Friday, September 3, 2010

Money out the Yin Yang - part 2.

In our last episode, I had stacked two people with the nut flush vs. a smaller flush and a straight flush draw. Our table was smaller now, and I went back to folding. After a half-hour or so, I figured I had a built up a nitty-tight image again when I found an ace-eight of spades in my hand. With a few chips to splash around now, I decided to play this hand and play it fast, representing a big hand. I raised it up and got one caller, my old friend Mr. Pietzak, from the blinds.

The board came all low crap below my eight, and all different suits. Mr. Pietzak checked and I popped out a near-pot sized bet. He called, unconvinced. The turn brought a four - a second 4 on the board, actually, and a second spade as well. This gave me another nut flush draw, and was the right kind of "blank" card I would double barrel for value if I had the overpair I was representing. I bet nice and big again, and again Mr. Pietzak called me.

Super-gin on the river- the queen of spades. I had the nut flush, but on a paired board. I went over the hand quickly to decide if there was any chance Mr. Pietzak had been sandbagging me with a full house. It wasn't really his style - he is more apt to push into people with large bets both with and without the cards to back up these bets - check/calling and letting me bet didn't fit the plan. This was especially true for him playing against me - he knows that I tend to nit it up during live play and that I can't always be counted on to bet. So I would think that he would be more apt to bet a big hand himself, and put me and my nitty ways to the test. I ruled out a full house for him.

However, he could have a lower flush himself. Or maybe a 4 for trips. There was still value to be had here. How much value, though? A big bet or a small one?

I decided that this was one of the times that a bigger bet was more likely to look fishy than a small one. Consider the facts- what type of hand could I have logically played "bet/bet/bet" on a board that started all low, then paired, then hit a flush draw? Wouldn't an overpair be afraid of that runner-runner flush? Wouldn't the paired board slow some hands down? If I had hit a lucky queen with two unpaired broadway cards on the river, wouldn't I just check with a pair on a scary board? I knew that Mr. Pietzak, the expert hand reader, was going to have trouble finding a hand that fit my betting line all the way through, and might therefore come to the conclusion that I was simply trying to bulldoze my way to victory. And, if he had anything at all, he might try to snap off a bluff.

I bet something like $18 into the $27 pot. Not a large bet by any stretch, but something that looked like a third value bet in a line that could not have possibly been three value bets. He mulled over the action for an extra beat or two, just as I was sure he would, and then slid his call into the middle of the table, slowly.

"Ace high flush", I exclaimed, and watched the color drain from his face as the expert hand reader realized what had happened. He had indeed caught whiff of the fishy smell coming from my betting line, but the bluffing was at the start of the hand, not the end. I had runner-runnered into another monster hand, and another large pot.

No comments: