Putting Ed Miller to work

[Mikey]

Do you agree with this play?

situation: 3-6 HE ONLINE

No background on the players

I raise with KcQc after 1 limper, the SB calls. and the limper calls.

I have position on both of them.

The flop is A /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/heart.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif.

7SB in the pot.

The SB checks.
The limper bets.

8 SB in the pot.

I raise.

The SB calls cold, and the limper calls.


Now. I raise because I have a gutshot draw plus a backdoor flush draw and with two cards to come I am a 4 to 1 underdog. and if the SB folds, I'm getting 4.5 to 1, but since he called now I'm getting 5.5 to 1 on a 4 to 1 shot.

I will check on the turn if i don't hit my gut shot and if i pick up a club draw.

Should a play like this be used if the flop was
A /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif instead of the previous posted flop since I'm susceptible to a heart flush redraw?

If not clear at all in this post, plese let me know. I'm not a very good writer.

[MicroBob]

I'm going to take a stab at pointing out the flaw in your idea and hope that someone can either elaborate and better explain OR tell me where I am misinformed.


The raise that you put in can only bring in 2 more bets (assuming no re-raise).
You are not getting enough odds to raise for value here.

The size of the pot is not germane to the value that your raise is getting. You are just looking at the number of bets that your raise will ADD to the pot.


Raising for a free-card here can be debated (I don't think it is worth it)....but there aren't enough players around to call your raise to make it a raise for value.


Someone please help me on this one.

[Aljechin]

I don't agree at all.
You have a gutshot and a backdoor flush draw . That's 5-6 outs. You don't have the pot odds to justify a call, not to mention a raise.

[MicroBob]

I think there is common confusion over the value that one's raise can get (the number of players hanging around that can call you) vs. the pot-odds one can get by CALLING a bet (the combined total of all the money in the pot).


With 8SB in the pot I think he has the odds to call on his gut-shot. The 'tainted' out (the Th) is somewhat counter-balanced by the backdoor-flush draw....and it's also possible that neither player has an ace here.


But, more to the point of this thread and his question, I believe he is misunderstanding the idea of raising for value.....because he is erroneously including the total-pot amount into the value that his raise is immediately getting.

[Aljechin]

Yes. I think you can call, but it's a close one. Raise is out of the question though.
I do assume there is a pair of A's. What if K hits board.. You really gonna call it to the river.. That's losing in the long run.

I just liked to point out that raise is out of the question, no matter what mathematical method we use here .. If you don't have the pot odds to even call, or you barely have them, you should not even think about raising.

[Mikey]

hitting a gutshot and BD flush draw is 4 to 1.

If even the bettor calls one bet and you can see the turn/river for no more future bets. You're getting 4 to 1.

But if you hit your gutshot or your flush you can get paid off at 5 to 1 or maybe 6 to 1.

the only problem is I want to know if my odds are that good given the possiblity of a heart flush redraw.

[Aljechin]

[ QUOTE ]
hitting a gutshot and BD flush draw is 4 to 1.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand.. Gutshot is 4 outs and bd flush is 1-1.5 outs. That's say 5.5 outs. Assuming someone has a pair of aces you are not 4 to 1 underdog (you don't have 20% chance to take the pot). Your chance is even smaller and there are only 2 other players..

[Aljechin]

In other words

Against 2 players (assuming you have a weaker hand now) you would need better than 33.3% chance to win the pot in order to raise.. Hitting the gutshot or backdoor flush by the river has a probability of 18.8%.

[Ed Miller]

Assuming someone has a pair of aces...

This is the problem with your thinking.

[Mikey]

Does this mean that my math is correct? I'm not sure if I understand.

[Ed Miller]

Does this mean that my math is correct? I'm not sure if I understand.

I'm saying that if you assume that someone has an ace 100% of the time, you will certainly come to a meaningless conclusion.

[Aljechin]

I dont need to assume it with 100% certainty. A reasonable assumption that is strong enough would prevent me from raising..

[Ed Miller]

I dont need to assume it with 100% certainty. A reasonable assumption that is strong enough would prevent me from raising..

Who do you think has an ace? The bettor? If so, why is he betting his ace into the preflop raiser?

If you assume that flop bettor has an ace even 50% of the time, I think you are being too generous.

[Mikey]

so Ed is the raise correct or not?

[Ed Miller]

so Ed is the raise correct or not?

It's fine. Especially with position.

[MicroBob]

But isn't this raising for a free-card then it is raising for value?

Pretty sure I'm not understanding something in here.

[Aljechin]

Say I assume a 50% chance for either of them having an ace. Since the probabilty of pairing king or queen by the river is 0.24, I would reduce this to 0.12 because of the assumption above.. 0.12 Together with 0.188 from the gutshot draw and bd draw I'm at about 0.3 which makes the raise a marginal decision. However, by pairing the king or queen someone might hit a straight or flush. So I would need to deduce that..

Too complex for me, it seems.

[Ed Miller]

Say I assume a 50% chance for either of them having an ace. Since the probabilty of pairing king or queen by the river is 0.24, I would reduce this to 0.12 because of the assumption above.. 0.12 Together with 0.188 from the gutshot draw and bd draw I'm at about 0.3 which makes the raise a marginal decision. However, by pairing the king or queen someone might hit a straight or flush. So I would need to deduce that..

King-high might be the best hand currently. So you might not even have to improve by the river to win.

[MicroBob]

I would be more worried about being behind to 2-pair if I paired either of my cards then I would be about the gut-shot here.

[Ed Miller]

But isn't this raising for a free-card then it is raising for value?

Pretty sure I'm not understanding something in here.

Here's the point. The bettor will often have a flush draw, and your hand will therefore sometimes be best. When it isn't best, you have gutshot outs for sure, backdoor flush outs for sure, and pairing outs often.

The pot was raised preflop, and you want to face SB with calling two cold. If he does call two cold, tend to take the free card on the turn if you get it. If he folds, on the turn you can either take the free card or bet (which you do depends on the tendencies of your flop-betting opponent).

That flop bet is often a feeler bet: a small pair, a flush draw, or even a total bluff. You have a solid hand with winning chances, especially in a 3-handed pot. The pot was raised preflop, so it is worth fighting for.

[Ed Miller]

I would be more worried about being behind to 2-pair if I paired either of my cards then I would be about the gut-shot here.

This is a 3-handed pot. You can't just give your opponents credit for having all your outs tied up.

[MicroBob]

Thanks Ed.

That's sort of the angle I'm coming from I guess.

I still don't know if the OP was properly calculating the pot-odds on the value-bet here. I might be more confused then when I started...but Hey, I've been drinking and it's pretty late.


If I raise here I do it because I raised PF and I want to stay aggressive and I think I can scare my opponents....and if SB folds I have increased my winning-chances (maybe the bettor only has a J or a draw).

If they DO have an Ace then I have outs but they'll slow down because they're worried I have a bigger Ace.
If they DON'T have an Ace then I might be able to push 1 or both of them out immediately.


This one has been pretty helpful for me actually.
I usually follow-up my PF raises with a raise on the flop....but on this one I would have strongly considered just calling with my back-door draws.


A statement like "your K-high may be the best hand for all you know" is a really helpful reminder of the mindset you should take as the PF raiser.


Thanks again.

[Aljechin]

What are they limping in (and then betting/calling) with if not a hand with an A or J or pocket pair.. T9s 98s which is also hearts? So the reasonable hands left are KQs KTs, and in that case we need to reduce the value of our own hand (namely the gutshot draw)..

I wonder what is the probability of king high being the best hand currently

[MicroBob]

Yeah....I knew this was coming to come off wrong.

Should have included that I'm not terribly concerned about either the gut-shot or 2-pair....
just that I think that QT and KT (the 'other' gut-shot hands) aren't quite as likely imo....and that KJ or QJ might be a bit more likely.

thanks again.

[Ed Miller]

What are they limping in (and then betting/calling) with if not a hand with an A or J or pocket pair.. T9s 98s which is also hearts? So the reasonable hands left are KQs KTs, and in that case we need to reduce the value of our own hand (namely the gutshot draw)..

This is $3-$6 online. Your assumption of what a "reasonable" hand for a limper looks like is FAR too narrow.

Also, again I'd like to point out that he BET into the raiser. Usually that move means either a big hand or a weak hand/bluff. It doesn't usually mean an ace. Weak hands and bluffs come around far more frequently than do big hands.

[Randy Burgess]

[ QUOTE ]
That flop bet is often a feeler bet: a small pair, a flush draw, or even a total bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me this is the key point here - the intuitive heart of the beast. You don't need a book to see the possibilities, just experience and imagination. Calculations become important only after first recognizing the situation as a familiar one.

FYI I'm midway through SSHE myself. The presentation of tainted outs is the most sophisticated I've seen to date.

[Mikey]

It doens't matter what the results are!!!!

What matters is...... you play at that particular interval!!!!

THE FLOP!!!



OKAY OKAY...

I raised the flop bettor.

They both called.

Turn was a brick.

They both checked, I checked.

River a small Heart.

SB bet and was called.

9 /images/graemlins/heart.gifT /images/graemlins/heart.gif for the SB
and
A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif for the flop bettor.

[Ed Miller]

SB bet and was called.

9 T for the SB
and
A 5 for the flop bettor.

These hands are far stronger than the average hands you will be against typically in this situation.

[Mikey]

I agree.

[Aljechin]

Very interesting hand.. Seems to have lots of concepts in it.. Thanks for sharing!

[Aljechin]

Don't we at least need some read or proof of the opponents very bad playing style then? If we don't need it, would it be ok to GENERALIZE that "you should raise a gutshot draw in 3 way pot if it is backed up with a backdoor flush draw and a draw to a middle pair"?

Very interesting. I have tried to become more aggressive . seems there's lots of opportunities left

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
"you should raise a gutshot draw in 3 way pot if it is backed up with a backdoor flush draw and a draw to a middle pair"?

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot to stipulate that it was raised PF.

[Ed Miller]

Don't we at least need some read or proof of the opponents very bad playing style then?

A typical $3-$6 online player is loose and bets a lot of weak hands on the flop. It is a very common style. Obviously if you have a specific read that your opponent is tough, passive, or otherwise plays differently, then you must adjust.

My main point is that you shouldn't think yourself into a corner by giving your opponents credit for exactly the hands you fear most. Just because an ace is on the flop and someone bet doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) actually has an ace. Obviously he can have an ace... but when you start your analysis of the situation with:

Assuming someone has a pair of aces...

You are just asking for trouble. Don't ASSUME that which is not at all known.

If we don't need it, would it be ok to GENERALIZE that "you should raise a gutshot draw in 3 way pot if it is backed up with a backdoor flush draw and a draw to a middle pair"?

Be careful about generalizing. Instead, think about the factors:

How big is the pot?
What are all my potential outs if behind?
What is the range of hands my opponent will bet with?
How likely is it that I have the best hand?
How often will the player(s) faced with calling two cold actually fold? (Are they very loose, typical, or tight?)
How likely are my opponents to 3-bet me and/or deny me a free card on the turn?

But most of all, don't just assume the worst and start from there...

[Aljechin]

Page 170 we have the gutshot draw and a backdoor flush but instead we have also two overcards. The pot is bigger and you say "...give you just enough hand to take one off."

Even when we don't have the overcards here in this KQs hand and the pot is smaller and it's somewhat reasonable to expect a pair of aces here from the bettor, it's still fine to raise???

I agree I assumed the pair of aces way too quickly, but justifying the raise on the hopes of K high being the best hand is very optimistic.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
SB bet and was called.

9 T for the SB
and
A 5 for the flop bettor.

These hands are far stronger than the average hands you will be against typically in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how recently Ed has played 3/6 online.

[Ed Miller]

I wonder how recently Ed has played 3/6 online.

Yesterday. I've recently started playing online again, and I'm starting at $3-$6 to get used to multitabling. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Ed Miller]

I agree I assumed the pair of aces way too quickly, but justifying the raise on the hopes of K high being the best hand is very optimistic.

The raise isn't based solely on "the hopes of K-high being the best hand." It's a free card raise. It's an outs-cleaning-up raise. It's a "get the small blind to fold a small pair" raise. It's a semi-bluff raise. It's a "good things tend to happen when you put in the extra bet with position" raise.

However, if your opponents are super-aggressive, and you can count on being 3-bet the majority of the time, raising is probably no longer prudent. But if your opponents are likely just to call the raise and check to you on the turn, raising is a no-brainer.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the point. The bettor will often have a flush draw, and your hand will therefore sometimes be best. When it isn't best, you have gutshot outs for sure, backdoor flush outs for sure, and pairing outs often.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ed, I think that the problem with this entire thread is the poster has given us no reads on his opponents, whereas you are assuming that they are "typical" loose, poor players. Indeed, you have made statements throughout this thread like "you are giving your opponents too much credit...," "3/6 players are usually much looser...," etc.

In fact, unless I know the limper in this hand to be an idiot or fairly aggro, why would I put him on a flush draw or a bluff? For if he has a flush draw, he has just exposed himself to a very possible raise, at which point he will be heads up and out of position with a drawing hand. I would wonder if the most likely, "worst" hand for him would be something like QJo/99/89o etc. I guess I don't see it has being "likely" that Hero would have the best hand following the limper's flop bet right into him.

Whereas I think that your book is excellent, I wonder if all of the work you have put in on the book over the past few months has caused you to overestimate the likelihood that your average opponent in a 3/6 online games is either a calling station or a chip spewing idiot.

[Ed Miller]

Whereas I think that your book is excellent, I wonder if all of the work you have put in on the book over the past few months has caused you to overestimate the likelihood that your average opponent in a 3/6 online games is either a calling station or a chip spewing idiot.

It has nothing to do with being a chip-spewing idiot. Tricky players in Bellagio mid-limit games bet a whole lot of hands that aren't aces as well. My main point in this whole thread is that a flop bet does not necessarily mean top pair.

That and don't necessarily give a limper credit for a quality hand (like our friend's range of an ace, a jack, a pocket pair, or KQs or KTs).

[Aljechin]

Actually I tried to analyze the hand based on probabilities. I gave the pair of aces a 50% chance and tried to show that raising is at best a marginally poor decision. However, the counterargument is that we put the probability of either of the players having an ace very low, and ALSO assume that our K high might be good enough.

Why do you underestimate the bettor of being capable to limp in any crap and bet it, but on the other hand overestimate him to bet a flush draw.. Loose passive players don't bet draws too often

Also, you are implicitly saying, that unless our opponents are known to be very aggressive, the overcards can be removed from your example of p. 170 and we can still raise with gutshot + BD draw. Isn't that exactly what we did here?

[Ed Miller]

Also, you are implicitly saying, that unless our opponents are known to be very aggressive, the overcards can be removed from your example of p. 170 and we can still raise with gutshot + BD draw. Isn't that exactly what we did here?

Not really. In the book example you are almost certainly drawing, and your raise can't reasonably expect anyone to fold. In this hand, you may have the best hand and you can face one of your two opponents with calling two cold.

It is similar in that it's a free card situation in both cases, and therefore you should be careful with aggressive opponents.

[Trix]

[ QUOTE ]
A typical $3-$6 online player is loose and bets a lot of weak hands on the flop. It is a very common style. Obviously if you have a specific read that your opponent is tough, passive, or otherwise plays differently, then you must adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Bison posted some stats in micro a while ago showing that according to his database, the typical low limit player is loose and passive.

[Ed Miller]

Actually Bison posted some stats in micro a while ago showing that according to his database, the typical low limit player is loose and passive.

Ok, fine. Does such a passive player tend to bet an ace/weak kicker into a preflop raiser?

EDIT: For that matter.. does such a passive player tend to bet into a preflop raiser under any circumstances? If you know nothing about your opponent except that he plays $3-$6 online and that he bet into a preflop raiser on an ace-high board... you can draw some conclusions about what kind of player he probably is simply using a Bayes's Theorem-type logic involving the relative frequency of passive player betting opportunities.

[Aljechin]

The SB could have folded and also the bettor, since you raised preflop. The chance of this happening combined with all your other chances justify the raise.. Yes!

Thank you very much. This has been an extremely useful lesson for me! From a quick fold or call to now realize the depth of this hand..

[Ed Miller]

The SB could have folded and also the bettor, since you raised preflop. The chance of this happening combined with all your other chances justify the raise.. Yes!

Right. Remember, even if people don't fold, you still will often get a free card. The play is a total disaster only if no one folds and you get 3-bet. So the most important question to consider when deciding whether to make a raise like this is:

"How often will no one fold and will I get 3-bet?"

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Bison posted some stats in micro a while ago showing that according to his database, the typical low limit player is loose and passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I doubt that Bison has enough hands in his database to make this generalization--and if for some reason his database is large enough the data is pretty meaningless for any individual table.

However, if you believe that there is a very good chance (statistically) that Hero's opponents in this hand are loose and passive, then that would certainly affect how you interpret the limper's flop bet.

[Trix]

This info is better than no info at all. It doesn´t mean that he is loose-passive, just that it´s the kind of player he will be the highest % of the time with no info given.
When he bets the flop, this ofcourse change as you will have to look at what range of hands each player type will bet here.

[Trix]

I think it´s close, but I just call the flop as I dont think the pair outs will be good that often, so I´d rather have higher implied odds. I alsp think a 3bet from him is pretty unlikely on the flop, but he may bet out on the turn.
His flop bet is probably an Ace most of the time, then a Jack and some of the time a flushdraw, but not as often.

If you raise and get it HU you will also have to spend a bet more somewhere if a heart doesn´t come.

If the board was rainbow I would like it more as I would be able to fold the river unimproved as he wont be betting a draw(dont think T9 is very likely).

[Randy Burgess]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, unless I know the limper in this hand to be an idiot or fairly aggro, why would I put him on a flush draw or a bluff? For if he has a flush draw, he has just exposed himself to a very possible raise, at which point he will be heads up and out of position with a drawing hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many good players who will bet out with a flush draw here. Although it's a play some bad players will make too, it isn't necessarily idiotic or overly aggressive. It can be a very smart play against a PFR who is weak-tight, predictable, plays ABC poker only, etc. This is a three-way pot, and in many cases it will be won by the player who most effectively combines aggression and outs.

[balkii]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder how recently Ed has played 3/6 online.

Yesterday. I've recently started playing online again, and I'm starting at $3-$6 to get used to multitabling. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Ed, any chance you could drop us your username and the site you play on? I think it would be a very educational to watch how you handle the very game that we try to beat.

[Trix]

I´d like this too and if some interesting hands come up, then post please /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[brassnuts]

[ QUOTE ]
Now. I raise because I have a gutshot draw plus a backdoor flush draw and with two cards to come I am a 4 to 1 underdog. and if the SB folds, I'm getting 4.5 to 1, but since he called now I'm getting 5.5 to 1 on a 4 to 1 shot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the raise on the flop is the correct play, but it is a position raise and should be done for a free card. However, as far as for value, the raise is not profitable. When betting or raising for value in a hand you shouldn't take into consideration any pot odds. Instead, simply look at how that specific bet is getting paid off. In this case, if they both call, you're gettin 2:1. I'm not quite what exactly the relevance of your calculations unless you're trying to justify the free card play. If that is the case, then you also should include some implied odds.

[Ed Miller]

Hey Ed, any chance you could drop us your username and the site you play on? I think it would be a very educational to watch how you handle the very game that we try to beat.

You're welcome to try to figure it out. I think it's figure-outable. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[bisonbison]

Actually Bison posted some stats in micro a while ago showing that according to his database, the typical low limit player is loose and passive.

Just to be clear, I think Trix is referring to my notes on notes post.

In that post I said that of all the opponents I've had at least 30 hands with from .5/1 to 3/6 this year, if you split them according to 3 PT stats, the largest single group is loose preflop (VP$IP > 30), passive preflop (PFR < 5) and passive postflop (Postflop A-TOT < 1.5).

The stat categories are fuzzy tools, and because they are shared across various levels and various game conditions, I just wouldn't use them to draw any larger conclusions about how people play at given levels.

I'd also like to welcome Ed back to 3/6 if he's playing at Party, and communicate my fervent wish that he leave my games as soon as possible, whoever he may be.

[Mike Gallo]

I love the way you played this hand. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Mikey]

and its nice to have you back here.

[MicroBob]

Is it NPA?
Or NPAEM?

Just guessing.


I wouldn't mind observing....but I'm happier to have Ed at 3/6 online (I'm assuming it's party) so that he can directly address some of those (including me) who wonder if he has an accurate idea of how loose or tight some of these online games really are.

I have stated a few times that you can use the SSHE concepts on Party 3/6 but that the book is really geared towards the looser B&M games so some of SSHE's ideas of the percentage of idiots you can expect to chase to the river with T2o may not apply.


Of course, since I have written some of those comments I have gotten more aggro on party (past couple of weeks), have had a tremendous amount of success, and seem to be finding far more T2o chasers than I remember previously.


Not sure if I'm just catching more fish....or if the games are getting fishier....or if my aggressiveness is helping to generate some chasers and looseness at my tables.
Or maybe the games were never as tough as I remember them being in the first place.


Anyway, now that Ed is playing these online games he can directly address these issues and put everyone (including me) in their place by saying "Look, I've been playing Party 3/6. The players there just aren't as tight as you think they are!" (which is the conclusion I believe he will arrive at).

[Ed Miller]

I've played about 2000 hands so far, and my conclusion is that the typical Party $3-$6 player sucks. In general, people play loose and passively, except they have a healthy willingness to bluff.

[MicroBob]

Cool.
Those have been my impressions for the past few weeks.

I think the play has gotten worse of late....but it's entirely possible that my play has simply gotten better and I am noticing lousy play a bit more.


I found one player on 3/6 with Miller in their name....but unless you really like to Cold Call PF a LOT i don't think it was you.

[JTG51]

In general, people play loose and passively, except they have a healthy willingness to bluff.

Yup. For some reason the typical player in these games choses wildly inappropriate times to show aggression. They miss value bet after value bet, but routinely make the most hopeless bluffs.

[bdk3clash]

Your sample size is too small.

(Kidding.)