Flopped the nut and never raised, something has to be wrong here.

[ike]

UB 10/20 6 players

UTG limps, I have JTs and limp, 2 folds, sb calls, bb checks.

Flop: 987 r
Check, bet, raise, I coldcall, and its 4 to the turn for 2 bets each.
Turn: 2 giving me a flush draw
Check, check, bet, I call, and both blinds call.
River: 2
Check, check, bet, I call, SB folds, BB calls.
Which if any of the streets should I have raised?

[bugstud]

I'd probably raise the turn, given your line, however, the river is probably a call to induce overcalls..

[Richard Berg]

Depending on what you've seen the blinds do, I don't think this is terrible. After the turn you gave sets the chance to beat you, but it's not like you could fold them anyway.

[bernie]

I would've raised the turn. You're hand is still vulnerable.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
After the turn you gave sets the chance to beat you, but it's not like you could fold them anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then why not charge them as much as you can to draw out on you?

b

[Nightwish]

Raise the turn and charge them. The biggest problem with slowplaying the nuts is that someone else may think that he has the nuts. If UTG had 98 or 77, you may have gotten it capped on the turn. And what if someone has J9? Do you really want to give him a reduced price on sucking out on you if the T comes on the river?

[Richard Berg]

Charging draws is not +EV in and of itself if their (potential) calls are correct. When nobody folds a better hand/draw, all that matters is how much you stand to be paid off. Rereading the history I think raising the turn is correct -- UTG has popped every street and could throw a lot of money your way (maybe even bringing the calling stations along) -- but not because he needs to "charge" anybody.

Put another way, this line is no more or less correct whether they are drawing completely dead or they have 15 collective outs: once people are committed to the pot, all that matters is [his share of] the equity getting put in the middle. If we had the X% of the time the blinds would call two cold and the Y% of the time UTG would 3-bet, we could calculate the correct play -- though not the exact EV -- without needing to know precisely how much danger the nut straight was in with one card to come.

[bernie]

Their calls may be right due to pot size, however, effective odds wise, they are losing with every additional bet that goes in the pot. Unless there are enough players in to make it +EV to jam a draw. Which isn't the case here.

Whichever way you want to put it, he should raise the turn. Also, if a draw correctly puts you on the nuts, you can't 'charge' them once they miss.

b

[JimmyV]

[ QUOTE ]
Charging draws is not +EV in and of itself if their (potential) calls are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beg your pardon?


Raise the turn and cap. Value and a freeroll, plus the potential that the river card could slow you down. If the blinds fold they had little river value to you anyway, and if they have open-enders they're unlikely to fold. Now when they're drawing dead is when you truly charge them for sucking out in other scenarios.

Moreover their calls are NOT T.O.P. correct unless they have a set or top flush draw.

In brief: something WAS wrong. Raise!

[elindauer]

I like 3-betting the flop. You're going to get action, and you really don't mind a jack, or even better, QJ folding. Single tens are coming along anyways, and, even better, it might look to some of your less-trusting opponents like you are trying for a free card. After all, who 3-bets the made straight? Everybody slowplays it, right?

Given that you called, raise the turn. You're not going to lose the straight draws, and you might be freerolling another JT, or be against 65, and cap the turn.

Since you didn't do any of these, raise the river. You're frequently going to lose the callers as they missed their 4-card straight draw anyways. Take the sure bet from the bettor. Fearing that he has a fullhouse is silly.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[elindauer]

Who has a set? It's been bet-call-call-call so far. Putting someone on a set is weak-tight thinking, IMO.

[elindauer]

Your mathematical analysis is just wrong and is almost certainly costing you money. It's obvious that you're a smart guy and you've thought about the game, so let this serve as an honestly helpful but harshly real notice that you need to think about the math more.

Either that, or your thoughts aren't coming across as you intend them. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

good luck.
Eric

[Richard Berg]

I knew this post would invite flames /images/graemlins/smile.gif Let's have at it.

Ultra-simple at first. You are heads-up; you flop the nuts; your opponent is drawing dead. All that matters is getting your opponent to put as many bets in the pot as possible. So long as you don't fold or anything retarded, the correct play depends entirely on the other player's tendencies -- it's a pure game theoretic situation.

Change it to where the villian has a single perfect-perfect draw. The math now requires some reasoning under uncertainty, but approaching it like the first situation would be a very fair approximation.

Change it (much) further to ike's situation. His hand may have even more vulnerabilities, but with only one card to come his pot equity is certainly well over half. You cannot put a good number on the EV of various plays without knowing whether that equity is 65% or 95%, but you can still rank them (i.e., choose the right one).

[Richard Berg]

Probably nobody has a set. Which is why you don't need to worry about "charging draws."

[CrackerZack]

PF and I'd probably raise the flop as no one believes you then.

[CrackerZack]

This is incorrect.

Doubling the amount they have to call cuts the odds the pot is laying them by half. Less if they're on the payment plan but overall the street costs them more. As for this hand there could be a better flush draw on the turn and a T for a 3 out straight draw. While the 3 outer isn't calling correctly, he doesn't know that and will go on.