you play so weakly.

A raise could well have made me incorrectly put more into the pot on a draw heads-up, which isn't +EV. I still wouldn't have a clue what he holds after he calls my re-raise. OK, there's a bit of fold equity, but people tend not to fold if they've already raised a bet (unless it's a huge raise, which I don't think is +EV for me here, and would basically be a bluff) as they will have some sort of a hand.

In this hand, I think if I could play it better, I'd bet the turn and see what he does. If he raises me, I could assume he has A♠ and fold (not sure if that's a bit weak-tight though?). If he calls, either he has a lower spade, or maybe J♠, he's slow-playing A♠, or has trips and is trying to make a full house. I then check the river and call / fold if he bets, depending on the price. As played, I might have checked the river here, but the point is that my hand became a whole lot stronger with the A♠ coming. And I think this is the only point where I could guess my opponent holds J♠. I don't think my bet here is wrong. You can't not value bet because you don't have the pure nuts. I also get over 2.5:1 on a call when he raises, so I'd have to be very sure had J♠ to fold here. The key question here is whether I am getting the right price to call given I have the second nuts, and what I can tell about his hand. It's pretty much impossible to say he definitely has J♠ before the river, and you wouldn't even know this is question you have to ask before the A♠ comes up.

 

[scifell]

Like I said, it's probable that not all the outs are clean. But you can't tell which outs are clean until you see your opponent's reaction to them when they come up. Taking some kind of "belief" position is just guesswork.

"Guesswork" is exactly what you have resorted to on the river because of how you played it- you saved no money, and have to call an all in if you want to see his cards. I really dont understand how any play could have put you in a worse position.

Yes, a check-call is correct on its face if you think you have part of your draw but maybe not all of it (like just the flush draw). But honestly, there are going to be very few tells here, through betting alone, that will allow you to distinguish which parts of this flop he is drawing to- given that you are out of position and only called him on the flop. You are drawing blind. You are correct to call your "partial draw" here iff your outs give you the probable best hand. In this situation, though, you dont know that and cant know that by calling him. [Remember, he raised a bet on a very scary flop.]

I don't think position's that important in this hand.

Im 100% certain that if he was first to act, and you last, he would have played the hand in a very different way (almost no matter what he actually held), providing you with far more information on his hand.

Even if I re-raise, it's hard to think of a situation where my opponent would raise again.

Seriously? I have trouble thinking of a situation where he could rightfully call- other than already having the nut flush. Your check-raise would have either killed his odds or committed him to the pot. He simply cannot rightfully just call you there. He has already contributed 10% of his stack to the pot, and your check-raise would rightfully demand another 30%. Then what, he is going to bet and call away 40% of his stack for one more card and fold to another bet on the turn? Are you kidding me? He would be obligated to fold or move all-in in most situations.



*Shrug* It doesnt look like we are going to agree any time soon so Ill stop now...

 

[Bombjack]

"Guesswork" is exactly what you have resorted to on the river because of how you played it- you saved no money, and have to call an all in if you want to see his cards. I really dont understand how any play could have put you in a worse position.

Yes, a check-call is correct on its face if you think you have part of your draw but maybe not all of it (like just the flush draw). But honestly, there are going to be very few tells here, through betting alone, that will allow you to distinguish which parts of this flop he is drawing to- given that you are out of position and only called him on the flop. You are drawing blind. You are correct to call your "partial draw" here iff your outs give you the probable best hand. In this situation, though, you dont know that and cant know that by calling him. [Remember, he raised a bet on a very scary flop.]



Im 100% certain that if he was first to act, and you last, he would have played the hand in a very different way (almost no matter what he actually held), providing you with far more information on his hand.



Seriously? I have trouble thinking of a situation where he could rightfully call- other than already having the nut flush. Your check-raise would have either killed his odds or committed him to the pot. He simply cannot rightfully just call you there. He has already contributed 10% of his stack to the pot, and your check-raise would rightfully demand another 30%. Then what, he is going to bet and call away 40% of his stack for one more card and fold to another bet on the turn? Are you kidding me? He would be obligated to fold or move all-in in most situations.



*Shrug* It doesnt look like we are going to agree any time soon so Ill stop now...

I totally agree.

Actually I think your suggestion of a big raise on the flop has a lot of merit, but I don't think I'd have the balls to do it.

 

[gord962]

and the result was???

 

[Bombjack]

and the result was???

I called and he had [Kc] [Js].

And hell, I've never lost to a royal flush before.

Yeah I thought the same logic. The chances against someone getting a royal flush are [SIZE=-1]649,738[/SIZE]:1, so easy call .

 

[DrJ]

The chances against someone getting a royal flush are [SIZE=-1]649,738[/SIZE]:1

On that hand, it's more like 50:1. I still would have called.

 

[DrJ]

I agree with the way you handled the flop - you didn't overcommit yourself to a lower draw and did play the pot odds well.

The fact that he raised what he did on the flop would indicate to me that he's got top pair with a solid kicker and not a flush draw. If he had both, he probably would have attacked harder. If he had just a draw, I would suspect he would have tried to play the pot odds like you did.

I probably would have made a good sized bet on the turn. You had the flush, there's only 8 more out there and he has to have two of them. If he does a crazy raise, then perhaps you are up against something you don't want to mess with and you should have feared the A and walked. Even if he just called you - I suspect you would have been hesitant to call the all-in and would have saved a lot of chips. You played too timid at that turn and allowed him to hit that royal for free, while getting no information out of him. Based on the information you had, you needed to be the aggressor to find out if you SHOULD have feared the A rather than just implicity fearing it.

 

[Bombjack]

Yep, I should have bet the turn. Arguments/thinking for not doing so though:
a) I'm announcing my hand. If he doesn't have a spade (as is probable, if he has a pair / 2 pair / trips) he'll probably fold. But by checking, I may be able to get him to call an extra bet on the river without a spade.
b) I'm either well ahead or well behind. There's not much reason to fear a draw, apart from the unlikely coincidence of him having 2 pair / a set, and the board pairing to give him a full house. If he has a Spade, it's likely to be one of the high ones, so I'm putting more money in when I'm behind. If he doesn't have one, he'll probably just fold.
c) I still get some information based on whether he bets, whether I bet or not. (Although it could be a bluff, but less likely than normal here, I think.)

 

[DrJ]

Yep, I should have bet the turn. Arguments/thinking for not doing so though:
a) I'm announcing my hand. If he doesn't have a spade (as is probable, if he has a pair / 2 pair / trips) he'll probably fold. But by checking, I may be able to get him to call an extra bet on the river without a spade.
b) I'm either well ahead or well behind. There's not much reason to fear a draw, apart from the unlikely coincidence of him having 2 pair / a set, and the board pairing to give him a full house. If he has a Spade, it's likely to be one of the high ones, so I'm putting more money in when I'm behind. If he doesn't have one, he'll probably just fold.
c) I still get some information based on whether he bets, whether I bet or not. (Although it could be a bluff, but less likely than normal here, I think.)

a) In the case where you are scared of another hand - don't you want to announce your hand and see how they react? If he has the A without another spade, you're forcing him to bet against his pot odds, he shouldn't call and if he does you can be satisfied that you made a sound mathematical bet. If he has two pair and is hoping for a boat, you are forcing him to bet against his pot odds, he shouldn't call and if he does you can be satisfied that you made a sound mathematical bet. If he has the nuts, he's going to see your bet as a commitment and go after you or at least call and try to trap you and now your fear is more justified. When he goes all in on the river at that point, I bet you walk.

I'm not understanding the extra bet on the river argument. If you were scared of the A on the turn, why wouldn't you have been scared of it on the river too even if a spade didn't come up? What would have made you more willing to bet on the river than at the turn?

 

[Bombjack]

I'm not understanding the extra bet on the river argument. If you were scared of the A on the turn, why wouldn't you have been scared of it on the river too even if a spade didn't come up? What would have made you more willing to bet on the river than at the turn?

Assuming he doesn't have a spade, as he probably doesn't given his betting, he might fold on the turn if he believes my bet telling him I have a flush. If I check, it looks like I'm afraid of the flush as well. When I bet the river, he doesn't know if I have a spade or not, and is more likely to call a bet from me with his A♥K♣ or K♦Q♦.

 

[joosebuck]

HA i thought KJo with jack of spades.

The trouble is the outs aren't clean. A Jack will give me a straight, but will lose to anyone with an Ace. A spade would give me a flush but could lose to a higher spade. A Nine would give me 2 pairs but a straight to someone holding a Jack.

You need to either:
a) fold preflop
b) raise so you can find out if he has top pair, 2 pair, a set, absolutely nothing, or is on a draw
b) fold because you think he has a higher spade and will trump several of your 16 outs.

this is a game of information and you got no info from the flop. if someone re-raises me on the flop (if i had KJ).. at the very least i would think my spade was no good, or that someone had flopped the straight.

 

[DrJ]

Assuming he doesn't have a spade, as he probably doesn't given his betting, he might fold on the turn if he believes my bet telling him I have a flush. If I check, it looks like I'm afraid of the flush as well. When I bet the river, he doesn't know if I have a spade or not, and is more likely to call a bet from me with his A♥K♣ or K♦Q♦.

And if he folded on the turn, you won a pot that you really didn't want going to the river. I don't understand the problem with this.

What's the point of trying to lay a trap when you're scared you aren't even winning?

 

[Bombjack]

And if he folded on the turn, you won a pot that you really didn't want going to the river. I don't understand the problem with this.

What's the point of trying to lay a trap when you're scared you aren't even winning?

I don't mind going to the river at all. There's a possibility he holds a higher spade, but this comes down to me being way behind or way ahead. The river card is very unlikely to make a difference to the outcome. There's not much advantage in betting the turn over betting the river, except for the fact that he might call with just a draw to a full house, while checking the turn + betting the river has the advantage that he's more likely to call a bet there when he's beaten. If I'm raised on the river, I just get the same information as I would have got on the turn.

I'm not saying this approach is best, just pointing out that there are some advantages to checking the turn in this situation.

 

[DrJ]

I don't mind going to the river at all. There's a possibility he holds a higher spade, but this comes down to me being way behind or way ahead. The river card is very unlikely to make a difference to the outcome. There's not much advantage in betting the turn over betting the river, except for the fact that he might call with just a draw to a full house, while checking the turn + betting the river has the advantage that he's more likely to call a bet there when he's beaten. If I'm raised on the river, I just get the same information as I would have got on the turn.

I'm not saying this approach is best, just pointing out that there are some advantages to checking the turn in this situation.

I guess I just disagree. The only way you were way behind was if he had two spades, one higher than you. Betting the turn would have let you know if that's the case. Calling your bet on a hopeful boat, or hoping for a 4th spade just isn't a good mathematical play if you make the bet large enough. And if you get beat by someone pulling that, oh well...it'll even out.

By letting him see if for free, you increased the odds that one of the two higher spades by itself would smack you down. If I were holding the A by itself, like you thought he may be, I would have been thrilled to see that card for free.

Hypothetical - if the 2 of spades would have come up instead of the A, would you have called?

 

[Lmar Don]

i myself would have called :S because if i had royal flush i wouldnt go all in becuase they would fold if it was obvious i would want people to see my royal flush. id have probly called