The Good, the Great, and the Ugly

All in the same hand in a three-way pot, a good play, a great play, and an ugly play took place. I was not any of the involved parties, but as an observer, I found this particular hand both noteworthy and interesting. The game is $40-$80 stud. Coincidentally, the good play, the great play, and the ugly play are seated sequentially in the No. 3 seat, No. 4 seat, and No. 5 seat.

Third street: The No. 5 seat is the bring-in with the 2, and everyone folds until the No. 3 seat calls $10. Then, the No. 4 seat raises with a 10 doorcard and the No. 5 seat and No. 3 seat call the raise.

Fourth street: Although the No. 3 seat intercepts a 10, the No. 4 seat manages to catch another 10, making open tens. The No. 5 seat catches the 9, which suits up with his 2 doorcard. The No. 4 seat leads out with a full $80 bet and both players call. The No. 3 seat, who started the hand with 6-7-8, has called the open tens with a gutshot-straight draw. This is not a sound play, and it certainly isn't justified by the meager pot odds that present themselves here. The call is further weakened by the fact that he should be wondering what the No. 5 seat is calling with. Not only does it look like a flush draw, which is a substantial favorite over a gutshot-straight draw, one of his upcards is a 9! The man is on a three-outer draw, which very well may not be a good hand if made. While the No. 5 seat appears to be on a flush draw, in reality, he has made the ridiculous call of the No. 4 seat's bet with open tens while armed with only split deuces and an ace. The 9 isn't even an overcard, for that matter. Even though there is a 10 out, is it not possible that he is up against trips? How about two pair? How will he like his hand should he hit a 9? This call is downright ugly, but what occurs on fifth street is just plain hideous.

Fifth street: Everyone improves. The No. 3 seat hits his gutter ball, as the unlikely three-outer comes in. The two open tens catch the case 10 to make open trips! The No. 5 seat catches an ace to make split acey-deucey. Naturally, the open trips bets out. Inconceivably, the No. 5 seat calls, and does so with absolutely no hesitation. What can he be thinking here? He is drawing to four outs only if the No. 4 seat's open trips is not a full house (and remains empty with two cards to come), and to two outs if it is full (which, as it turned out, was the case, since it was raised with pocket jacks). Remember, the No. 4 seat was the initial raiser on third street, and he raised after someone had called the forced bet, as opposed to a simple steal-position raise executed against a lone low card in the pot. Most people do not take the significance of that distinction into consideration. Don't be most people. The No. 3 seat ponders … and ponders … and when he's done with that, he ponders some more. He actually shows me his made hand, and despite his bad call on fourth street, he makes a very wise laydown on fifth. How paradoxical it is that such bad and good play can coexist not only from the same person, but within the same hand. Nevertheless, this laydown is what constitutes the "good" play segment of the title of this column. The ugly play(s) have been aptly addressed. On the next street shall come the great play.

Sixth street: Tens full catches a rag, but the 2 9 A catches the A. Honestly, I misread his hand to be a flush at that point. What else could he have rationally called with? (Well, semirationally is a more precise description, since a flush draw really is not a sound play here whatsoever, and there really isn't a hand he should be in with except pocket aces.) I just could not fathom anyone playing split deuces with an ace on fourth street, much less aces and deuces against three open tens on fifth street. Although four aces was possible, I think if I were in the No. 4 seat, I would have bet my full house under the assumption my opponent held a flush. I'm just glad I was not in this hand. The No. 4 seat made, in my opinion, a great check and call on sixth street. Easily, he could have lost two bets by betting out and being raised. In fact, he clearly could have lost three bets by check-raising and getting reraised, although tens full could (and should) dump the hand if faced with a third bet on sixth street. Instead, he lost just one bet here. While on one hand he showed great presence of mind in one regard, there lies another side to this coin, mixed metaphor notwithstanding. The great play could have been a truly superb play if he bet out on sixth street to test the waters. If raised, he could simply dump the hand at that point (assuming quad aces, as it is near impossible that a flush would raise in this spot), thereby losing only one bet, and not the additional bet on seventh street. Also, if tens full was the best hand at that point, he would have lost a bet on sixth street if our hero checked behind him.

Seventh street: The No. 4 seat checks and calls again, obviously hoping for the more likely hand of a flush. When the No. 5 seat turns over aces full of deuces instead of the more logical quad aces or a flush, I simply cannot believe my eyes. This is such a ridiculous hand for him to have, but sure enough, he rakes in the pot with it.

Summary: The good play took place when the made straight folded on fifth street. The great play was in the tens full losing not quite the bare minimum, but not as much as many would have in his place. The ugly play was two-tiered, as both calls made on fourth and fifth streets were horrendous. There's that word again!