The brownie diaries, pictorial edition

I promise that this is the last brownie related post -- even I can see that it's getting a bit obsessional. But, just in order to convince you that the whole "baking brownies" thing wasn't some sort of sad literary hook for the previous posts, here's the pictorial evidence. After all, we know that pictures never lie.

Sadly, not taken with a Brownie box camera, but with the modern equivalent, an extremely cheap and cheerful digital camera (at least it's a Kodak)



Batches one and two and the chocolate bits supply.














Batch three cooling, and butter melting for batch five. Batch four is in the oven, but not having Alton Brown's kitchen, I can't show you a picture of those. (More celebrity chef namedropping)







State of the kitchen -- not too bad really.

The brownie diaries

Unsurprisingly perhaps I can't seem to stop thinking about brownies at the moment. So, what better to do than to subject you my dear readers to those same thoughts. We'll start with the recipe, but even if you're not interested, I suggest you read on as I'll follow with my usual discursive and amusing ramblings (which is what you're here for right?)

Captain Kirk's Brownies

Ingredients

• 2 cups sugar
• 225 g (8 oz) unsalted butter (melted)
• 4 eggs
• 4 tsp vanilla
• 1 1/3 cups (about 215 g) flour
• 1 tsp salt
• 1 tsp baking powder
• 2/3 cup cocoa
• 1 cup chocolate chips

Method

1. In a large bowl combine the sugar and melted butter
2. Beat the eggs lightly, and stir them into the sugar/butter mixture along with the vanilla
3. Mix in the dry ingredients (flour, salt, baking powder and cocoa) stirring just until everything is combined
4. Stir in the chocoate chips
5. Pour into two 20 cm (8 inch) square pans (or equivalent) and spread out fairly evenly
6. Bake at 180 C (350 F) for about 30 minutes

Now it's time for the discursions.

The name: We got the recipe from a friend named Kirk, and I suppose the "Captain" part was a fairly automatic addition. No actual Star Trek connection that I'm aware of.

Ingredients: There are a number of issues to address here -

• In the matter of nuts. Certain people, myself included, feel that the addition of some chopped walnuts (say about 1/2 cup) to a brownie batter is a fine thing. Even pecans, or hazelnuts (marginal), but certainly not peanuts. Others though feel equally strongly that nuts in brownies are an anathema, on a par with peas or mushrooms (or, shudder, both) in plain rice. And of course when making industrial quantities of the brownies for some event or another there will inevitably be those who have, or believe they have, an allergy to nuts. So, on the nut front, it's up to you.
• I did not hear anybody mention raisins.
  
• If you must use salted butter, then reduce the salt a bit. How much? How should I know? I've never bought salted butter except by accident or when there wasn't a choice.
• Real vanilla essence please. I can't imagine I have any readers who would think otherwise.
• And likewise of course cocoa. I shudder to think what might ensue if one tried to use Nestle's Quik or similar product.
  
• And most important of all, chocolate. Now there's an unfortunate recent trend for the chocolate manufacturers to sell chocolate chips, which they specifically advertise will hold their shape when baked. You don't want these! The whole point is for the chocolate to melt and contribute to the luscious gooiness of the brownie centre (... mmmm .... brownies .... mmmm .... oh, where was I ...). So, if your local grocery is unable to supply such chips (or bits) you have a few choices. The easiest, is to buy chocolate buttons which are designed to melt (but are too large to be used whole in this recipe). Run them through a blender or food processor briefly to chop them down to size (you could try actually melting them -- but I'm not sure that would give the right effect). Alternatively, you could go all Jamie Oliver and go down to the nearest pretentious and overpriced chocolatier, buy a 1kg block of some ridiculously expensive chocolate, and chop bits off yourself. Your call.
• It should go without saying that you can add more chocolate than the recipe calls for. My default amount is nearer to 1 1/2 cups than 1 cup. Adding extra cocoa is probably ok, but some care might be required here because of the liquid/dry ratios.

The method: Again a few points to raise --

• You can make a half recipe (but, duhh, why?) However, it's probably best not to try to increase the quantities significantly owing to the issue of mixing (see below), unless you're a trained professional (with access to a professional's equipment.)
• Sifting the dry ingredients into the wet ones is suggested. It's a bit of a pain, and means one more item to wash, but it does make a difference to the texture (and makes it easier to mix.)
  
• At each stage the mixing should be gentle, and just until everything is combined. Hand mixing is strongly recommended. Obviously, you don't want stray bits of flour, cocoa, or pockets of melted butter about, but overmixing leads to a tough brownie.
• I did mention you could add more chocolate right?
• If you have non-stick pans then there's no real reason to grease them. However, given the desired consistency of the end product (see below), any sticking is a disaster. So, I usually adopt a belt and braces approach and grease the pans in advance (besides, you have all the wrappers from the butter to do it with).

The baking: This deserves a section all of its own.

It must be admitted that (except for the mixing bit), the baking is the one part of this recipe where things can go awry.

What, after all, is the perfect brownie? The perfect brownie can be held in the hand without sticking, but is sufficiently soft, gooey and luscious on the inside that you're always worried that it might stick.

On the one hand that suggests a hot oven in order to get a crispy outside without overcooking the inside. But, on the other hand, brownie batter is quite dense and so in order to get the inside cooked without burning the outside, a less hot oven would be indicated. What a predicament!

The perfect solution perhaps would be to go with a hotter oven, let the edges and corners overcook slightly, and then trim the overcooked bits away. As well as being fiddly, that seems wasteful (though, you could crumble up the edge bits and mix them with vanilla ice cream ...) The temperature and timings suggested in the recipe seem to be "right" for most ovens. But, you will need to allow for variation and be prepared for one or more less than perfect batches as you narrow down the "sweet spot".

Determining whether the brownies are done is also a bit of an art rather than a science. The toothpick test is no good, since if the toothpick comes out clean, the brownies are already too dry. Basically the middle of the brownies should be just slightly elastic when you press it.

An alternative solution, to the whole baking dilemma, available only to those of us who are not resident in third world countries like the U.S.A., and who don't therefore have to worry about salmonella is simply to dispense with the baking altogether and eat the batter with a spoon.

If things go wrong: There are really only two things that can go wrong. You might undercook the brownies, or you might overcook them. In computer science parlance, undercooking is a feature, not a bug. O.k. you need a spoon or something to eat the brownies, but that's not a big problem. And, if they're not cut up into regular pieces it's harder for onlookers to notice just how many you've eaten.

Overcooking is a more serious issue. But, don't panic -- there are many fine things that can be done with slightly dry brownies. The simplest, alluded to above, is to chop them up and mix them with ice cream (or whipped cream if that's your thing). A slightly more sophisticated approach, which relies on having a few extra ingredients handy is to make a sort of mock Schwarzwälder Kirsch Torte. Split the brownies in half making two thin slices (or if you're greedy, just use two brownies). Spread on some cherry conserve (or other fruity jam), along with some whipped cream. Make a sandwich of the result, and add some whipped cream and a cherry on top. Finally, if the brownies are to be served to adults, a little dash of rum will moisten them up nicely.

I'm sure that you can come up with variations of your own ...

Next time, photographic evidence.

Got me (cont'd)

Chocolate shock averted. But, it's a mortal sin not to lick the bowl right? And, even if you've made the recipe dozens of times before without mishap, you still have to test (each batch?) when they've baked right?

Anyhow, third batch is cooling and fourth batch is in the oven. We're in the home straight.

Exhibit C comes straight from the "I'm a donkey calling station" files. In late position I receive K♣J♣. UTG min raises ($0.50) and a MP player, myself, and one of the blinds call. The flop is J♦3♦3♣ giving me top pair, decent kicker and the backdoor flush draw.

UTG now bets ($1.00), a little less than half the pot. MP calls, as do I, and the blind folds. I don't really think I can fold here -- I can't even be sure that I'm behind. On the other hand raising seems a bit over the top.

The turn is a brickish 6♥. UTG again leads just under half the pot. This time MP goes away, but for some reason I elect to call again (I did tell you!)

Finally, the river brings the A♠ and another half pot sized bet from UTG. Which, showing consistency if nothing else, I again call. Losing to the ladies. I wonder if I could have played the hand any more poorly.

Exhibit D is of a slightly different character than our preceding ones. In MP I receive Q♦Q♣. Over one limper in front of me I bet pot ($1.10) which is called by the BB only, the limper folding. The flop is 5♠9♠T♠. The BB leads ($1.00) into the $2.55 pot, and I raise ($3.00), which he calls. The turn is a very ugly A♠. The BB checks and I check behind. Finally, the river card is 4♦ and the BB bets ($1.00) into the $8.55 pot. This looks like a blocking bet with a small spade, or no spade and a pair of aces, but I can't bring myself to pull the trigger and put in a big raise. Instead, I just call, and lose to a pair of ducks including the 2♠.

And there ends this particular sequence of tales. You may choose to believe that the reason for this is:

1. I only misplayed four hands in the last few days; or
2. I'm worried that I've already tried the patience of you my dear readers (or is that reader?) and had better quite while I may still be ahead; or
3. The final batch of brownies are in the oven and (after cleaning the kitchen -- ugh) I will soon have more productive things to do with my time (like playing poker instead of writing about it).

However, I'd rather you kept your choice to yourself unless it happens to be number 1, in which case I have some real estate that you might be interested in ...

Got me!

I'm in the midst of baking five batches of brownies (the chocolate sort, not the other kind) so have a few minutes here and there to review some of my play over the last few days. In the interests of preemptively appeasing the poker gods, as I'm conscious of having written about some of my successes lately, here are a few samples where, well let's say, things did not go quite so well.

Exhibit A At a short handed table (only five players at the moment), I'm in the BB with K♠5♠. All fold to the short-stacked ($7) button who open limps ($0.25), the SB folds, and I check. I pick up third pair plus the backdoor flush draw on the A♦Q♠5♣ flop, but check intending to fold to a bet. However, the button checks behind. The turn is a seemingly exciting 5♦. I bet a daring $0.25 into the $0.60 pot, which is called. The river is the 7♠. I start with a near pot sized bet ($1) which is raised ($3.25). I pause to think. It seems to me that the river may have completed a two pair hand (A7 or Q7), so I reraise enough to put him all in. He calls -- with AA.

(And yes, I know, this is an instance where playing AA "poorly" got paid off -- though not so poorly as all that, the preflop limp ensures some action and with a relatively dry flop checking behind is reasonable. One might suggest a raise on the turn though ...)

Exhibit B Also at a slightly short handed table (6 players), I get A♦K♥ in the BB. UTG+1 raises ($0.75), the cut off calls, and I elect to call as well.

AK offsuit from out of position is a problem hand for me (and for many others I gather), so any comments on the preflop action would be welcome. With many limpers I will tend to put in a significant raise to narrow the field, but here it seemed that at least one of my opponents was likely to have a medium to big pair and would correctly call. So, I chose to see a flop, hoping for a K (an A would be ok too, but not quite as good).

Indeed, the flop contained an A, specifically: A♠6♣6♥. I led ($1.50) into the $2.35 pot. The initial raiser folded, but the cutoff called. The turn brought the T♣. Perhaps I should have slowed down at this point hoping to check-call reasonably cheaply to the river, but for some reason I led ($4.00) into the $5.35 pot. This was called again.

Finally, the message began to get through to me, but not it seems clearly enough. I checked the 3♦ on the river, but called the cutoff's bet ($5.50 into the $13.35 pot). I can't really explain that one, since my betting prior to that point had surely represented at least top pair, top kicker, and yet the cutoff was making a value bet.

But after all, even a source as authoritative as Fuel55 has recently told me (and I quote) "Top pair, top kicker is the nuts". What's that you say? Irony? Geez, I wish people would tell me these things before it costs me money.

More later if I haven't collapsed from a chocolate overdose.

How not to play aces (2?)

Perhaps I'll make this my "signature" story. We'll see ...

Anyhow, in the present instance UTG+2 open limps ($0.25) with AA. Next to him, I hold 88 and call. A late position player makes it $1.25, folding the blinds. The original limper calls (!) as do I (stacks are full, and we're heading towards the mines ...)

The flop is T96 rainbow. Mr. "I slowplay Aces" bets $0.25 into the $4.00 pot. At 17:1 I almost have direct odds to call for my set value alone, never mind the gutshot. I actually give some thought to raising, and almost certainly would if the pot were heads up, but, with the original raiser still to act, choose to believe that discretion is the better part of valour and simply call.

The original raiser now bets pot (it's pot limit). Finally Mr. ISA wakes up and reraises pot. My third pair plus gutshot no longer look so good, and I fold. A raising war ensues until all the money is in.

Turn and river are more or less irrelevant (except for not being an A) as the pot is shipped to the original raiser's set of 9's.

"Of course" says Mr. ISA. The entire table shows remarkable awareness of the importance of not tapping the glass, and refrains from adding further comment.

So, what do we learn from today's episode boys and girls? It may be important to vary your play and occasionally limp AA (though I think that even that is debatable unless you are consistently playing against the same opponents), but having done so and having obtained a raise behind you, dare I suggest that a significant reraise is in order?

Deep in the set mines

The following hand took place just a few minutes after I'd sat down to play at a new table. In a strange sort of way I don't like to win a big pot early as I find it hard to play my normal game after that. But, I'll always take the cash ...

PokerStars Pot-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (7 handed)
Hand History Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.comFlopTurnRiver.com (Format: Plain Text)

Button ($24.65)
BB ($34.85)
Hero ($24.75)
Preflop: Hero is MP1 with 2♠, 2♥.
1 fold, Hero calls $0.25, 2 folds, Button calls $0.25, 1 fold, BB raises to $0.75, Hero calls $0.50, Button calls $0.50.

Flop: ($2.35) T♦, A♠, 2♦ (3 players)
BB bets $0.75, Hero raises to $2, Button raises to $9, BB calls $8.25, Hero raises to $24, Button calls $14.90 (All-In), BB calls $15.

Obviously this is the interesting point of the hand. I don't read the BB for TT (probably not a raise initially from this particular player), but of course AA is possible (though, with the ace on the board, we might see a slow play there). My initial raise with bottom set is actually a bit too small, since diamond draws are being more or less priced in. When the button raised, again I didn't put him on TT (he would have raised preflop with that), and I actually thought AT was his most likely holding. When the BB just called that, I ruled out AA. My best guess now was that the button had AT, and the BB AK or AQ possibly with a diamond draw (though perhaps not -- again the BB might have reraised with that rather than just calling the button's raise).

So, I read myself as being ahead, and got all the money in. Sometimes it's nice when a plan comes together ...


Turn: ($74.05) Q♦ (3 players, 2 all-in) (I'm a little worried by this card)
River: ($74.05) 8♠ (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $74.25

BB: A♦K♣
Button: A♥T♣

Playing aces can be easy

I'm UTG+1 with a $35 stack, the only player at the table with a larger stack is UTG.

UTG: Limp
Me: Pot
Random MP player: Call
(Rest fold)

UTG: Pot
Me: Pot
Random MP player: Fold

UTG: Pot, all in.
Me: All in.

No prizes -- he had KK (it was that or a tied pot).

Doing the funky chicken

And other sorts of moves ...

A hand came up a few days ago that I simply can't get out of my head -- it's not a huge pot, nothing terribly exciting about it, but there's just something about it that worries me. So, in a carthatic spirit, here it is:

$25 pot limit hold'em.
I'm in the cutoff with a full stack and get T♦T♥. A mid position player who has yet to make an impression on me limps. The next player, on a short stack of $1.50, also limps. Now this player has certainly made an impression. He plays any two cards and calls raises with any two cards. I've been looking for the chance to isolate him for some time, and though it's hardly worth while at this point given the size of his remaining stack I follow through with a pot-sized raise to $1.35.

This gets folded around to the BB who, holding 8♣9♣ elects to call. I can just about see this -- he can be sure that our any two cards friend will call (or more likely commit his last $0.15 to the pot), and if the previous limper does so as well, his suited connectors are getting nice odds. Even if the first of the limpers folds it's not too bad, and because of the small amount of cash remaining in the short stack it's impossible that he'll be facing a true reraise when it comes back to him.

And that's pretty much how things turned out, the first limper folded, any two cards put the rest of his money in, I called (not being allowed to raise) and we all saw the flop:

K♣Q♦4♣

Enter the funky chicken. With his flush draw and undercards, the BB bet $3 into a $5 pot. I folded of course, a club came on the turn, but another came on the river, so mister any two cards picked up the pot with A♣5♥.

Postscript What I simply can't understand is what the bet on the flop was meant to accomplish. In order to win the pot, even if I fold, he must believe that he as to improve a bit (even against mister any two cards, 9 high is not a great hand). With an all in and a dry side pot, my continuation bet (if I make it) will likely be smaller than normal and so a check-call line (which might well be a draw, but could also be something like KJ, AQ ...) is likely both to build the pot and to cost less when the draw fails to hit.

Furthermore, the big problem with the bet on the flop is that it just spews money if I elect to raise (as I promise you I would have with any of AA, AK, KK, KQ, QQ). Facing a pot sized raise, you're going (in principle) to have to let the flush draw go (because you will not be given implied odds on such an obvious draw).

The iPod meme

A.k.a running well, so I don't have many stories from the table. I'm not sure whether I'll do the full twenty first verses, as that seems a bit excessive and I do intend to cheat slightly by using shuffle play on "M's favourites" rather than the full library, but, with those provisos, here goes:

1. If you gave me a coin for every time we say goodbye
   Well I'd be rich beyond my dreams, I'm sorry for my weary life
   I know I'm not perfect but I can smile
   And I hope that you can see this heart behind my tired eyes


2. Well we know where we're going
   But we don't know where we've been
   And we know what we're knowing
   But we can't say what we've seen
   And we're not little children
   And we know what we want
   And the future is certain
   Give us time to work it out


3. Welcome to real life
   Welcome to real life
   I've come to realise it's no game
   No one is the same
   There's so much more to life
   Than meets the eye


4. You may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
   You may find yourself in another part of the world
   You may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
   You may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife
   You may ask yourself; Well...How did I get here?


5. Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away
   If you can use some exotic booze
   There's a bar in far Bombay
   Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away


6. Stop this world, let me off
   There's just too many pigs in the same trough
   There's too many buzzards sitting on the fence
   Stop this world, it's not making sense


7. People try to put us down
   Just because we get around
   Things they do look awful cold
   I hope I die before I get old


8. We were at a party
   His ear lobe fell in the deep
   Someone reached in and grabbed it
   It was a rock lobster


9. Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine
   meltin' in a pot of thieves
   wild card up my sleeve
   thick heart of stone
   my sins my own
   they belong to me, me


10. I was tuning in the shine on the light night dial
    Doing anything my radio advised
    With every one of those late night stations
    Playing songs bringing tears to my eyes
    I was seriously thinking about hiding the receiver
    When the switch broke 'cause it's old
    They're saying things that I can hardly believe
    They really think we're getting out of control

And that's probably more than enough.

It's deja vu all over again

The reasons for my recent obsession with sets and their redraws became clear today:

PokerStars Pot-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: HTML)

MP3 ($14.75)
CO ($4.80)
Button ($14.65)
Hero ($25.50)
BB ($62.20)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 7s, 7d.
4 folds, MP3 calls $0.25, CO calls $0.25, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($1) 4s, 7c, 6h (4 players)

There's that flopped set again, and top set too. Someone said to bet your sets so:

Hero bets $0.5, BB raises to $1.5, MP3 folds, CO folds, Hero raises to $4.5, BB calls $3.

Now that's a bit odd -- he checked preflop, raised my flop bet, and then called my raise. What's he got? Two pair? Another set? Flopped straight?

Turn: ($10) 4d (2 players)

Unless it was 44, it doesn't matter any more. Now how much can I get into the pot?

Hero bets $4, BB calls $4.
River: ($18) Qh (2 players)
SB bets $10, BB calls $10.

Final Pot: $38

And indeed he had 58.

Redraws redux

For no particular reason, I've been thinking about redraws in hold'em a bit lately. Here's another illustrative example:

Consider two holdings:

• 5♣5♥ (chosen in honour of guess who)
• 6♣7♣

on a board of 5♦8♦9♥. In both cases your opponent holds A♦K♦.

The set, with its redraws to a boat, has a 75/25 edge, whereas the flopped straight, which is dead if the diamond flush hits, has only a 63/37 edge.

In practical terms, the A♦K♦ hand would be correct to call a pot sized all in bet if he felt that he was up against the flopped straight, but not against the set.

In case you'd forgotten ...

Why it's a bad idea to limp with AA (especially if shortstacked):

PokerStars Pot-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: HTML)

Hero ($25.70)
UTG+1 ($8.85)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 5♣5♥.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.25, 2 folds, MP3 calls $0.25, CO calls $0.25, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($1.25) 5♠K♥3♥ (Bingo!)
Hero bets $0.75, BB calls $0.75, UTG+1 raises to $2.25, MP3 folds, CO calls $2.25, Hero raises to $10.95, BB folds, UTG+1 calls $6.35 (All-In), CO folds.

I made the pot sized reraise (this is pot limit) both for value, and in order to make it wrong for anyone chasing the heart flush to come along.

Turn: ($21.45) 8♣ (2 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($21.45) 8♥ (2 players, 1 all-in)

I worried about the heart at first, but then realized it gave me my boat. Oops.

UTG+1 mucks A♣A♠

Too close (not) to call?

About 1/4 of the field remain in a large, low buy in, MTT. You've been playing well, getting some cards, and have been blessed with a fairly passive table, and as a result have the chip lead at the table, with about 50BB. The average stack at this point is 20BB.

UTG+3 with AJ offsuit, you raise to 3BB (with blinds and antes, pot was 2BB before the raise). This folds to the small blind who pushes his 12.5BB into the pot. The SB has been with you at this table since the beginning of the tournament, and has been playing a very tight game.

So, do you call?

Under the circumstances it's a pure pot equity decision. If you call and lose you're still well placed, and if you call and win you're a bit better placed. The remaining field is still so large that knocking out a single player isn't an issue. Right then, what odds do you need? Your call is 10BB, the final pot will be 27.5BB, so your break even point is a 36% chance of winning the pot. Time to decide a hand range for the SB.

Let's start with a "tight" range, consistent with his previous play, and the fact that, while somewhat short stacked he had no particular need to make a play at exactly this moment. Say, TT+, AQ+. Since his unpaired hands mostly dominate yours, and his pairs are so good, your equity in that case is a pretty poor 28%. In order to get your 36%, if the unpaired hands aren't changed, you have to expand the paired range to 22+.

But changing the unpaired hands makes a big difference. If we add all KQ's, then suddenly the odds are right. Likewise if we leave the KQ's out but expand the Ax range down to AT.

So, too close to call or not?

The importance of redraws

A reasonable rule of thumb when contemplating an all in after the flop is that each out is worth about 4% equity. But, it may be important to keep in mind the redraws that your opponent has. Here are a couple of illustrative cases:

You have T♠9♠, with a flop of 5♥7♠8♠. You're contemplating calling an all in from an opponent.

Discounting your overcard outs entirely it looks like you have 15 outs: any spade, any jack or any 6. So, on the rule of thumb basis, you're actually a favourite on the hand and are delighted to call.

But, the two cases where your opponent has a set, or an overpair are actually quite different. When he has the overpair (assuming that it's not JJ) then if you improve you are practically certain to win the hand (particularly if he doesn't hold a spade). It turns out that in this case you are actually about a 57:43 favourite.

However, when he has a set, the odds are virtually reversed, and solely because of his redraws to a boat. With more than 40% equity it's still probably correct for you to call (unless the all in bet is much bigger than the pot), but don't be tempted to think that the two situations are equivalent.

Back to basics

With extra emphasis on the "back". I know, I've been a bad blogger (or a good non-blogger), but it's largely due to having been away at the Mathematical Olympiad where New Zealand did just fine (at least by our standards). But (perhaps) more on that another time.

Let's return to the meat and potatoes of this hear blog -- a painstakingly pedantic deconstruction of a routine poker hand. I know, I know, you can't wait.

The scene is $25 PLHE on Stars. I've found the game selection here remarkably good recently, and the bankroll has been thanking me for it. However, last night I was having one of those sessions where nothing seems to quite work out. It culminated in the following hand:

On the button, with more than a full stack, I was dealt 4♣3♣. UTG+1 who was new to the table, but already showing loose tendencies, and playing a shortish stack limped in. I decided to limp along and see a flop, and the blinds joined us.

The flop was Q♣T♣6♣, giving me a, let's say, rather vulnerable, flopped flush. The pot is $1 at this point, and loose limper led for $0.50.

First occasion for a bit of analysis. I think it's actually unlikely that he's also flopped a flush (people love to slowplay in that situation). He may just be randomly c-betting, or (more likely) has some piece of the flop, with or without a club behind it. It's clear that I should raise to protect my hand (and for value). However, I made a rather elementary error here and just min-raised. This cleared out the blinds, but getting 4:1 on his call it was clearly correct for loose limper to stay in the hand, and so he did.

Realizing my mistake, I expected to be punished by a fourth club on the turn. But no, it was the 2♦, a complete brick if I ever saw one. This time limper checked to me, and I bet $2 into the $3 pot. He called.

Now I'm moderately certain that he doesn't have a club flush to beat me. But what does he have? Set of 6's? Two pair? AT with the club ace? What a puzzle. We await the river with some anticipation.

It's the 6♥. Our dear opponent instantly pushes his remaining stack into the pot, almost exactly a pot sized bet. Oh my fur and whiskers ...

Is this a premeditated move, pushing the busted club draw on any sort of scare card? Did he just make quads?

Despite the general passivity of players at this level, and because I was on "depression tilt", I called, and was not entirely surprised when he turned over T♠6♠, having hit his four outer on the river.

Now here is a question: suppose, that along with my bet on the turn, I had exposed my cards and promised to call a push by him on the river regardless of what card hit (that is, I had guaranteed maximum implied odds). What odds would he be getting on his turn call? Effectively, 6:1. So, it was still a mistake!

Anyone know where I can spend some Sklansky bucks?