A Cautionary Tale

PezRez on 14th March 2011

PokerStars Game $46+$4 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100)
6-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: Hero (3704 in chips)
Seat 4: Player 4 (1500 in chips)
Seat 5: Player 5 (1585 in chips)
Seat 6: Hyperbowl (2211 in chips)
Hyperbowl: posts small blind 50
Hero: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Jd Jh]
Player 4: folds
Player 5: folds
Hyperbowl: calls 50
Hero: raises 150 to 250
Hyperbowl: calls 150
*** FLOP *** [Qh Th 4d]
Hyperbowl: checks
Hero: bets 200
Hyperbowl: raises 200 to 400
Hero: calls 200
*** TURN *** [Qh Th 4d] [Kd]
Hyperbowl: checks
Hero: checks
*** RIVER *** [Qh Th 4d Kd] [4s]
Hyperbowl: bets 600
Hero: calls 600
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Hyperbowl: shows [9d Qc] (two pair, Queens and Fours)
Hero: mucks hand
Hyperbowl collected 2500 from pot

This is a cautionary tale about understanding the level your opponent is on. I’m in the Big Blind with a pair of Jacks, which, for all that rubbish you read about JJ being ‘a classic trap hand’, is a great hand to hold. To make it better, I’m playing in position against a sole opponent. And not just any opponent. He’s not just a fishbowl, he’s much worse than that. He’s what md261 and I call a Hyperbowl; a player who is just so terrible, they should be played with at any opportunity.

I need to raise with my hand, for value and to stimulate the future flow of chips into the pot. I make it 2.5x, which is my usual preferred raise size in the Big Blind in blind-on-blind pots, as I find my out-of-position opponents rarely call raises of 3x or higher once the blinds are bigger. (On reflection however, I clearly should have raised to 3x or more; my opponent is a hyperbowl after all and will not dwell on his position. Since he’ll call bigger bets more frequently, I could have gotten some extra value).

The flop brings one overcard, a Queen. Hyperbowl checks and I bet 200 into 500. I don’t feel the need to check for pot control; my opponent is so bad there are many worse hands we will call with here, so there is a lot of value to be seized. I make my C-bet a little smaller than usual both because I want a little room to manoeuvre later in the hand and I’m not too worried about outdraws against a single opponent with such a wide range. Unfortunately I got minimum check-raised. Hmmph. Well at this stage, I still have a good hand, good pot odds and good position. And my opponent is a hyperbowl! What more do I need to say?

When I pick up a straight draw on the turn, the sensible way to respond to his check is to check it right back. I can take a free card with my draw whilst now exercising some pot control, with my opponent having shown some strength previously.

The river is where the big decision comes in. The pot is 1300, and my opponent bets 600. I look at the board, and I am thinking: what can he value-bet here? He check-raised me on the flop, indicating he probably had a piece then, perhaps a Queen. He probably checked the turn because he didn’t like the King. So why would he bet this river with a Queen? What could he expect to call? It doesn’t make much sense. I find it hard to picture a plausible hand my opponent would bet for value here, so call expecting to see a busted draw, complete air or something strong like an AK or straight.

Oops. My opponent held a Queen after all, value-bet me nicely and took down a good pot. So where did I go wrong? As some of you may have noticed, I lost sight of the fact my opponent was a hyperbowl. On the river, my reasoning relied on me putting him on a thought-process, when in fact I should have been hesitant to put him on a thought. My decision should have been just about the absolute strength of my hand and my pot odds. That’s not to say I wouldn’t have called; I may have done. Sometimes you need to pay off hyperbowls. But for sure my reasoning was wrong.

Like I said, a cautionary tale. Always pay attention to your opponents and consider their level of thought when you play. I lost sight of this here, and it may have cost me.

PezRez