Would you change your mind if Skansky was the BB?

[Rick Nebiolo]

Just for fun let's change one thing in the recent "A Simple 60/120 Flop Play (poll included)" (http://tinyurl.com/3zuvq) monster thread from a few days ago. Instead of a generic player who helped make it an "excellent game", let's put David Sklansky in the big blind (I would have put myself in there, but David is better known and I don't want to be the barb or any more "anal retentive nit" jokes /images/graemlins/grin.gif). Otherwise, the game is exactly as described in mike l.'s original thread (http://tinyurl.com/3rjrx). In fact, let's loosen everyone else just a bit (except Hero/mike l.) just to compensate for David.

Would this change your answer and if it does why (and if it doesn't, why not)?

~ Rick

[Michael Davis]

I would let David win the pot but steal one of the lovely ladies jocking him for his math and logic skills.

-Michael

[Rick Nebiolo]

no message

[Rick Nebiolo]

I'm finally convinced that I *might* be wrong in the original post, but I'd really have to know that certain callers were in fact far too loose, especially those callers acting right after the SB's lead bet on the flop.

For example, I imagined me in the BB in a seven way pot for one bet after the SB bets (the flop was Ts 6h 5c) with mike l. "looming large" in the cutoff seat. About the only hands I would call with are very strong made hands (sets and top two pair or top and bottom pair) that totally destroy mike's Th-3h or a big draw (7-4 or 8-7). I wouldn't always raise the made hands because I would often want to backraise or wait for the turn.

Since David is well known and I figured David would play it pretty much the same way (or am I giving myself too much credit), I put him in the BB.

Also note that the closer I (or any decent player) moves to the button with a strong hand (now we are talking sets with this board) or strong draw (now we are talking 87s) the more likely we are going to raise right there.

In any event, the presence of a strong player calling immediately after the SB would make mike' l.s Th-3h a strong/clear/easy/do doubt about it fold.

IMO /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[onegymrat]

Hi Rick,

Didn't want to add to the million responses on the original thread, but I thought you would like another expert opinion. No, not me silly, but John Feeney was kind enough to give his take on the whole thing:
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's close. That's what you're seeing in the split in opinions among very knowledgeable players. You can construct convincing arguments either way. You're getting about 11-1 with what you might reasonably (safely - perhaps) see as between 3 and 4 outs. Considering the implied odds possibilities and how they may clash here with some reverse implied odds, it seems close enough that I'd say the scales could tip one way or the other as a result of things like image considerations, lineup specifics, or more generally, Louie's point about whether, under the circumstances, you feel you can play the hand out confidently from that point on.

Most likely, some of the posters who are in disagreement are simply applying slightly different assumptions about some of those things.

It's an easy call for half a bet. Somewhere near a full bet it starts to be close, and can turn to a fold (as Mason deftly shows ).

Many of the Forum participants make a
living, or a good portion of one, from poker. That's why they talk so much about poker; it helps them hone their understanding of the game when away from the tables. Here their collective mind has succeeded in highlighting how close this particular decision is.

John


[/ QUOTE ]

[Louie Landale]

Those "anal retentive nit" comments are not jokes.

Yes. If Ciaffone bets outs, and Sklanski calls, and Mother Theresa calls, and Nebiolo calls, and Malmuth calls, and Lapore is the button, then toss your piglette T3 with a board T65. Also, posting your LPB was a mistake in this game.

But if Sklansky just calls from the BB and everyone else is loose, go ahead and call. HE surely would not call with say T7 (out of position against a field) nor with a set (no slowplaying against this many folks). He surely has a quality draw, perhaps 87, whose 8 outs is better than most folks 2 or 3, but that doesn't change things all that much.

- Louie

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Those "anal retentive nit" comments are not jokes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least I'm not anal (or is that inclusive?).

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. If Ciaffone bets outs, and Sklanski calls, and Mother Theresa calls, and Nebiolo calls, and Malmuth calls, and Lapore is the button, then toss your piglette T3 with a board T65. Also, posting your LPB was a mistake in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just put the one strong player in the big blind and everything changes.


[ QUOTE ]
But if Sklansky just calls from the BB and everyone else is loose, go ahead and call. HE surely would not call with say T7 (out of position against a field) nor with a set (no slowplaying against this many folks). He surely has a quality draw, perhaps 87, whose 8 outs is better than most folks 2 or 3, but that doesn't change things all that much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you think a strong player with a big hand or big draw wouldn't often backraise (reraise after a late position raise) or wait until the turn to raise? I do.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

Thanks for posting John's response. I tried to email him but it bounced because I forgot to update my address book.

What it comes down to is we do like to argue here /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

~ Rick

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think a strong player with a big hand or big draw wouldn't often backraise (reraise after a late position raise) or wait until the turn to raise? I do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd definetly call with a set here a large percentage of the time if I'm the BB.

[astroglide]

if john feeney was in the bb and bet i would raise and expect to beat his AK

[andyfox]

The line of demarcation would certainly shift towards folding with Sklanksy calling the bet. I'd have to refigure all the parameters, lowering the % I'd win in each scenario. At the table, I think I'd still call.

However . . .

Playing at your place of employment once, I had A-T in the big blind. Flop came T-6-3 or somesuch. Small blind was Art Sathmary. He checked, I bet, a bunch of people called, and Art raised. I bullet-folded. Whereas if one of the usual suspects had raised, I might have 3-bet. Art, of course, had the remaining tens.

[John Feeney]

http://www.nosferatuscoffin.com/Stills/tn/NosClutchingHeart.jpg

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[astroglide]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[skp]

Skalnsky's call in the bb will most likely mean that he is on a major draw which gives him 8 outs to beat our piglet top pair.

I don't know if that changes things that much then i.e. as compared to Mr. run of the mill player calling out of the bb. In some ways, it's better for you to have Sklansky call as you'll know where you are at on the turn. You will have a harder time figuring out Mr. Generic on the turn.

So, in short, I would call with the T3 on the flop even if Sklansky called the flop.

[Rick Nebiolo]

skp,

The pot is only medium size after the small blind bets. With this rainbow, one draw flop don't you think a tough player in an otherwise excellent game might slowplay many of his big hands at least a good portion of the time? I believe this is especially the case when he has reason to believe that others might do the raising for him (so he can backraise the flop or checkraise on the turn).

Early position flop calls by tough players when many others are left to act should scare you. Some may call it paranoia, I call it realism. The chances he has a draw are only fair - after all there is only one potential draw with that board. The chances he has a medium made hand (e.g. T-9) are virtually nil, he'd either fold or pop it on the flop.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

A couple of days ago I asked Art about the Th-3h problem. He said he would probably take one off. After that I started to have serious doubts about my position. /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

~ Rick

[SA125]

n/m

[skp]

Well, sure he could have a big duke and be slowplaying with it. But I am going to know it on the turn and will have an easy fold even if I catch a 3 to make two pairs.

You will recall saying that if you were the sb, you would bet a set. That means that Sklansky will often raise with a set in the bb (although I agree that it's more important for the sb to bet than it is for the bb to raise when sb bets. Well, important is not the right word. Effective is probably what I meant to say).

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
You will recall saying that if you were the sb, you would bet a set. That means that Sklansky will often raise with a set in the bb (although I agree that it's more important for the sb to bet than it is for the bb to raise when sb bets. Well, important is not the right word. Effective is probably what I meant to say).

[/ QUOTE ]

If a tough player often bets a set (or top two pair) into a field, that doesn't mean a tough player will raise with a set when most of the field is yet to act. This is a medium sized pot at this point with only one unlikely draw - the set usually would want to let it build (or help build it) rather than narrow the field.

Also most tough players will mix it up some when mixing it up doesn't sway too far from correct play. If the small blind has already bet, the big blind will usually call with a set and rarely raise. The big blind will sometimes call with two pair (waiting to raise the turn) and sometimes raise. Calling should be feared by astute players yet to act.

~ Rick

[skp]

Agree completely. I would still call though with the T3.

[na4bart]

Nothing to do with the problem at hand. Just wanted to say in public that Art is one of the nicest people I have ever met and has more integrity than the entire top section combined. Hope you read this Art.