Theory of Poker

[TonyBlair]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but what's all this about not shutting an opponent out of the pot in hold'em on 4th street say when you hold a straight/flush and you put your opponent on 2 pair. DS says that he bets enough so that the opponent will make a fundamental error by drawing to the FH (that bit's fine by me) but then he went on to say that his opponent hits on fifth and he pays him off.
Despite being one of the first at my school to learn long multiplication, I am not going to consider challenging the thinking but I'd just like an explanation. All I can see is that any equity gained by tempting your opponent in is just lost when you pay it off on the end. Would it not just be better to shut him out and move on to the next? (That might have come across as a challenge. Take it as you wish).

[knightunner]

I haven't read the post you are referring to, but it seems like he is talking about pot odds and the dollar that Sklansky discusses in TOP. You want a caller in this situation because your opponent generally does not have the odds to call a bet here. Since he is making a mistake in playing the hand, you will be gaining money over the long run, even if you are occassionally sucked out on.

~knight

[TonyBlair]

Thanks for the response. I just want to make sure I'm being clear here.
Theory (if you could see his cards) dictates that you want a caller if you are giving incorrect odds to chase. That you may lose the pot in this situation is ok. But then theory also says you should fold on the end which apparently did not happen, so what you gain in theory initially you give back on the river (I'm ignoring specific pot sizes/bet amounts).
I know mixing theory and practice can lead to confusion and I think this might be where I'm missing a point but all I can see is that in this situation (maybe excepting where the pot is miniscule) it is better to shut out on 4th street and avoid giving yourself a difficult decision (where mistakes will be made) later on.

[daiwiza]

I think in such a case it may be hard anyway to shut him out. Who will fold in such a case, if he holds two pair and there's still a card to come, especially in Low Limit?! So it's correct to get more money into the pot with straight / flush, even for this more practical reason.

[CurryLover]

I can't find the bit you are talking about in Theory of Poker, so this is only a guess.

I guess when he 'pays him off' at the end it is because he is not absolutely sure that the opponent has made a full house. Even if he thinks his opponent probably has filled up he will still pay the bet off if the chance that he hasn't filled up (e.g. hit 3 pair) combined with the pot odds gives a positive EV. If he could see his opponent's hand and thus could be 100% certain that he was beaten then he would obviously fold.

[johnny caravan]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. I just want to make sure I'm being clear here.
Theory (if you could see his cards) dictates that you want a caller if you are giving incorrect odds to chase. That you may lose the pot in this situation is ok. But then theory also says you should fold on the end which apparently did not happen, so what you gain in theory initially you give back on the river (I'm ignoring specific pot sizes/bet amounts).


[/ QUOTE ]

If you have the straight or the flush and the board pairs on the river, it seems that you shouldn't fold. Even if it makes him the full house, you're getting value by calling for all the times that he didn't make the full house and just has something else like trips or a smaller flush.
Is that not the more correct play?

[burningyen]

pp. 23-24 of TOP

"He made a full house and bet a very small amount, which I paid off." (emphasis mine)

My question is how big a bet would it be correct to call?

[NMcNasty]

Two pair is a decent hand, there's a good chance you can sucker your opponent into calling a decent sized bet on the river as well if he misses.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure this has been discussed before but what's all this about not shutting an opponent out of the pot in hold'em on 4th street say when you hold a straight/flush and you put your opponent on 2 pair. DS says that he bets enough so that the opponent will make a fundamental error by drawing to the FH (that bit's fine by me) but then he went on to say that his opponent hits on fifth and he pays him off.
Despite being one of the first at my school to learn long multiplication, I am not going to consider challenging the thinking but I'd just like an explanation. All I can see is that any equity gained by tempting your opponent in is just lost when you pay it off on the end. Would it not just be better to shut him out and move on to the next? (That might have come across as a challenge. Take it as you wish).

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't necessarily lose back everything you gained. Take the following example:

You: J /images/graemlins/spade.gifT /images/graemlins/spade.gif
Opponent: K /images/graemlins/heart.gifQ /images/graemlins/club.gif

Board: A /images/graemlins/diamond.gifK /images/graemlins/club.gifQ /images/graemlins/spade.gif4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

You have the nut straight. Your opponent has 4 outs to win (out of the 44 cards remaining)

Assumptions: The pot is $10. You bet $2. Your opponent calls. If he makes his full house, he'll bet $5 and you'll call. If he doesn't make it, he'll fold.

40 times your opponent won't make his full house. You'll win $12 each time for a total of $480.
4 times he will make the FH. You'll lose $7 each time for a total of -$28.
Your net after 44 times is +$452.

If your opponent folds to your turn bet, you will win $10 all 44 times for a net of +$440.

You do better by having him call the turn, even if you call his bet on the river.

[TonyBlair]

Thanks burningyen. I thought I was going mad. Yes we are talking PL/NL here and that is the basis of the original question.
The thinking is give your opponent the chance to make a mistake because whenever he does you gain in the long run. So is that still the case if it can lead to you making a mistake later in the hand?
Someone showed that you can still call incorrectly on the end and still make a profit which is true, but what if in a particular situation calling on the end meant the hand became a loser as a whole. And that from a position where you could have sealed it all on 4th?
And the "very small amount" that was paid off in the text could well have been a very large amount (which does not necessarily mean the completed hand so you can't just say fold if it's too much).
I don't know. I realise reads and amounts come into this more than I'm suggesting. I purchased the text about a year ago and this point has often caused me to wake up in a cold sweat. As I've said, I think my problem might be a dangerous mix of theory and practice. And addiction.

[Louie Landale]

Let say you will make a hopless river pay off: you ALWAYS call and he NEVER bluffs. On the turn you'll have to figure in the river cost when deciding to let him in. So if there are 6BB in the pot before your turn call) and he's a 12:1 underdog and you'll know he'll call one bet but not two, your over-all calculations are (when compared to raising him out): 12 times you win 1 (his turn call), 1 time you lose the pot (6) plus your call (1) and plus your river call (1). That's 12-8=4BB over 13 attempts. That means on average you win 1/3 of a BB by flat calling, hehehe, rather than raising him out. That's a lot.

That one extra hopeless river pay off doesn't change the equation much.

- Louie

[Al_Capone_Junior]

If your opponent is going to hit so infrequently that you'll make $$ even considering those times you pay him off when he hits, then it's still a +EV play to charge him too much to profitably draw against you, but not so much that he folds correctly.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

The degree of uncertainty you are describing is often worth a LOT on the river. Hence I agree with your point here.

al