Reraising all-in on the flop with position

4 handed 2/2 Pot-limit Hold'em. I have about $300, BB has me covered, and SB is pretty irrelavant to this hand.


I open for $8 on the button with AdKd. Both blinds call. 3 players, $24 in the pot. I would characterize the BB as loose-aggressive.


The flop is Kh Jh 2c. Both blinds check to me. I read the BB for a hand, but I think that he would have bet any made hand (two pair or set on the flop), hoping that I would raise so that he could come over the top. With a two flush and two broadway cards, I thus conclude that he probably has a draw. I bet the pot, $24. The SB folded, and the BB raised pot, making it $96 to go. I still thought he probably had a draw, since he tends to play his draws very aggressively, and everything thus far is completely consistent with either Q10 or a flush draw. However, I really can't tell the difference between those two draws. I am thus concerned that if I just call on the flop that too many cards will look scary on the turn, and that he may be able to represent either draw that may get there on the turn, and that will put me in a tough spot. Instead of playing guessing games about which draw he might be on, I decided to reraise all in, making it $293 to go in total (a $197 raise).


I will post the results in a separate post. What do people think about my decision to reraise all-in on the flop?


-Dan

The BB called, and he had 10h 3h. We made a straight equity deal at that point, which gave me $375 out of the $610 pot (I will win 61.5% of the time, assuming that the SB and CO's cards are random, and .615 * $610 = $375.15).

This is the problem I find with betting draws aggressively on the flop. 90% of the time your opponent will put you on a draw. This is part of normal human psychology.


Whenever a player is put in a tough spot, he will often grasp at straws and one of the most comforting all-purpose straws a poker player can grasp at is the "maybe he's bluffing" straw.


When there's a draw out there, it's even easier to go for the "maybe he's drawing" straw, which is bigger and has a better grip and feels good to the touch compared to the "maybe he's bluffing outright" straw.


I would absolutely have gone all-in here. Good play, nice pot. I think you screwed up by making a deal though. It shows you might be overplaying your bankroll. Which is a recipe for disaster.


One more thing about betting draws. A couple players I respect advocate this move a lot. I decided to pull it off a few times lately and each and every time I get called. I've yet to buy a pot with a big bluff on a draw. I think players are just way too conditioned to call down when there's an obvious draw out there.


natedogg

natedogg might be right about not making a deal


but the way I see it is that there 9 cards to make his flush and two draws..thus 19 outs


which means you were about 3 to 2 to win...and that is about what you got...so, I say it is not a bad deal


based upon the old idea of playing the hand a thousand times, you did right

natedogg is not right about making deals. there are only two things you need to consider: ev and variance. given a level of ev, lower variance is preferable. given a level of variance, higher ev is preferable. the strategy of making a deal dominates the strategy of not making a deal. this should be clear to you, and if it's not, you should find a way to make it clear.


and jellow, your comment about it not being a bad deal because i'm about 3:2, well, the number i used is exact--it was not pulled about of a hat or out of convenience--it was solved for using a computer program.

The raise itself: I don't particularly like it. Unless he's way out of line, you're either a moderate favorite or a pretty big dog (like, he flopped a set). His particular hand is not the kind of straight+flush draw that would terrify you (Qh-Th). He's getting the right price to call your raise, but remember, he gets there about 40% of the time.


Also, you've lost your positional advantage. If you really put him on a draw, then I'd be more inclined to look at a turn card, and then perhaps move in. If he's flopped a big hand, then

he will be afraid of the draw and will likely bet on the turn - that may give you the chance to get away from the hand. If he checks (and he's not an overly sophisticated player) then you assume your original read was correct, he's on a draw, and you push all your chips in.


Your computer analysis: was quite correct. Do you have some kind of Palm program to do that, and would you share?


Regards, Lee

i make them gamble for the dough. if you make deals with most people they feel its ok to go in with you as you will give them some money back if you call. let them know that they get to lose it all if they want to play a big pot with you. making deals hurts unless you force them to take the worst of the deal. plus many at the table are not aware of the odds and you tend to wake them up.

I think making the deal may have been a bad decision. The thing to consider is how he will play in the future knowing he can make a pure equity deal with you (especially when out of position). This scenario comes up in backgammon in endgame positions when the cube gets high and the position is simple (example, you know you need double 4's, 5's, or 6's to win). In these scenarios the player with the pure % edge can generally charge his opponent a premium for an equity deal. There is some value in the reduction of variance, the question is how much and who does it benefit more? There are obviously many issues that go into the answer to that question but in my experience the player with the higher % chance of winning generally gets paid the premium. I think you probably could have gotten more than the pure equity of the scenario out of the deal. Just think about being on the other side of the deal and how much you would be willing to play in excess of the pure ev. Of course, some like to gamble and will just let the cards decide (i'm of this school and used to tell my bg opponents to just roll when they wanted to make deals).


Rob