JTs in ginormously huge family pot - any terrible mistakes?

[AlphaMeridian]

Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, CO folds, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, <font color="CC3333">UTG+2 3-bets</font>, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, Hero calls, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls.

My impression was to raise here, because I have a good multiway hand in a XOBX HUEG family pot, and ok position if I can get people after me to fold. The 3 bet from UTG+2 did surprise me, but I'm thinking my implied odds from the table were good if I could hit. The raise is right? Right for the wrong reasons? Or just plain wrong?

Flop: (22 SB) 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(7 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

Hurm, Overcards, a backdoor flush draw, and the inside straight draw. It's 1 bet to me, and I'm thinking this is a huge pot, so I have to protect my hand, no?


Turn: (20 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(6 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

Hurm, the King doesn't really help me here, but the pot is (20!) BB, I have 4 outs to the straight (4/48 ~ 12, right?) and the pot is laying me 20:1 to hit that straight, right?


River: (26 BB) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(6 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, BB folds, UTG folds, UTG+2 folds, MP2 calls, Hero folds.

A travesty, but did I play it wrong?

Final Pot: 28 BB
<font color="green">Main Pot: 28 BB, between MP2 and SB.</font>

Reads are shady, it was only a couple orbits until I hit this hand, so i'll go with what i got. SB is a LP-P, and the read on MP2 was too new, he just joined the table. The rest of the table is running slightly fishy, although, there were some tight players there.

-Alpha

[Evan]

Everything except the flop is fine.

What are you protecting? You have a couple of weak overs and some draws. Also, you're raising last to act, so protecting your hand is basically th alst thing you're doing. You also kill your implied odds because you're hand is not strong enough to make a free card (that you probably won't get in a pot this multiway) worth it.

[PotatoStew]

I agree with this... just call the flop. You have odds to do so, and raising won't protect your hand. Plus, with the 8 paired, your straight or flush could end up losing to a full house by the river.

Preflop raise is good I think... lots of callers ahead, and you buy yourself better position.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop raise is good I think

[/ QUOTE ]
yea, I was gonna talk about that but I don't read this forum as much lately so know how common this raise is. A preflop raise in this spot is crucial. The opportunity to gain position for the hand is nice; but the main reason to do it is because your equity against 5 limpers (I don't remember, I'm just kinda making that up) is huge, so huge that not building a pot wouod be a pretty bad mistake.

[AlphaMeridian]

Hurm, of what I can understand so far, the raise preflop was good because I win more than I should with this many limpers, and thus should be pumping my edge?

I should have called the flop because raising doesn't protect my hand - could you elaborate a bit more here? Treat me like an idiot w/r/t this, I'm very confused over it. Is the reasoning that the pot is so large aganist calling stations that they're not only inclined to call but its in their best interest to do so (large pot size makes it correct to call) thus, my raise only makes it more correct for them to stay in? That, and the fact that my draw wasn't as good as I thought it may have been?

-Alpha

[Brain]

Hey Alpha-
I love this pre-flop raise after this many limpers.
This hand was good, except for the flop. You say that you should protect your hand, except that you don't have much hand to protect and there's so much in the pot already that nobody will be drawing incorrectly. Even after SB's 3-bet, everyone's getting ~15-1 to call anyway.

Calling the turn is correct because you're drawing to your gutshot (3.5-4 outs). With 46 cards to come, you're getting
25:1 on an 11:1 draw.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Hurm, of what I can understand so far, the raise preflop was good because I win more than I should with this many limpers, and thus should be pumping my edge?

I should have called the flop because raising doesn't protect my hand - could you elaborate a bit more here? Treat me like an idiot w/r/t this, I'm very confused over it. Is the reasoning that the pot is so large aganist calling stations that they're not only inclined to call but its in their best interest to do so (large pot size makes it correct to call) thus, my raise only makes it more correct for them to stay in? That, and the fact that my draw wasn't as good as I thought it may have been?

-Alpha

[/ QUOTE ]
The reason this isn't protecting your hand is as follows:

1) You have no hand to protect. You have J-high.
2) Everyone has already called one bet. You are last to act. Raising here is only good for pot-building purposes; since everyone has already called, your raise will unlikely fold anyone, since their odds haven't changed at all. It also allows SB to 3-bet, forcing you to call one bet more than you want to with your gutshot.

Anyway, like everyone else, I like everything except the flop. If you're going to be making preflop raises like this, though (it is a great raise), you should know what to do with hands like this postflop.

Rob

[bergh]

I agree that the flop raise won't protect your hand (and that your hand doesn't need protection very much either), but I'm not too sure it is that bad anyway... You have 1:11 to complete your gutshot on turn, but about 1:5 to complete it on the turn OR the river. Since the pot is so large you will probably have the odds to buy two cards - so this might be one of those rare cases when it is correct to pump a gutshot...

On the downside:
* Your straight might not be good even if you hit it.
* If there is too much action on the turn you might not afford to see the river.

On the upside:
* You have a backdoor flushdraw plus overcards which adds more value.

I'm not sure if this is enough to make the flop raise correct, but I'm pretty sure it isn't terrible!

[Evan]

Good explanation Entity. That's exactly the right answer.

[Nick Royale]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar till:</font><hr />
I agree that the flop raise won't protect your hand (and that your hand doesn't need protection very much either), but I'm not too sure it is that bad anyway... You have 1:11 to complete your gutshot on turn, but about 1:5 to complete it on the turn OR the river. Since the pot is so large you will probably have the odds to buy two cards - so this might be one of those rare cases when it is correct to pump a gutshot...

On the downside:
* Your straight might not be good even if you hit it.
* If there is too much action on the turn you might not afford to see the river.

On the upside:
* You have a backdoor flushdraw plus overcards which adds more value.

I'm not sure if this is enough to make the flop raise correct, but I'm pretty sure it isn't terrible!

[/ QUOTE ]

You have presented no reason why raising would be good, only why it's not terrible. With 1 to 11 to the straight you certainly don't have equity to raise, so why raise and risk getting 3-betted? It's quite terrible in my opinion.

[droolie]

The one reason I can see that the flop raise could be good is if it bought you a free look at the river. The free card play backfired here but if you thought it would work a high enough percent of the time it may have been better than calling.

[Nick Royale]

Agree, but with this multiway hand it's never worth it. You will rarely be aloud to take a freecard.

[bergh]

[ QUOTE ]
You have presented no reason why raising would be good, only why it's not terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I tried to argue that you don't have 1:11 to make your straight but rather 1:5. If you win every time you hit a straight, everyone calls your raise and you have odds to see the river; a raise is breaking even with 5 opponents. The question is if the backdoor flushdraw and the overcards makes up for all the iffs in the previous sentence. This is harder to calculate, but I have a feeling it does. In that case, not raising is not terrible - but slightly bad - and you shouldn't consider getting raised a risk, but rather a bonus! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Klak]

hes trying to protect his overcard outs by raising. there is a similar situation in HEFAP.

[PotatoStew]

[ QUOTE ]
hes trying to protect his overcard outs by raising. there is a similar situation in HEFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he is, but the point is that it won't work -- no one will fold to this raise, so nothing gets protected.

(In fact, just look at the hand -- SB 3-bet and everyone STILL called, even though they were calling 2 cold)

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
hes trying to protect his overcard outs by raising. there is a similar situation in HEFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hero can't do any protection here by raising, especially to clean up really really unlikely good overcard outs. His position and the pot size don't allow for it a hand-protection raise.

I liked the argument that getting 6:1 on every bet with a draw that will come in 5.2:1 could be for value, but with the paired board, I don't think I buy it. It diminishes some of the the problems associated with raising, but not enough to make me like a raise here whatsoever.

Given the fact that SB bet into the field on this one (look at the preflop action to see how much that means), he probably likes his hand. A lot. That alone diminishes most of the reasons for raising.

Rob

[Evan]

1. his relative position makes protection (which is wrong here anyway) impossible.

2. HEPFAP does not apply to this game.

[Klak]

[ QUOTE ]

2. HEPFAP does not apply to this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. HEPFAP does not apply to this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

???????????????? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
He's right. It doesn't.

HEPFAP was written primarily for tighter games with tough, often tricky opponents. You don't see those sorts of games at .5/1, unless you're sitting at a 2+2 table.

Rob

[bergh]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked the argument that getting 6:1 on every bet with a draw that will come in 5.2:1 could be for value, but with the paired board, I don't think I buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really buy it myself, so I did some more calculations. We have:

P(flush)=4.16%
P(straight)=15.78%
P(two-pair)=26.25%

(P(flush) + P(straight))*P(flush/straight good) + P(two-pair)*P(two-pair good) &gt; 1/6

If we assume that two-pair will be good 35% of the time (which is pretty conservative), it is enough that the straight or the flush will be good 37.5% of the time for the raise to be correct, given that we can afford to see two cards. I don't think we should put SB with a boat just because he leads the flop on a paired board, and if he has 2-pair, he only has about 16% chance to improve...

I know that the calculations don't cover all aspects, but I actually think the margin is big enough to justify a raise...

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I liked the argument that getting 6:1 on every bet with a draw that will come in 5.2:1 could be for value, but with the paired board, I don't think I buy it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't really buy it myself, so I did some more calculations. We have:

P(flush)=4.16%
P(straight)=15.78%
P(two-pair)=26.25%

(P(flush) + P(straight))*P(flush/straight good) + P(two-pair)*P(two-pair good) &gt; 1/6

If we assume that two-pair will be good 35% of the time (which is pretty conservative), it is enough that the straight or the flush will be good 37.5% of the time for the raise to be correct, given that we can afford to see two cards. I don't think we should put SB with a boat just because he leads the flop on a paired board, and if he has 2-pair, he only has about 16% chance to improve...

I know that the calculations don't cover all aspects, but I actually think the margin is big enough to justify a raise...

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that two pair is almost never good enough to win this one. Negate the two pair, then do the math again. This raise is far too thin to be +EV.

Rob

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2. HEPFAP does not apply to this game.


[/ QUOTE ]

? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I was wondering the same thing. Now I know what to blame for my all poker problems /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bergh]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that two pair is almost never good enough to win this one...

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case the figure is 81% which might be a bit too thin, but I think negating two-pair is far to conservative. Does that mean that you automatically put SB on a boat or tripps just because he is betting the flop??!? I would say he easily could have any pocket pair any 7 an OESD (which admittedly could tarnish some of your outs) or even just two high cards (although that is a bit less likely).

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say that two pair is almost never good enough to win this one...

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case the figure is 81% which might be a bit too thin, but I think negating two-pair is far to conservative. Does that mean that you automatically put SB on a boat or tripps just because he is betting the flop??!? I would say he easily could have any pocket pair any 7 an OESD (which admittedly could tarnish some of your outs) or even just two high cards (although that is a bit less likely).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think SB has trips a high percentage of the time. I additionally think that either your T or J outs are tarnished quite often, since JT is rarely a high pair hand. If I were being honest, I think 2pr wins this hand around, or slightly less than, 10% of the time.

Rob

[Klak]

most people think that SSH is the Koran of poker on this board. anything other than what is stated in the book therefore must be wrong.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
most people think that SSH is the Koran of poker on this board. anything other than what is stated in the book therefore must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this actually referring to?

I think SSH is the best book on the market for low-limit games. I think its advice is generally correct. But it isn't infallible.

What are you disagreeing with, in regards to comments in this thread? Limping JTo in EP? The value of suitedness in multiway situations?

Rob

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
HEPFAP was written primarily for tighter games with tough, often tricky opponents. You don't see those sorts of games at .5/1, unless you're sitting at a 2+2 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a joke right? I'm sure it is. It must be. Have you ever been to a 2+2 table? Is CDC declaring his intention to raise arbitrary hands on every street tight or tricky in your book? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Also, Entity's explanation of why HEPFAP is not suited to low limit games is correct.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
HEPFAP was written primarily for tighter games with tough, often tricky opponents. You don't see those sorts of games at .5/1, unless you're sitting at a 2+2 table.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a joke right? I'm sure it is. It must be. Have you ever been to a 2+2 table? Is CDC declaring his intention to raise arbitrary hands on every street tight or tricky in your book? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Also, Entity's explanation of why HEPFAP is not suited to low limit games is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tricky, yes, sometimes. Tight, um....well....

But yeah, HEPFAP does apply to those games quite often. At least it has for me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rob

[bergh]

You are probably right about the tripps - a lot of people get timid when the board pairs... But on the other hand some people would try to slowplay tripps. It is also easy to get result oriented. When he made that raise, SB had only made one single bet, but when analysing it afterwards it is hard not to get affected by subsequent action.

If we hit our 2pr it will be the top two-pair at least 80% of the time (if we hit the 2pr there is only one more card to come).

[droolie]

Is that where you learned to pfr 21% and VP$IP 30%? My copy was missing that chapter I think!

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that where you learned to pfr 21% and VP$IP 30%? My copy was missing that chapter I think!

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm around 25VPIP/21PFR overall at 2+2 games, but I've been drunk for at least a few hundred of those hands. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rob

[Evan]

Yea, you're right. I jsut like to insult 2+2ers at any opportunity. Also, you've been responding to every question someone responds to my posts with before I saw them, so I'm bitter. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif