Poker Question

[iggnuef]

Originally Posted by Rathji

There is no way someone who was not watching the entire game can make an accurate decision about if it was the right bet or not. You can't even get close to figuring it out if you dont have the cards that came down or betting for the hand.

Was someone representing strength? Weakness? Were they aggressive players? Passive? Did someone almost choke on their own tongue when the board paired on the river? How much was in the pot? Would he be seen as over betting if he went all in? or would it be seen as a continuation bet?

Poker is a game of statistics and people. You have not given any of the information about either of those 2 aspects of the game/hand in question so anyone who thinks they can accurately judge his actions as the proper maximal value bet is wrong. Dead wrong.

That said, if he thought either of them had a hand they would bet anything with given their play so far, he probably made the right call. If he had a history of check raising though, he probably made the wrong one.

IMO......nothing more needs to be said but,

Royal Flush, why check and let them get away with not paying you off? There wasn't anymore cards coming out....the pot was his, why not try to make it bigger?

Truthfully I woulda started the last round of betting as I did the round before. He was 1st to act, why not?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Rathji

There is no way someone who was not watching the entire game can make an accurate decision about if it was the right bet or not. You can't even get close to figuring it out if you dont have the cards that came down or betting for the hand.

Was someone representing strength? Weakness? Were they aggressive players? Passive? Did someone almost choke on their own tongue when the board paired on the river? How much was in the pot? Would he be seen as over betting if he went all in? or would it be seen as a continuation bet?

Poker is a game of statistics and people. You have not given any of the information about either of those 2 aspects of the game/hand in question so anyone who thinks they can accurately judge his actions as the proper maximal value bet is wrong. Dead wrong.

That said, if he thought either of them had a hand they would bet anything with given their play so far, he probably made the right call. If he had a history of check raising though, he probably made the wrong one.

Wow you are taking this way too far. This is third rate cash games in Calgary, not the WSOP.

People at 1/2 no limit tables at the Casino in Calgary aren't exactly a bunch of Phil Helmuths. It wasn't tourney poker so the likely hood of ever getting a read on the other players is totally wrong. Unless the guy had been sitting there for 10 hours and all the other players were too.

Second he had the nuts. No if ands or buts. He had the nuts. When you have the nuts and you are in a weak position with few chips left you should bet. With only $100 left he should have bet at least some if not all of it.

I actually thought this situation was pretty easy to analyze. Hate to burst your bubble there bud but if you really believe what you wrote...well not really sure what else to say except that you are trying to sound like you know what you're talking about, and anyone who has studied poker for longer than 5 minutes would think you're just trying to sound important/knowledgeable and it is obvious you aren't either when it comes to poker from reading that.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by flip

Wow you are taking this way too far. This is third rate cash games in Calgary, not the WSOP.

People at 1/2 no limit tables at the Casino in Calgary aren't exactly a bunch of Phil Helmuths.

If you think none of what I said mattered just because it was a 1/2 game at a casino which is generally populated by idiots, then I agree totally. Truth be told, I did not consider that factor at all.

If you think everything that I said was wrong based on the game of poker in general, then I disagree. You cannot judge a hand based on the final result alone. He gave no indication of the betting or the cards that came down on or after the flop. If you think you can, then I disagree.

edit: I just noticed I missed a post about some of the cards and the betting, so there probably was enough information considering it seemed like the other 2 were calling station idiots.

Originally Posted by iggnuef

Truthfully I woulda started the last round of betting as I did the round before. He was 1st to act, why not?

I agree, given the post I missed about the betting, he should have made a bet as though nothing was different at the very least. Given that the people seemed to be calling him.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Rathji

If you think none of what I said mattered just because it was a 1/2 game at a casino which is generally populated by idiots, then I agree totally. Truth be told, I did not consider that factor at all.

If you think everything that I said was wrong based on the game of poker in general, then I disagree. You cannot judge a hand based on the final result alone. He gave no indication of the betting or the cards that came down on or after the flop. If you think you can, then I disagree.

Ok that makes sense. Your post came off just a little bit condescending and I wasn't sure if you were just posturing and trying to look like a know it all or actually giving realistic advice.

I agree the final result isn't enough to properly dissect a poker hand, except in this particular case. Poker is not a game that is easy to give advice on unless you are there and even then it can be difficult. This particular hand seems relatively straight forward though.

[HelloHockeyFans]

You should never, ever check the nuts... always throw a bet because well, you have the nuts... you either get a caller or you get a shover who runs into a wall... for this situation, I actually think the other guys may have sensed they were beat... he bet the flop and c-betted the turn... leaving himself with $100 and then... checked the river... he absolutely has to bet the pot in this scenario... give them pot odds and two pair likely folds and flush guy probably raises... hero shoves and flush guy calls since he's pot committed at that point.

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by iggnuef

So I've told a few buddies about this story, and all but one agreed with me. Just wanted to get your opinions on it.....

So i was playing 1/2 no limit poker at Stampede Casino last friday night. The pot was at atleast $400. (i folded pre-flop) After the river was shown, the guy to my right was 1st to act, he checked and the other 2 remaining players checked aswell......side note, the guy to act 1st had about $100 left in chips.

So they flip over the cards and the guy to my right (1st to act) had a Royal Flush......and checked it!!!!

Is this the wierdest/dumbest poker move you have heard of? Well, ive heard worse, just not at a casino.

What was he afraid of?
Was he trying to bait.....if so why not put a lil bet in then?

BTW the other guys had a normal flush and 2 pair respectivly

Haha. I was at that table!! I made fun of him all night, about checking the nuts. That was fun.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

You should never, ever check the nuts... always throw a bet because well, you have the nuts... you either get a caller or you get a shover who runs into a wall... for this situation, I actually think the other guys may have sensed they were beat... he bet the flop and c-betted the turn... leaving himself with $100 and then... checked the river... he absolutely has to bet the pot in this scenario... give them pot odds and two pair likely folds and flush guy probably raises... hero shoves and flush guy calls since he's pot committed at that point.

Never use the words "never" and "always" when it comes to poker - it always "depends". In the situation in question, yeah, it's not even worth discussing - Hero has 1/4 pot left on the river - nothing to think about. However, if there was a lot more money behind, like $600+, then you have to figure out the best way to get the rest of the money in, and that might include checking, depending on the other players in the hand, Hero's image, etc. I would almost always bet, but it depends.

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Never use the words "never" and "always" when it comes to poker - it always "depends". In the situation in question, yeah, it's not even worth discussing - Hero has 1/4 pot left on the river - nothing to think about. However, if there was a lot more money behind, like $600+, then you have to figure out the best way to get the rest of the money in, and that might include checking, depending on the other players in the hand, Hero's image, etc. I would almost always bet, but it depends.

I agree, sounds like he should have bet but who knows. Two guys calling you down to the river with no re-raises, third club comes on the river, one guy acting hyper-agressive in the last position all kind of points towards a bluff bet from the last spot. Plus maybe he didn't want to scare anyone off the hand, maybe he didn't want to discourage a bluff, maybe he thought they weren't flushing or maybe he was just an idiot. Who knows, at a cash game I would have put all my money in, but it depends.

[HelloHockeyFans]

Yeah you guys all make good points about poker being situational... and actually poker is all about position any ways, and in this example, Hero is UTG in the worst position possible when holding the nuts... I still think though, that there is an extremely high probability the other guys at least call his bet if he throws half his stack in the final round and when they see his short stack, also a high probability that one of them shoves to try and isolate... best case scenario, UTG+1 tries to isolate with two-pair, UTG+2 moves over the top and Hero wins an insane pot!

[jammies]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

You should never, ever check the nuts... always throw a bet because well, you have the nuts... you either get a caller or you get a shover who runs into a wall... for this situation, I actually think the other guys may have sensed they were beat... he bet the flop and c-betted the turn... leaving himself with $100 and then... checked the river... he absolutely has to bet the pot in this scenario... give them pot odds and two pair likely folds and flush guy probably raises... hero shoves and flush guy calls since he's pot committed at that point.

This. Some of you are overanalyzing this scenario, IF you have the nuts at the river, you bet always and that is the one poker rule you should never ever break.

How much you should bet, well, that's another question - if you think someone will go in heavy, you bet weak to sucker him in, if you think everyone but you is weak, you bet to make the pot odds too attractive for them to fold, and if you're playing with a bunch of freakin' lunatics, you bet heavy and wait for them to follow. What you don't do, ever, is give them the chance to see the nuts for free.

The psychology rationalization behind checking ignores that if someone is going to bluff hard or go all-in with what they think is a winner, they are MORE likely to do so if they see a weak bet rather than a check, because there is more money to win and thus a higher payoff. If I am contemplating risking $200 to win $600, I am even more likely to risk $200 to win $650 or $675.

The whole point of poker is to force the other guy to BET when you have him beat, not to hope someone is going to pick the wrong time to bluff you. There is a time for checking with a strong hand, but it isn't on the river when you are a guaranteed winner.

[arsenal]

If he was leading out on both the flop and turn, he should have bet the river. From a purely math point of view he has $100 left, and the pot is $400. That's 4:1 he is laying the other players. That is if he goes all-in on the river.
Giving anyone with a flush, boat, etc odds to call. No one at 1/2 table is folding a flush.

Hell, even if he bet $75 on the river, it probably will induce the aggressive player (last to act?) to just put him all in.

The guy who had 2 pair, probably would have folded since the flush got there.

But like others have said, there are lots of variables that go into making a decision.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by iggnuef

So I've told a few buddies about this story, and all but one agreed with me. Just wanted to get your opinions on it.....

So i was playing 1/2 no limit poker at Stampede Casino last friday night. The pot was at atleast $400. (i folded pre-flop) After the river was shown, the guy to my right was 1st to act, he checked and the other 2 remaining players checked aswell......side note, the guy to act 1st had about $100 left in chips.

So they flip over the cards and the guy to my right (1st to act) had a Royal Flush......and checked it!!!!

Is this the wierdest/dumbest poker move you have heard of? Well, ive heard worse, just not at a casino.

What was he afraid of?
Was he trying to bait.....if so why not put a lil bet in then?

BTW the other guys had a normal flush and 2 pair respectivly

It's an ok move if he had lots of money left, and could really pump the pot if someone decided to make a bet.

But he only had another 100 anyway, so he probably should have put something in there.

If he had another 1000 and there was money to capture, a check raise would probably be the way to go.

You have to remember, so much depends on the table and players and reads you're getting. Things change if you know you're facing aggressive players, tight players, if you think you know what they might have and how confident they are on it, etc.

[albertGQ]

Originally Posted by iggnuef

how about the Q high flush? The other guy had 2 pair, cant remember if the board paired or not......mute point tho,

I forgot to address this point. Asking if the board paired may be a mute point, but it definately is not a moot point. If the board paired, now instead of the second best hand being a nine high flush, you have full house possibilities and even a four of a kind possibility. These hands would be strong enough for someone to be aggressive. Thus, making the check after the river not as bad of a play compared to if the board did not pair

[arsenal]

One could also think that he thought that the other players hands were not strong enough to call a bet from him. That is probably a level or 2 above were that guy is at.

All in all, he played the river horribly, unless he was hoping for a check raise. But if 2 people behind you have just been calling, and no raises, one can assume they would be happy to get to the showdown for free.

[iggnuef]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Haha. I was at that table!! I made fun of him all night, about checking the nuts. That was fun.

seriously?? too funny eh.....so you complaetely agree with me as he made a stupid move?

[REDVAN]

Is CP a poker hotbed? Do a lot of you guys play at the casinos?

I would have bet half my stack, but frankly, if you're holding the royal flush and you only hit the flush on the river, why are you even in the hand? You should not have been betting on the flop nor the turn, and really should be folding out when the other guys are betting...

I'd need to know what the flop cards were... did 2 for the flush come on the flop? If so, then 1st to act should bet, and then see what happens. He has to assume pairs or trips in the people who call (depending on bet size, maybe the straight draw), if he has the big flush draw.

Turn comes, it's a rag so he HAS to check here, or at least maintain the small bet, hoping the other players doubt their strength. When they call, and then the final card comes to complete his nuts, he checks. It doesn't matter what he does here, because the other players know he has, at the very least, the nut flush, based on the previous action.

I don't really know if this is how it went down, but I think it was a smart poker move. Either way he gets to show his royal flush and win the bonus. The other players should have folded to any bet on that river.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I don't really know if this is how it went down, but I think it was a smart poker move. Either way he gets to show his royal flush and win the bonus. The other players should have folded to any bet on that river.

Even if you you bet, and no one calls, you still have the option of showing your hand, or mucking it. So if he bets, and the other players fold, he shows his hand, and still wins the bonus.

One of the other players had an A high flush (apparently), if the player with the RF bets, the guy with the flush has to figure out were he is in the hand. Plus the guy with the RF only had $100 left behind him.
With the pot at around $400, the player with the Royal Flush shoves his last $100 chips into the pot, the pot is now at $500. It is costing the guy with a flush $100 to win $500 (5:1). He definitely has to call the $100. Unless he is certain he can put the EP player on a Royal Flush.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

With only 100$ left--at a no limit table with 400$ in the pot, his only play is to put the money in. If they can't call at 4-1, they're not betting anyway, because he's very unlikely to fold--so checking just gives them a chance to see the cards for free.

This is really the only answer to this thread. 100% agree here.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by arsenal

Even if you you bet, and no one calls, you still have the option of showing your hand, or mucking it. So if he bets, and the other players fold, he shows his hand, and still wins the bonus.

That would be the only thing that would make this an acceptable action: If he wasn't sure whether or not the hand had to go to showdown to win the jackpot.

I know at Deerfoot the hand doesn't need to go to showdown to win the High Hand jackpot, and since Stampede has the same management as Deerfoot, I assume their requirements are the same.

However, there are some casinos that do require the hand to have played to showdown to qualify for the High Hand jackpot (obviously, Bad Beat jackpots require a showdown).

That's not a question you want to ask in the middle of the hand, so if you're unsure, you might err on the side of caution and only check and call with a hand that you know will win you a big jackpot bonus.

[albertGQ]

Guys. Theres a difference between a bonus and a bad beat.

Bad beats require a showdown (obviously), while a bonus does not