Playing draw
I was playing limit draw on poker stars.
I raised, got one caller behind me, drew 2. He drew 2.
Ididn't bet after the draw, he called, I showed JJJxx, he showed AAKxx
I guess he kept a King kicker to his pair of aces.
What did he think I had? If I didn't have trips my most likely hand was something like 77A. It was very unlikely I'd have drawn two to something link AAJ.
Why did he keep a kicker?
Correction: I did bet after the draw.
I raised, got one caller behind me, drew 2. He drew 2.
I
I guess he kept a King kicker to his pair of aces.
What did he think I had? If I didn't have trips my most likely hand was something like 77A. It was very unlikely I'd have drawn two to something link AAJ.
Why did he keep a kicker?
Correction: I did bet after the draw.
Labels: Draw poker
posted by Gary Carson at 6:44 PM
7 Comments:
I don't know much draw strategy. Why isn't this a bet after the draw?
I can't speak for your opponent, but it seems like you're not considering the situation very carefully. If he didn't raise behind pre-draw, what makes you think he had AA?
Also, if you're not playing jacks-or-better and could have a hand like 77A, why wouldn't he call after the draw? He has to figure AAx is a favorite to be best in that circumstance regardless of how he got there. Drawing 2 is also a common bluff obviously which could help explain his behavior, or explain how he interpreted your behavior.
In any case, this isn't going to make the top 10 weird draws list.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think he had AA because he drew 2 and he didn't show a hand that could have drawn 2 to a flush. I would not expect an AA to re-raise pre-draw in a PL game.
If he actually thought I had 77A and he didn't have a pair then his best draw is to draw 4 to his non-ace highest card.
The only way a draw to AAK makes sense is if he's pretty sure I have AAK or AAQ.
But, you're probably right. He probably just thought I was an idiot and made to attempt to think about my hand because everybody knows you can't put an idiot on a hand.
I've played a lot of no-limit draw and you're right that a common bluff among idiots is to raise, draw 2 to a small pair then bluff after the draw.
It's very uncommon for someone who hasn't shown himself to be a complete idiot to do that, however. At least in big-bet draw.
Many times I've broken Aces up to draw to a pair of aces, many times I've broken a small straight to draw to a flush. It's certianly not automatic to do so, but I've done it. It's my guess that the opponent here would never even think of doing such a thing.
btw, this was a PL game, not a limit game. The kind of bluffs you're talking about tend to be much more frequent in limit games than in PL games. Players who make a habit of doing that in PL games just don't play long.
The OP said limit, I assumed limit. If it was PL things change a bit and the hand is somewhat more unusual - he may have actually drawn 2 to AAK which would be, uh, dumb.
You're right, I did say limit. I'm sure that's right since when I wrote it my memory was more likely to be accurate. I should have re-read the OP before I replied.
Some weak players might re-raise with AA in limit, but I wouldn't normally expect it in any case.
So him not re-raising doesn't mean much.
He just didn't have 3 cards to draw to if he wasn't drawing to AAK.
But, I"m sure you're right, I"m sure I'm not considering the situation very carefully.
If it was limit, wouldn't it be jacks though? I guess I'm so turned around about exactly what happened that I can't form much of an opinion.
My one thought is this: his play can be explained if he thought you were opening shorts. So whether or not you can open shorts matters (regardless of whether you would actually do so) especially if one of the x was a face.
I guess what I'm getting at is that drawing 2 to 3 face cards against shorts is a pretty decent semi-bluff setup.
Post a Comment
<< Home