Flop Play Question

[sthief09]

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, completes in the SB after some limps and the flop:

Flop: (6 SB) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(6 players)</font>
Hero checks, BB checks, <font color="CC3333">UTG+2 bets</font>, MP2 calls, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, BB folds, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, CO calls, <font color="CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero caps</font>


I didn't play this hand, but MarkL444 asked me his opinion on it, and I thought he should just call the 3-bet, rather than capping and risking losing some people. he doesn't agree and neither does CDC. what do you think?

EDIT: CDC's reasoning is that most people won't fold for 2 bets on the flop after already putting 2 in the pot. what do you think of this?

[Trix]

I dont like capping for the reasons you stated.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
CDC's reasoning is that most people won't fold for 2 bets on the flop after already putting 2 in the pot. what do you think of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Chris is right /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Piiop]

I agree with CDC and MarkL444 that most people won't fold.

[crockett]

No one is folding.

[Rico Suave]

Sthief:

I think I would probably call, mainly b/c of not wanting to lose people on the flop. In addition, I doubt this is a very critical in the long run. But I think there are a couple of things one may want to consider in addition to whether people are likely to call 2 more cold.

The button's flat call reraise ont the flop is indicative of a big hand or big draw. The only big draw would be 65 or 52 (not likely, but....), and I think most would go ahead and raise the flop on the first chance--free card play. The most likely big hand is a set. So, if you are 80% sure that he has a set (I know, probably too much credit)--meaning that there is a likely strong redraw if you hit--does that effect your decision to cap or just call? (I guess it would somewhate correspond to pumping a OESD with a 2 tone board)

Also, does having the button put the last bet in on the flop effect your implied odds at all? Had the BB put in the 3-bet instead of the button, I think there could be a strong argument for just calling the 3-bet, as you would have excellent position to c/r the turn if you hit. But by capping, you might loose the chance to trap the field for 2BB. In your example does flat calling the 3-bet and then leading (if you hit the turn) significantly increase your chances of getting raised by the button...or rather does capping reduce your chances of the button raising your turn bet(again, if you hit. And surely leading the turn is way more correct than c/r)?

Just a couple of other things to think about...and I doubt that it matters all that much.

--Rico

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
Sthief:

I think I would probably call, mainly b/c of not wanting to lose people on the flop. In addition, I doubt this is a very critical in the long run. But I think there are a couple of things one may want to consider in addition to whether people are likely to call 2 more cold.

The button's flat call reraise ont the flop is indicative of a big hand or big draw. The only big draw would be 65 or 52 (not likely, but....), and I think most would go ahead and raise the flop on the first chance--free card play. The most likely big hand is a set. So, if you are 80% sure that he has a set (I know, probably too much credit)--meaning that there is a likely strong redraw if you hit--does that effect your decision to cap or just call? (I guess it would somewhate correspond to pumping a OESD with a 2 tone board)

Also, does having the button put the last bet in on the flop effect your implied odds at all? Had the BB put in the 3-bet instead of the button, I think there could be a strong argument for just calling the 3-bet, as you would have excellent position to c/r the turn if you hit. But by capping, you might loose the chance to trap the field for 2BB. In your example does flat calling the 3-bet and then leading (if you hit the turn) significantly increase your chances of getting raised by the button...or rather does capping reduce your chances of the button raising your turn bet(again, if you hit. And surely leading the turn is way more correct than c/r)?

Just a couple of other things to think about...and I doubt that it matters all that much.

--Rico

[/ QUOTE ]



yes, I did mention to Mark and Chris that his hand does scream "monster." Chris had me plug it into Poker Stove and he beats a set about 1 out of 4 times, so this isn't really a consideration.

[Rico Suave]

Sthief:

[ QUOTE ]
Chris had me plug it into Poker Stove and he beats a set about 1 out of 4 times, so this isn't really a consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am missing something here, but we are jamming our OESD on the flop b/c we are slightly worse than 2:1 dog to hit (and presumeably win) by the river, and with 4 callers, there is definite value. Are you saying that if a set is out there, then we are more like a 4:1 dog to win? This would appear to require some consideration, no?

--Rico

[sthief09]

the OESD will win 1/4 times, so he'd need 3-1 to pump it. he's getting 4-1 if no one folds, so it's fine if everyone calls.

[Rico Suave]

Sthief:

[ QUOTE ]
the OESD will win 1/4 times, so he'd need 3-1 to pump it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I get it. I took 1 in 4 and translated it to 4:1 dog instead of 3:1. So, the impact isn't as great.

And, like I said, I am not arguing strongly one way or another, as I do not think it matters much. I was just trying to look at other factors that may influence this decision, otherwise, the thread boils down to "they will call 2 because they are morons" vs. "They won't always call 2 more."

--Rico

[jason1990]

This reminds me of something I've been confused about lately. An OESD on the flop is 4.875:1 against coming in on the turn, and 2.18:1 against coming in by the river. So do we need 5 callers to value bet/raise an OESD on the flop, or only 3? In other words, when deciding whether to value bet/raise, do we use the odds of our draw hitting on the next card, or the odds of it hitting by the river, and why?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of something I've been confused about lately. An OESD on the flop is 4.875:1 against coming in on the turn, and 2.18:1 against coming in by the river. So do we need 5 callers to value bet/raise an OESD on the flop, or only 3? In other words, when deciding whether to value bet/raise, do we use the odds of our draw hitting on the next card, or the odds of it hitting by the river, and why?

[/ QUOTE ]
For strong draws, like an OESD and a 4-flush, you usually factor in the odds of hitting by the river, because with the pot size, it's generally incorrect to fold such draws (I'm sure someone else could explain this better, but that's the general idea).

I don't mind the cap against typical low limit players here. You're almost sure to get callers for the two extra bets (because the pot is large, y'know?) and with ~9 outs, you only need two callers to make it profitable. Plus, the confusion that ensues when you check/cap the flop is always fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rob

[pudley4]

If the pot is big enough (and it almost always is at low limits), we know we are going to the river. Since we know this, we know we have 2 chances to hit our straight (and presumably win), so we are a little over 2-1 against winning this hand at this point in time.

Therefore we are getting about 1/3 of each bet that goes into the pot right now, so we are making money right now when we have 3 or more opponents.

[Victor]

I would cap it. They will all likely call and the initiall raiser and button will always call. You are getting 4:1 at this point if they all call. Your draw is about 1.9:1 (9 outs with the backdoor flush) so even if they both fold you get 2:1 and arent losing anything. However, if you are up against a set then your odds are reduced and you need 1 more caller to break even. The button play does scream monster hand.

Still, I think it comes down to,"are they loose calling stations who call everything or do they tighen up a bit when faced with a barrage." Still, they will be getting 11:1 if you cap so I think almost always you will be called here. Plus they are psychologicaly committing to seeing another card.

[Victor]

On the flop you only need 3 callers to value bet since it is less than 3:1 to hit by the river.

On the turn you need 5 callers to value bet. It is very unusual to find a situation where you will be certain 5 people will call a turn bet or raise.

A lot of times with a strong draw, you will bet/checkraise and throw chips at the pot on the flop since there are others willing to call the flop bets. But on the turn you will just check and call (if you miss.)

[pudley4]

Flop cap is good here because:

1 - you have enough opponents so that you are making money on the cap
2 - most of the coldcallers already called 2, and they'll call 2 more, and
3 - your position relative to the 3-bettor and the betting. You are in the blind and the 3-bettor is on the button, meaning all the opponents are between you on the turn. When you cap the flop and lead the turn with your made straight, it looks natural, and your opponents won't suspect that the turn card helped you (and they're likely drawing dead). So they'll call right along. The button may even raise if he's got a set or 2 pair, thinking he's still in the lead. If you just call the flop 3-bet, then lead the turn when the straight comes, they'll be much more wary. You're also less likely to be raised by the button if you take this line.

[jason1990]

Thanks for the nice explanation. So it's the fact that we *know* we're going to the river that allows us to use the better odds.

Now here's a related question. Suppose in this hand, Hero just calls the flop. One possible scenario for what happens next is this: BB folds, turn comes and Hero misses the straight, Hero checks, UTG+2 bets, MP2 raises, 2 folds. Now there's 8.5bb in the pot and Hero must call 2. He doesn't have the pot odds to call. Maybe he has the implied odds to call, but let's say somehow he knows he doesn't. Also, this scenario is probably unlikely, but for the sake of the question, let's suppose he somehow knows this scenario is a serious possibility.

Then if he calls the flop, it's unclear whether or not he'll see the river, and he was right not to raise for value. But if he raises the flop, he boosts the pot beyond the "critical" level, and creates a situation where he will certainly see the river. In this case, the raise *is* for value. How can the value raise be both correct and incorrect at the same time?

Perhaps this question belongs better in the "Theory" forum. I guess I'm primarily asking about situations where, by our own actions, we "lock" ourselves into seeing the turn. When is it a good thing or a bad thing to make such a "self-locking" move?

[tolbiny]

"Now there's 8.5bb in the pot and Hero must call 2"

I believe you forgot to count the bet and the raise in the pot size, with those additional bets you are getting &gt;5.5 to 1 on your draw. It is very very hard for a flop to be capped and for you no longer to have odds to draw to your open ender.
you also have a likely BB coming from the first better on the turn so its more like 6.5 to one.
Even if it gets three bet behind you it helps your implied odds since that would indicate a strong enough hand that you can c/r on the river when you hit.

[Victor]

"UTG+2 bets, MP2 raises"

There is 8.5 BB in the pot plus those 3 more BB you refer to so he clearly has enough bets to call even if UTG+2 folds (not likely.) Right now it is 11.5:2 for him to call.

I know that is not your real question though. You are asking if it is good to tie yourself to a pot when otherwise you wouldnt be getting the odds to call in later streets. In limit, it is always good to get money in the pot when you are ahead or have enough pot equity that you coming out ahead. So, on the flop when there are 3 callers and have a OESD you want to put as much money in as possible since you are making about 1/3 of each dollar that goes into the pot. Because the turn bets are small relative to the size of the pot at this point you really dont need worry too much in most limit situations.

However, if you are playing spread limit or some other variation this might be a concern. The best way to illustrate is if for some reason you are playing limit poker on the flop but it switches to nolimit on the turn. Now, because the bet size can totally destroy your odds on the turn it is NOT correct to pump the pot the flop with 3 opps. Now you need 5 opps.

So, the point is, at limit it is very rare that you will not have the odds to see the river with a straight/flush draw because the bet sizes are not that much more on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm primarily asking about situations where, by our own actions, we "lock" ourselves into seeing the turn. When is it a good thing or a bad thing to make such a "self-locking" move?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the answer is anytime you are getting the odds you should pump the pot. Then on the turn you should reevaluate. Since the likelihood of not having the odds on the turn to call, it is not a concern in limit to pump on the flop. In other games it might be though.

I know this not perfectly clear but I hope it helps.

[jason1990]

If Hero just calls the flop and BB folds, then there's 11sb=5.5bb in the pot before the turn. If the turn comes, Hero misses, he checks, UTG+2 bets, MP2 raises, and the others fold, that puts 8.5bb in the pot and Hero must call 2bb. Hero needs 9.5bb in the pot to call. Of course, he probably has the implied odds to call. And of course, this line of play is quite unlikely. But I just wanted to contrive a situation that exemplifies my real question:

If raising the flop is the only way to lock us into seeing the river, AND being locked into seeing the river is the only way to justify raising the flop, then what is the correct play?

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
When you cap the flop and lead the turn with your made straight, it looks natural, and your opponents won't suspect that the turn card helped you (and they're likely drawing dead).

[/ QUOTE ]

This was one of the main reasons why I decided to cap.

Also, in regards to the callers. I am not capping and hoping that they will call, giving me value, rather, I am taking into consideration the fact that I know that they will call when I decide what is best.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm primarily asking about situations where, by our own actions, we "lock" ourselves into seeing the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, this should read, "we 'lock' ourselves into seeing the river."

[tolbiny]

Ok,
so you are asking the question about heros first raise (and not his cap as what i first read it as, my mistake)

"If raising the flop is the only way to lock us into seeing the river, AND being locked into seeing the river is the only way to justify raising the flop, then what is the correct play?"

I know it sounds like circular logic to say, i can only do this if i am going to do that and i can only do that if i do this. But it works out fine in this situation.
You are raising the flop because with this many opponents it is profitable to do so, it doesnt matter that not raiseing the flop could lead to a turn fold since you avoid that situation entirely by raising the flop- there is really only very rare situations where folding the turn is correct once you raise the flop.
I guess what your worried about is "cheating" the pot odds by forcing them in your favor. Remember this, with that flop and your hand you more likely than most to win that hand, and think about the most likely scenarios. Even if you didn't raise the flop it would still be fairly rare to see a situation where your pot+implied odds no longer justified a call.
i feel like i am rambling, so its back to work for now, will check back and try to clarify later if needed.

[ErrantNight]

if you have the odds to take it to the river, lock yourself in. when you flop an oesd or a four flush you're pretty well locked in short of an otherwise scary flop that's bet like mad back into you (and even then, if there's enough heads likely to see the turn, you'd likely consider)

don't worry about being "locked in" with strong draws like this. it seems like you're worried about being committed to a hand so strongly, like you're looking for a way to exit gracefully if things get too scary after you raise either on the flop or turn. don't be so worried. you're playing for those times when you hit by the river and take advantage of all the chip-spewing. you'll miss more than you hit. that's ok. that's why you want proper odds to call down, and proper odds to raise the pot when you're raising. that way you're always "right" even when you miss

[MarkL444]

Are we or should we be giving any consideration to my crappy backdoor flush draw?

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what your worried about is "cheating" the pot odds by forcing them in your favor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly my concern. I admit that the hand we're discussing in this thread is not really a good example of this. It's highly unlikely *in this hand* that if Hero just calls the flop, he will be forced to fold the turn. But I can imagine more borderline situations. Or even worse, I can imagine draws much weaker than an OESD where you have a choice between folding or betting/raising into a LAG or two, knowing they will likely cap the betting and give you the odds to call the turn. Is it theoretically correct to "cheat" the pot odds like this by forcing them in your favor?

[Trix]

So they coldcall two, cuz the pot is big, but they wont call one if you dont cap and bet out on the turn when you hit ?

I´m not sure button will be less inclined to raise either as he may read it an a TP stop and go.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Or even worse, I can imagine draws much weaker than an OESD where you have a choice between folding or betting/raising into a LAG or two, knowing they will likely cap the betting and give you the odds to call the turn. Is it theoretically correct to "cheat" the pot odds like this by forcing them in your favor?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really dangerous fuzzy thinking. Incorrectly raising any round to bootstrap yourself into calling later rounds (since the pot now justifies drawing) is a sure way to steady losses. Think about it this way. Imagine always raising and re-rasing with whatever crap hands pre-flop so that the pot odds will justify calling on your various gutshots, backdoor draws, single overcard draws, etc., etc. Do you think that would be winning poker?

Of course, correctrly raising on one round may have the result of increasing the pot so that you have sufficient odds to draw on later rounds. However, you should not raise on one round solely to ensure that you can correctly call on a later one. (Also, remember that even when you are correctly drawing you are still paying to draw.)

[Noodles]

yea i dont think people would fold after you cap,the pot is so big and they have already put so much in that a lot would feel stuck to the pot,
even small pairs will call the cap here,
also when this kind of board is capped,what do players think that someone has 3 J's doubtfaul,2 pair,hmm maybe,
if it was a dangerous board with high cards and flush/str8 draws then they might drop after you cap but not on this board.

[colgin]

I think you are right on this one. Sure, some people will call two more bets cold here, but I think a cap will let certain types of otherwise bad players who would have called one more to get away from their worthless hands when it is two back to them and they realize it is going to be very expensive to show their hand down.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
However, you should not raise on one round solely to ensure that you can correctly call on a later one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you're right. But my concern is with borderline situations where the raise is used to ensure a correct call on the turn, AND the guaranteed turn call justifies the original flop raise.

Here's an example of what I mean. Suppose we flop a weak draw, say 5 outs. We're 3.9:1 to make our draw by the river and 8.4:1 to make it on the turn. We have four opponents, there are 9sb in the pot, and we must call 1sb to close the action and see the turn. Suppose we also know that, if we raise, no one is going fold even it is 3-bet or capped.

We have the pot odds to call. We don't have enough opponents to raise for value, *unless* we're committed to seeing the river. Before we do anything, we're not committed to seeing the river. There are only 4.5bb in the pot and we can't be certain that 4 more will come in on the turn. So there's a good chance we will have to fold on the turn if we miss. As such, raising is not for value, and the correct play is to call.

However, if we raise, there will be at least 7.5bb in the pot before the turn. In that case, we will almost certainly have the odds to call the turn, thereby committing ourselves to the river. This commitment makes the flop raise a raise for value. So raising is for value, and the correct play is to raise.

So a valid argument can be made which says calling is correct. And an (apparently) equally valid argument can be made which says raising is correct. Which is the right play, i.e. which has higher EV?

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's an example of what I mean. Suppose we flop a weak draw, say 5 outs. We're 3.9:1 to make our draw by the river and 8.4:1 to make it on the turn. We have four opponents, there are 9sb in the pot, and we must call 1sb to close the action and see the turn. Suppose we also know that, if we raise, no one is going fold even it is 3-bet or capped.

We have the pot odds to call. We don't have enough opponents to raise for value, *unless* we're committed to seeing the river. Before we do anything, we're not committed to seeing the river. There are only 4.5bb in the pot and we can't be certain that 4 more will come in on the turn. So there's a good chance we will have to fold on the turn if we miss. As such, raising is not for value, and the correct play is to call.

However, if we raise, there will be at least 7.5bb in the pot before the turn. In that case, we will almost certainly have the odds to call the turn, thereby committing ourselves to the river. This commitment makes the flop raise a raise for value. So raising is for value, and the correct play is to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if you are assuming that your 5 outs are good 100% of the time AND the 4 other players are committed to the river no matter how many bets to them or what the pot is offering them in relation to the hand they hold (I would suggest that these are not realistic assumptions to make even at Party), then I guess you have a slight pot equity edge against your 4 opponents and would like to see more money going into the pot. However, then your flop raise is a raise for value becuase of the assumptions you set, i.e., 4 other players determined to showdown and a pot equity slightly greater than 20%, not because somehow your flop raise allowed you to call later because of the size of the pot, What do you care about future pot odds; you set your hypo to ensure +EV in this situation.

If you run some effective odds calculations for seeing the turn and river with some realistic assumptions involving getting re-raised and other hands folding you may not like your raise here so much and may see it as being -EV. Now, there may be other reasons to raise in your hyothetical since you have position (e.g., the "free" card). But raising purely for "value" I think is going to be wrong in most true game conditions (and I am assuming bad players).

[jason1990]

I'm not trying to assume the other players are committed to a showdown, only that they're committed to seeing the turn card, so that I get 4 callers on my flop raise. What I am trying to assume is that I am committed to a showdown, so that I can regard myself as only a 3.9:1 dog to win, instead of an 8.4:1 dog.

[jrobb83]

[ QUOTE ]

Are we or should we be giving any consideration to my crappy backdoor flush draw?

[/ QUOTE ]

This does add a marginal amount of strength to your hand, but I'd probably cap even without it. The backdoor flush would just make me feel more comfortable about doing so.

[ErrantNight]

you shouldn't raise to create artificial pot odds.

you should raise when your equity and implied odds are favorable. such as: an OESD or four flush that has a high degree of likelihood of being the best hand. this is discussed in detail earlier in this post. you're raising on this hand because you have high equity in the pot. every bit of money that goes into this pot has positive expectation for you on the flop, and you're using the odds for the river because you ALREADY have a hand worth seeing all the way down. on the turn, unimproved, you want to check, because your edge is no longer as great.

the raise has nothing to do with making a turn check/call ok where it wouldn't already be... if the only way you're going to get the odds to call your draw down is to raise now it's a bad raise, unless it's a semi-bluff. you should occasionally make a loose CALL in this situation (say, where you've been raised after a semi-bluff), and fold the turn unimproved, but you don't want to raise to make it ok to make an otherwise bad call on the turn unimproved just to see the river.

this is confusingly written, and without any time/effort put into working out the odds, but if you want a further breakdown i'll work it out (or look around for better/smarter players than I who've worked out these scenarios here or in other posts)

[ErrantNight]

isn't the cap good for a bunch of reasons? as someone earlier mentioned... if you hit on the turn your lead looks natural, it's more confusing/worrying on a stop and go, and you don't want that if you do hit... it's already such a marginal decision it doesn't REALLY matter a whole lot... AND the pot is going to be big enough that even if you get people to fold to two bets cold you're alright with this? you're gonna have your odds to make it to the river... and even if it removes the possibility of a couple miracle draws, that's ok...

it seems close, but the edge on pretty much all fronts seems to favor capping, doesn't it?

[tolbiny]

I think you missed the point of his post, which is actually a very interesting question, imo.

You have draw that is (just for example) a 2.5-1 dog to make it by the river. With three opponents who will call it would be best to bet/raise as you are making money off of each of them, BUT you only do so IF you are committed to seeing the river.
It is interesting because money you are putting in on the turn (when you dont hit) is -ev as far as that immediate bet is concerned, but becomes +ev because of the size of the pot.
to try to put it simply
If you raise the flop you have correct odds to raise the flop for it ensures that you see the river.
if you don't raise the flop you do not have correct odds to raise the flop as there may not be a big enough pot to see the river.

[ErrantNight]

i don't think i missed the point at all.

if you raise the pot to give yourself the odds on the turn to call to see the river it's not a good raise.

as was discussed earlier, on the flop, committed to seeing the river, his raise ON THE FLOP is +ev because his equity against three opponents is strong. he will hit frequently enough by the river to make a raise here correct.

if there were two opponents here, a raise here would give him the odds to call the turn, too, there would now be enough money in the pot to make a cold call for one bet to see the river, but the raise on the flop would no longer be correct, because it's artificially increasing his odds to call an additional bet on the turn to see the river... which (to be redundant) is wrong

his question seems to be is this ok, to give yourself odds on the turn by raising the flop to see the bet down to the river.

against three opponents, it's ok to just call, call on the flop and turn, your odds are sufficient, it's just BETTER to raise on the flop, and check/call on the turn unimproved where you no longer have the odds to raise.

[Algasm]

Is a c/r the preferred play here vs. just betting out? Was this an aggressive game? What if it gets checked to the button who bets, do you face the field with calling two cold and hope they do?

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to assume the other players are committed to a showdown, only that they're committed to seeing the turn card, so that I get 4 callers on my flop raise. What I am trying to assume is that I am committed to a showdown, so that I can regard myself as only a 3.9:1 dog to win, instead of an 8.4:1 dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're using the odds (3.9:1) that you have for hitting by the river, but you're not taking into account the bets that you might have to put in on the turn.

[tolbiny]

i dont even know whats going on anymore, i am really screwingmyself up over these posts.
but this is established
"if you raise the pot (solely) to give yourself the odds on the turn to call to see the river it's not a good raise."

The problem is that there are times when raising the flop as a value raise will not work unless you raise, becuase you wouldn't see the river without that raise. So raising in and of its self makes raiseing correct, and calling in and of itsself makes calling correct. Your action dictates the outcome of the hand, the original question as it was putforth is which one has a higher +ev. I dont have any idea how to figure that one out.

[tolbiny]

I would generally c/r here for several reasons.

1. a free card doesn't hurt you, so having it checked aroun isnt to bad.
2. you get to decide weather or not to raise- if the bet comes from ep with enough callers then raise, if it comes from lp you probably just call. you have more controll, however if you bet out you cannot stop an ep player from raising and driving out the field.

[Jdanz]

the point you're missing is the paying for the draw. You can consider yourself as an 8.4 to one dog if you use the pot odds for your one bet right now vs the pot. To use the number 3.9 you need to assess your call (or raise) now along with the expected action on the turn.

essentially it's not only your likelyhood to hit that changes but your pot odds. If you're going to look at your odds based on the next card your odds are

(Size of pot/bet you need to call) + implied odds from there on in

if this is greater then one small bet you can profitably call.

You are comparing this to something which is essentially different. You are taking into consideration expected value without expected cost. To make the raise specifically to tie yourself to the next street requires a different equation.

(size of pot now+additional small bets gained now+expected action on the turn)/(small bets on the flop+expected bets on turn) + implied odds thereafter

essentially assuming a 5.5 sb pot before the flop action and ignoring for now implied odds you're comparing

(5.5 + 4)/1 which is greater then 8.4 so you can call

to

5.5+8 small bets on the flop+ 8 small bets on the turn/6 small bets

(5.5+8+8)/6

assuming that not everyone stays for an additional two bets on the turn you're only getting 3.58 for every 3.9 invested which is not only less profitable then 9.5 for every 8.4, but infact changes a +EV situation onto a -EV situation.

My math muscles are flexed.

-JDanz

[Jdanz]

n/m

[Octopus]

*First, sorry sthief, for contributing to this hijacking of your thread.*

Rats. I did most of this work and got called away only to come back and discover JDanz's post. Never-the-less, I think I have something to add.

For these calculations, I used a 4-outer. (I started before the 5-out example was establised.) As JDanz says, it turns out to be a question of implied odds.

Suppose you have a 6 handed unraised pot and you are last to act. On the flop you have a gut-shot to the nuts with no flush draws (to simplify things) and SB bets with everyone calling. You are getting 11-1 to call, so you are clearly not folding. If you do not raise, and SB bets out again on the turn and say three people drop out, you will only be getting 7-1, so you will probably fold. If you had raised on the flop, you would be getting at least 10-1 (and possibly as much as 13-1 or 14-1) on any bet, so you would call (having pumped the pot on the flop).

The question is whether this raise has a higher EV than just calling. The answer depends on how many bets we can expect to go in on the turn and river. The answer turns out to be: if we can expect more than 6.8BB or more on the turn and the river (and the number of bets we collect does not change whether we raise or not), then raising is better than calling. If we can expect to get a free card 20% of the time, then we only need more than 4.3 BB post-turn. If we get one 40% of the time, then this raise pays for itself and all future bets are just gravy. In the extreme case of everyone putting in 1 bet on both the turn and the river (but we never get a free card), raising is worth .26 BB more than calling. At the other extreme, if only one person puts in a bet on the turn and none on the river (and again, we don't get our free card), raising costs us .45 BB.

So as usual, it depends on the opponenets. If they are passive (so they will give us a free-card), or if they never fold (so we can get those bets in), then raising is actually better than calling and we can profittably pump the pot to give ourselves odds on a latter street. (No one is as surprised as I.)


CALCULATIONS: If we raise, we will pay a total of 2 BB (1 on the flop and one on the turn) to get 3BB from pre-flop + 6BB from the flop plus however many on the turn and river. We will win these 16.4% of the time. If we call, we pay 1/2BB to win 3 + 3 + however many. We win this 8.5% of the time. Setting these equal, we get the solution above.

[ErrantNight]

with three opponents? sure you are... because you hafta include implied odds. calling all the way down is fine, even if your odds on the turn itself is just below optimal (with 4 it's ok even without implied odds), but calling all the way down is fine

[colgin]

I didn't check your math but I think you are right conceptually. You need to look at the cost on the turn of seeing the river and thus your overall effective odds if you want to use the odds of making your hand by the river (as opposed to the turn) as your benchmark.

For example, in the original 5-outer example that started this, if the LP player with the 5-outer "knew" that he could raise and everyone would call that bet, plus everyone would call any re-raise, but then everyobody would check to him on the turn (or alternately, call a bet from EP) then the raise is +EV. There are other +EV scenarios one could paint as well. But there are lots of negative ones as well in which other players drp out after re-rasied or on the turn when the bets double.

Conceptually though it is wrong to raise for the sake of building a pot so that you have later odds to call that you otherwise would not have had. You need to judge the EV of that round's raise either by (i) comparing that round's bet odds to the odds of making your hand on the next card, or (ii) comparing the bet odds for the next two rounds (thus accounting for the cost to you on the turn) to your odds of making your hand by the river.

With strong draws such as the nut flush draw and many opponents such a flop raise is not even close -- it is very +EV and you don't have to even worry if everyone will call the raise.

In the example given in this thread, with the weak draw where you are just gettin odds To call the flop, I think in most circumstances a raise will be -EV unless you think you will get a free card a decent amount of the time or everyone will stay in and call additional turn bets.

[Algasm]

I was thinking about point number 2 after I posted. You would not want the BB or an EP to raise and drive people out.

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
with three opponents? sure you are... because you hafta include implied odds. calling all the way down is fine, even if your odds on the turn itself is just below optimal (with 4 it's ok even without implied odds), but calling all the way down is fine

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to Jason's point on raising and that he was committed to the river so his odds were really 3.9:1. If you assume that, then you should also take into account your bets on the turn should you miss.

[MarkL444]

Everyone called my cap. The turn was a black 8, I check-called. The river was a 5, I check-folded. Button had either 33 or 44 I cant remember.