Hand No. 11

This hand occurred at a live game recently. Initially I didn't think this hand was worth much discussion, but several people at the table suggested I should write about it. I've come to realize there are some interesting nuances to this hand. Sometimes we just write off hands as "that's poker." But in this case, unorthodox play and a little bad luck resulted in disaster for a particular player.

Eight players at a table where each player started with 20,000 chips. This hand was the 3rd or 4th hand of the tournament. Blinds are 100/200. Player A barely has Player C covered, but both players still have about 20,000 in chips.

Player A raises to 600. B folds. Player C re-raises to 1,300. All other players fold around to Player A, who calls the additional 700. The pot is 2,900.

The Flop is A 10 A. Player A checks, and Player C bets 2,200. Player A calls. The pot is now 7,300 chips.

The Turn is a 3. Player A checks and Player C checks behind.

The River is a 4. Player A now bets 3,500. Player C goes all-in. Player A calls. Pot is over 40,000 chips. Player A shows A 4. Player C shows A 10. Player C's full house beats Player A's full house, and Player C wins the pot.

My thoughts on the hand:

Player A's raise pre-flop may have been an attempt to thin the players in the hand. I don't like to play these types of hands, because if you pair your Ace on the flop, you then have to wonder whether you are ahead in the hand, or being outkicked by a better Ace. The 4 kicker is only going to beat a 2 or a 3 kicker, and most times won't end up being played at a the end of the hand. Your best hope to to flop two-pair, and then your going to take a bunch of chips from someone with an Ace and a strong kicker.

Player C's re-raise was also a little unsuspected. A 10 probably isn't strong enough to raise with from an early position, unless you are committed to dumping the hand if you get a big re-raise before the flop. The 10 kicker is a better than the 4 kicker, but again will be losing to most of the hands that would likely call the raise. Player A did have the pot odds to call the re-raise, though. In the end, Player C's re-raise here may have helped convince Player A he was facing a hand like A K or A Q, rah ten than A 10.

The flop was very good for both players. Player A was still losing to a hand like A K, but the presence of two aces on the board made it less likely Player C was holding the last Ace in the deck. Player A's check helped to keep the pot size manageable, and Player A's call of the 2,200 was probably correct.

The play on the turn is probably what doomed Player A in this hand. Player A checks and Player C shrewdly checks behind him. Player A would now have reason he is facing a hand like A K, or a pocket pair below the aces. This is a move you see a lot with online play. A player bets big on the flop, then checks the turn to create the impression they were just bluffing. Their opponent then makes a big bet on the flop, which works great for the online player who often made a huge hand on the flop. The alternative would be to go ahead and bet on the turn. If your opponent had any kind of hand, you will have better chances get all their chips into the pot one step at a time, rather than making a big all-in bet on the river.

The river was terrible for Player A. Player A has now made a full house. He is beating a hand like A K or even pocket 10s. After the hand, Player A mentioned Player C was holding the only hand that could beat him. Since that's the case, it probably doesn't matter how the betting took place, as both players would eventually go all-in. Still, Player A leads out for 3,500 and then Player C goes all-in for about 16,000 chips. Player C is holding the stone cold nuts, and rather than simply re-raise an amount likely to get called, say 8,000, Player C bets all-in. Of course Player A calls. Player A stated had he not caught his 4 on the river, he probably folds to the all-in bet.

So how do we account for Player C's bet on the river? The all-in is only going to be called by hands as strong as a full house, or perhaps a very strong Ace. But the betting pre-flop and throughout the hand didn't really support a hand like A K. Player C didn't talk much after the hand, so we don't know what he was thinking about Player A's hand.

The tragedy which befell Player A demonstrates the risks and possible rewards of playing so-called marginal hands like Ace with a weak kicker. Had Player A been playing against an A K, then he wins all the chips at the end of the hand. As it turns out, Player A was behind throughout the hand. Unfortunately, Player A's hand only improved as the hand progressed. Player C's betting perfectly disguised the strength of his hand. Again, the chips were probably getting all-in no matter what. There probably was no way out for Player A in this hand, other then not playing the hand in the first place. It would be easy to say "that's just poker," but there's obviously more to it than that. An astute player would take note of the interesting plays made by each player, and remember them for next time.

As always, thanks for reading, and feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments section.