A fun hand: huge draw OOP vs. LAG, deep (1 Viewer)

[CraigT78]

He's an idiot.

If he thinks he has the best hand, he wants more $$ in the pot, and showing the best hand isn't likely to accomplish that.

And if he thinks his hand is losing, why intentionally remove any doubt in your opponent's mind that his hand is best?

It's a lose-lose proposition.

Exactly my line of thought.

 

[DrStrange]

showing the kings is a mistake. Hero knows his top pair hand is bad and can fold or jam if he holds aces.

Even if Hero checks, villain has created a situation where he never lets Hero make a mistake. Hero is folding almost all of the time. It takes a rare confluence of events for Hero to hold a hand that doesn't want to jam vs KK but will call a jam from Villain.

Villain also puts himself in a must bet/jam situation by showing his hand and letting Hero check to him. And in many cases villain has himself in a must call situation as well.

This can not be good for villain. He increases his variance while lowing his expected value. On the other hand, in most cases but not this one, Hero gets a 100% sure chance to play his hand perfectly.

One way showing the overpair might work out is if Villain knows Hero well enough to think that showing the overpair will induce a bluff from Hero a large fraction of the time. I know several guys who couldn't resist the chance to make the bluff and then show it after it worked . . . . most of us know such folks.

 

[Psypher1000]

what do you think of villain showing the kings?

Asinine.

 

[Mr Tree]

The obvious answer was always bink the straight flush and rake it in. Duh!!!!

:

 

[Jeff]

I was wondering if anyone could see an advantage to it because I can't.

 

[v1pe]

I was wondering if anyone could see an advantage to it because I can't.

I can't.

 

[Kain8]

 

[Jimulacrum]

What do y'all think of dark-shoving the turn here?

 

[v1pe]

What do y'all think of dark-shoving the turn here?

I kind of like that actually, although in the moment I probably wouldn't have my wits about me to do so.

If we can get it in on the flop we actually have a slight equity edge. Plus I think it gives us even more fold equity than we might have on the turn... arguable but if we blind shove right after being shown the over pair it might look stronger than if we wait for a turn card.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

What do y'all think of dark-shoving the turn here?

I love it in this spot, against this villain, having shown his overpair unbelievably.

 

[colter ripton]

Been following this thread and reading the replys.

There are basically only two ways to play this hand once the flop comes out.

You can just call and try for pot control or you can raise. Once you raise to 150 on the flop, given stack sizes, and your hand strength, you are committed to the pot. The only move on the turn is to shove any card.

If you had just called on the flop you could just call again on the turn.

An argument could be made for either strategy. If I have been running really bad sometimes (rarely) I would just call with a hand like that. I much prefer playing the way you did and opting to raise. There is always a chance that the villian will fold, on the flop you are a favorite to most hands.

 

[MatB]

i will be a little counter culture here, and agree that its never good to show your hand, but.......this time i think its good.

By the looks of his play, villain had a good read on Hero. Villain wanted hero to fold. showing his kings was more fold bait. He knew he was ahead, knew hero on a draw.

Villain got his money in good. Only had to fade 14 outs.

 

[Rhodeman77]

i will be a little counter culture here, and agree that its never good to show your hand, but.......this time i think its good.

By the looks of his play, villain had a good read on Hero. Villain wanted hero to fold. showing his kings was more fold bait. He knew he was ahead, knew hero on a draw.

Villain got his money in good. Only had to fade 14 outs.

If villain wanted a fold by showing his hand he should have jammed in over the top on the flop. Not show when contemplating a call with money behind and 2 more streets of action.

I have seen people show a hand in that type of situation. The pot is already huge they have shoved all in and know they are ahead but need to fade a flush or straight draw. So they decide to show their hand hoping it will get their opponent to fold, knowing that a bluff is not part of the equation. That if they were hoping that hitting a pair might be good outs as well some of the time.

 

[MatB]

If villain wanted a fold by showing his hand he should have jammed in over the top on the flop. Not show when contemplating a call with money behind and 2 more streets of action.

I have seen people show a hand in that type of situation. The pot is already huge they have shoved all in and know they are ahead but need to fade a flush or straight draw. So they decide to show their hand hoping it will get their opponent to fold, knowing that a bluff is not part of the equation. That if they were hoping that hitting a pair might be good outs as well some of the time.

Maybe showing his hand knowing he's ahead is better than shoving.
He garnered good intel on hero. Without shoving.

Looks like he did everything right to get heros money in the pot. Then he got rivered.

I'd say villain played it right. Unconventional. But I like it.

Villain is the real hero here, but the river has no mercy and shows no favorites