How bad do you hate my flop play?

[BusterStacks]

I dunno, it's pretty fishy, but...

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with 7/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, Hero calls, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises</font>, CO folds, Button calls, SB calls, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (18 SB) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(9 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, Hero calls, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises</font>, Button calls, SB folds, BB calls, UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 3-bets</font>, MP1 calls, Hero calls, MP3 calls, Button calls, BB calls.

Turn: (18 BB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(6 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, MP1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP3 folds, Button calls, <font color="#CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP1 folds, Hero calls, Button calls.

River: (31 BB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, Button folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls.

Final Pot: 37 BB

[Joe Tall]

I think you turn raise sucks. I'll let others elaborate.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[WDC]

pretty bad

ni han sir

[mantasm]

yeah party 5/10 is a rock garden

[ErrantNight]

i agree with JT. your turn play is worse.

you've picked up all sorts of outs, but you're still drawing. you don't want to force people out of this hand, and you certainly don't want to encourage 3-betting behind you (say, MP3?).

3-bet back to you on the flop is tough... but you hafta assume MP3, button, and BB are coming along for one more, and MP1 makes it easier in front of you... that said this could be capped behind you and it could push out someone else.

still, to reiterate, that turn raise just sucks.

[BusterStacks]

ok.

[Fat Nicky]

With the PF raiser right behind me, i'm folding the flop.

I don't see why you would raise the turn when everyone else is betting your draw for you.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
you've picked up all sorts of outs, but you're still drawing. you don't want to force people out of this hand, and you certainly don't want to encourage 3-betting behind you (say, MP3?)......that turn raise just sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ding ding ding!

3-bet back to you on the flop is tough

It's close put even playing 2 bets he's getting ~15:1+ or something like that.

Added: It's the first flop call that sucks more, even at 20:1.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[Evan]

Both your flop and turn plays are bad to quite bad IMO. Would you mind sharing your reasoning behind them?

[DeezNutz3]

What was your line of thinking on the flop? I can't seem to figure it out.

[BusterStacks]

Well, ok I'll share. Flop I figured in a pot this huge I could take one off. When it comes 3 back to me, I'm just like fuckit I already have money in. Turn raise comes because I think everyone will call even if I get 3bet. I have something like 8 outs to my straight and 9 to my flush although, those may not be clean. At this point I give the PFR a 50/50 chance of re-raising me, and by some bizzarre math I figure that if this is a value raise, I get more bets in this way. However, in retrospect this play should not be repeated, which is why I posted it.

[Joe Tall]

fuckit I already have money in.

What is your PP name? Where do you play?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[BusterStacks]

ha, yeah I knew that would get some responses. thanks for your awesome reply.

[Spicymoose]

I don't see what is all that wrong with the initial flop call. You are getting 19:1 pot odds with about 3 outs (backdoor flush and straight are 1.5 each?). You would only need 15:1 to call this, not to mention your ENORMOUS implied odds. Even after the raise and reraise you are still getting about 18:1, not including implied odds.

Granted, your flush may not be good, but in this enormous pot, I don't see the flop call all that bad. The turn raise can't be all that bad either, as you will probably win this about 25% of the time, and have between 2-5 opponents. I don't think I would of raised, but it doesn't seem like the worst thing in the world.

[Joe Tall]

yeah I knew that would get some responses.

If you knew it's horrible logic, why did you do it?

Peace,
Joe Tall

[CinnamonWind]

Every single thing about this hand is terrible except the pre-flop calls (and even that I'm not crazy about in MP2) and the river raise (duh). When I see a hand like this get shown down, I find it hard to type anything but "Total effing moron fish who chases forever and raises in totally inappropriate spots" into the notes description.

You know you got extremely lucky and played it like a drunken sailor, so I guess just move on.

[Munga30]

Preflop raiser is next to act. How often will he raise this ragged flop with overpairs? The 19:1 or whatever is going to be illusory a high percentage of the time.

[Spicymoose]

Sure, but the 19:1 also assumed everyone else would fold. Even if the preflop raiser did raise (which he did), there are 6 other people left to act. There is a HUGE pot, so even if we are estimating conservatively, there will probably be at least 2 other callers. That would mean you will have to pay 2 SB with a pot of 28. 14:1 isn't so bad with all the implied odds out there, and this is a conservative estimate.

[BusterStacks]

[ QUOTE ]
Every single thing about this hand is terrible except the pre-flop calls (and even that I'm not crazy about in MP2) and the river raise (duh). When I see a hand like this get shown down, I find it hard to type anything but "Total effing moron fish who chases forever and raises in totally inappropriate spots" into the notes description.

You know you got extremely lucky and played it like a drunken sailor, so I guess just move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This added nothing to the thread, and if you are not calling PF, you are retarded. Thanks.

Edited: Upon further disection, you state "Every single thing..." then excuse 50% of the decisions. Yea, everything except half of it. Additionally, assuming the flop play was incorrect, how is that chasing forever? That's one card, after which i picked up a huge draw. Lastly, the raise is not "totally inappropriate", if I was positive everyone would call even a 3bet, it becomes correct. It's marginally bad at worst.

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every single thing about this hand is terrible except the pre-flop calls (and even that I'm not crazy about in MP2) and the river raise (duh). When I see a hand like this get shown down, I find it hard to type anything but "Total effing moron fish who chases forever and raises in totally inappropriate spots" into the notes description.

You know you got extremely lucky and played it like a drunken sailor, so I guess just move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

This added nothing to the thread, and if you are not calling PF, you are retarded. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying I wouldn't have called PF. I am saying I am not crazy about it. I'd need some reads on the table to be sure about it, and at the typical PP 5-10 I'd be reasonably confident it would be raised behind me and possibly limp-reraised. I don't like paying 2 bets for suited connectors, much less 3 (or possibly 4). In the absence of reads, you got lucky that you didn't have to pay more than 2 bets to see the flop, and of course you got ridiculously lucky for the rest of this horribly played hand.

If you don't want to get criticized, don't post hands where you play like a total fool who should be added to my buddies list. If you're looking for someone to say "hey wow, way to get lucky, LOL!" (which I think you actually are) then I think you're in the wrong place.

You couldn't possibly have asked "How bad do you hate my flop play?" as a serious question, because the answer is obvious to anyone who knows anything about poker--an awful lot, because it's a hugely negative EV play. So why you posted this other than to show how lucky you were is beyond me, and why you're getting upset at someone who tells you that you played it like a total fish is even more curious.

[BusterStacks]

Look, I agree the flop was fishy, I'm just not sure you understand the hand to the extent of your comments.

[Spicymoose]

The flop may be EV-, but I am unsure about this. If it is EV-, it is only slightly negative. If you are convinced it is hugely EV-, then about how big do you think the pot would have to be before EV=0?

[CinnamonWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop may be EV-, but I am unsure about this. If it is EV-, it is only slightly negative. If you are convinced it is hugely EV-, then about how big do you think the pot would have to be before EV=0?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first call on the flop is -EV. He had no pair he can catch to win (most likely) and two backdoor draws to a baby flush and a (possible) weak straight (though he could make the nuts too). Let's say he's in against one overpair (looks like AA-QQ), two broadway hands, and a three random suiteds on the flop that see the turn. That means his equity is about 4.3% and he needs 22.4-1 for this (the equivalent of having one out). Well on the first flop call, he has 20-1 to him, but of course implied odds may force a call here IF you think it will only be called behind you, which is a HUGE assumption here. Then one must think about not only one, but perhaps two raises, and possibly even 3.

Then on the second flop call it is 15.5-1 to him facing two bets with the possibility it will be reraised behind him again (from MP3) and that one-bet callers may drop out now (BB and Button). That's a terrible call.

Even after computing the pure equity against random-ish hands, one must factor in the possibility of his outs not being good. There might be a set already on the flop, possibly counterfeiting a couple of clubs and possibly a straight card now or later (which happened here, the 9). Someone may make a higher straight or a backdoor flush as he makes a straight. He only has a baby flush draw. If you're going to pay a lot for draws because you're in a monster pot, you should be drawing to the nuts.

The turn is obviously terrible, with no explanation needed I hope.

There are so many reasons to just move on here, but our "Hero" kept throwing in the chips hoping for a total miracle. That's what fish do, and it's why they lose their money in the long run.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop may be EV-, but I am unsure about this. If it is EV-, it is only slightly negative. If you are convinced it is hugely EV-, then about how big do you think the pot would have to be before EV=0?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we were closing the action at 20:1, this call would be ok, but I think with the possibility of it getting raised makes this call -EV. I actually thought it would be really bad getting 3-bet (If we knew so ahead of time), but I was doing some math and figured that if we knew we were going to pay 3 on the flop, and knew we'd only have to pay 1 on the turn (big assumption), we would only have to makeup about 3-4BB for this to be +EV. The problem is, there is a small percentage of time we'd lose to a larger runner-runner flush (although probably pretty rare), but an even larger percentage where our outs might give someone with a set a full house. Or we may hit our flush and lose to a FH on the river. All these possibilities probably make this a -EV call, although I think its closer than I first thought.

[Munga30]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but the 19:1 also assumed everyone else would fold. Even if the preflop raiser did raise (which he did), there are 6 other people left to act. There is a HUGE pot, so even if we are estimating conservatively, there will probably be at least 2 other callers. That would mean you will have to pay 2 SB with a pot of 28. 14:1 isn't so bad with all the implied odds out there, and this is a conservative estimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Implied odds include those bets you expect to collect after you make your hand. You can't make your hand until the river, at which point you can't count on 4 way action for 3 big bets. That doesn't even account for the money you have to put in on the turn to see the river (one reason why the turn raise is getting slammed by others). That money doesn't count toward your implied odds.

Yes, the pot is pretty big. If you were closing the action, it would be a good call. But it's not a good call in the posted hand.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
If we were closing the action at 20:1, this call would be ok, but I think with the possibility of it getting raised makes this call -EV. I actually thought it would be really bad getting 3-bet (If we knew so ahead of time), but I was doing some math and figured that if we knew we were going to pay 3 on the flop, and knew we'd only have to pay 1 on the turn (big assumption), we would only have to makeup about 3-4BB for this to be +EV. The problem is, there is a small percentage of time we'd lose to a larger runner-runner flush (although probably pretty rare), but an even larger percentage where our outs might give someone with a set a full house. Or we may hit our flush and lose to a FH on the river. All these possibilities probably make this a -EV call, although I think its closer than I first thought.



[/ QUOTE ]

Good post. Without doing any math I assure that the initial flop call is close to 0 but -EV. The second flop call is fine and the turn raise is horrible. Along with the "fck it, I have money in" fish mentality, this hand is the worse I've seen in a while.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
It's close put even playing 2 bets he's getting ~15:1+ or something like that.

Added: It's the first flop call that sucks more, even at 20:1.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why is calling when getting 20:1 worse than calling when getting 15:1?

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. Implied odds include those bets you expect to collect after you make your hand. You can't make your hand until the river, at which point you can't count on 4 way action for 3 big bets. That doesn't even account for the money you have to put in on the turn to see the river (one reason why the turn raise is getting slammed by others). That money doesn't count toward your implied odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the situation where Hero hits a OESFD on the turn, in that case, as long as 2+ people are in, every bet that goes in probably benefits HERO. If we knew it was going to end up like it did (6 people seeing multiple bets on the turn), then whenever we hit the OESFD and gutshot SF draw this would all be bets that would increase our payout. Even having to pay multiple bets when hitting our flush draw/oesd wouldn't be so bad with this many people in. In Actuality, I think the possibility of multiple bets on the turn is not as devestating as I first thought. But again, a large part of that is the fact that we know 6 people wanted to pay on the turn.

[challenger84]

Wow, if I ever played a hand that poorly, I think I'd get up, go outside and take a walk, calm down a little bit. Buster, maybe you should try tha... oh yeah, nevermind.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
Without doing any math I assure that the initial flop call is close to 0 but -EV. The second flop call is fine and the turn raise is horrible. Along with the "fck it, I have money in" fish mentality, this hand is the worse I've seen in a while.


[/ QUOTE ]

I definately agree with how bad the comment was about having money in already... When I first looked at this hand I thought that it was a horrible flop call not closing the action, so I decided to try and figure out how bad. My math may be wrong because I did it a little quick. Its tough because you have to make assumptions about the turn action and I was also assuming we would win 100% of the time when we made our hand which obviously isn't true. But, I was definately suprised with what I came up with concerning the flop call probably not being too -EV even knowing we'd be 3-bet.

I think hands like this show me that when the pot is large, the fish are actually probably playing more correctly than we are at times. I've definately been in this situation a lot lately with large pots and overcards on dangerous boards. Situations where your not sure even if your outs are clean, but the pot is so large a call is warrented. I've been suprised to find that when I have made a few of these calls, I've ended up winning some pots that I was probably giving up before.

[Avatar]

because making that 15:1 call was really like around 10:1 on the flop, because there was too great of a chance pfr would be raising behind you. So when looked at as a whole, the first call is where the biggest mistake was made. The second call was not quite as severe, but still bad, IMO.

[Joe Tall]

Why is calling when getting 20:1 worse than calling when getting 15:1?

Our Zero has yet to invest any money and he knows where the PFR is and doesn't know how many are going to go to the turn yet on the first flop call. Once all the action has transpired on the flop, he knows how many are taking the turn and how much implicitly he can make up after being short odds on the flop (implied odds). Well, that's how he should think about it but if you want to take the "fck it I have money in already" line, like our Zero did, good luck to you in the future.

Hope that helps.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[sthief09]

4 limpers, with a hand whose performance improves dramatically as position improves. seems like an easy raise here, even from a fair share perspective...


I don't think I need to go into why the postlop play is terrible. nice pot though. I've never seen a pot that big at 5/10 full

[bernie]

I don't like the flop call. Your effective odds are toast when you figure having to put minimal at least 2BBs in figuring the turn. Maybe more than 1 BB on the turn. Not to mention a possible cap behind you on the flop. That's alot to put in on 11/15-1 for 2 possible runner runners. No thanks, im out.

The turn raise:

I don't think it's as bad as everyone is making it. Why? Given how MP3 played the flop, you're figuring at least he'll call. Or the button or BB will call lots of action again the way he did the flop. I mean, a 6 hits the turn. That isn't exactly a scare card. Either way, that gives you 3-4 possible opponents. 5 is being optimistic. Others who may have just called all the action on the flop, like the BB who looks like he has a 4/5, set of 2s or 3s or AA/KK, could also call.

You have a str8 flush draw, but it's tainted. So let's say someone has a set (which also takes care of anyone else with 2 pair or another set as far as outs for you), someone has a flush draw also, and someone has 1 of your outs whether it be a flush card or a 5 if they have the made str8. Gives you 10 or 11 outs. About 3.5-1. It's not the end of the world to raise here, and it's not heavily -EV. Especially if you get 4 opponents, then you're about even. Even if 1 more out is gone you're near 4-1.

Yes, someone could have a higher flush draw but runner runner flush over flush is rarer than normal flush over flush if your not one playing any 2 suited. This is, however, your main concern in jamming here.

River, i might've just called. I don't like the board pairing.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
4 limpers, with a hand whose performance improves dramatically as position improves. seems like an easy raise here, even from a fair share perspective

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't raise. You're only in MP 2 and you have no real high card value which affects 'fair share' quite a bit. You want to see the flop cheap.

b

[James282]

Your flop play and turn play are both absolutely awful. The flop calls are embarassing and the turn play is somehow even worse.
-James

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop calls are embarassing and the turn play is somehow even worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

the turn play is far from worse.

b

[James282]

Did you see the part where he tried to raise the three players to act behind him out of the pot when they would have almost surely called with as little as 2 overcards or a small pair? Or even 1 overcard? Did he expect to win the pot right there? Unless you are arguing that his flop play was just SO BAD that his turn play pales in comparison, I just can't imagine where you're coming from.
-James

[bernie]

I have an explanation above that covers this. Even though it's 2 bets to them on the turn, given how they played the flop, there is a good chance they will call 2 cold here especially given the size of this pot. The goal with the raise isn't to win the pot right there. That's not going to happen and it's not the only reason to raise in this spot.

b

[StellarWind]

The preflop call is marginal from MP2 but I usually make it.

Both flop calls are close but wrong. They both suffer from the same problem which is there may be additional raises behind you. MP3 could have capped you.

The turn raise is the huge error on the hand whereas the flop calls are no big deal. You don't want to force people out with a pure draw that can't win unimproved. The mathematics of value-betting draws strongly favor getting one bet from many people instead of two bets from a smaller number of people.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
The turn raise is the huge error on the hand whereas the flop calls are no big deal. You don't want to force people out with a pure draw that can't win unimproved. The mathematics of value-betting draws strongly favor getting one bet from many people instead of two bets from a smaller number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying this turn raise is a huge error because you think its -EV or because you think getting over calls is greater EV than raising? I think with his OESFD on the turn that his raise is close to 0EV, and that allowing overcall is certainly higher EV. However, if we knew we were going to get cold called by two of the 3 players after us, then raising may be of great EV than just calling. Of course this would take a hell of a read.

If hero was last (or next to last) to act on the turn, do you agree that hero's raise would definately be correct here?

[sthief09]

it's -EV compared to calling. it's impossible to make a -EV situation there. in general though, when someone says something is -EV, they usually mean as compared to the other possibility. on the flop, calling was -EV compared to folding, which has 0 EV. on the turn, raising is -EV compared to raising, which is has a higher EV

[private joker]

No one has mentioned this yet, but how atypical is it on 5/10 for NINE people to be seeing a flop? This is either amazing table selection or I need to play this limit more often.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want to force people out with a pure draw that can't win unimproved. The mathematics of value-betting draws strongly favor getting one bet from many people instead of two bets from a smaller number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mathematics is getting the right number of people to call as many bets as possible given your odds to hit. In this case, i don't think he'll force enough people out with what they all withstood on the flop along with how big the pot is. There is a very good chance he will get at close to at least even money on this raise.

Value betting draws that need to improve is much more than just having them call only 1 bet. It's having them call multiple of possible with the right number of players. You can see from how the hand played on the flop that at least 1 or 2 will cold call that turn raise.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if we knew we were going to get cold called by two of the 3 players after us, then raising may be of great EV than just calling. Of course this would take a hell of a read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell of a read? Look at the size of the pot along with the flop action. There's a good chance it will be called. I think people are afraid of it because it's a 'big bet' street.

If it is a mistake, it's not near the mistake people are making it out to be. 1 caller behind you and your close to breaking even.

b

[ErrantNight]

in haste i missed that MP3 was the preflop aggressor...

but yeah, he's awful early in with an awful weak draw with no conception yet of how much he'll be able to make back or how crazy the action is gonna get after he gets in (how much this will cut down his odds)

but hey... maybe the dealer had flashed him the turn and river

[bernie]

Calling is +EV for the odds the pot is offering even if you're losing money with each additional bet going in. If you're in a spot where each additional bet going in makes you money, that's better EV than just what the pot is offering if you only called. However, this can also happen by just calling by keeping the guys in behind you. But if they'd have called 2 bets if you'd raised, then raising would've been more +EV. In this hand, it's a close decision. I'd go for it because i think they'll call behind.

But lets say 2 guys call instead of 3 from the raise. Yes, calling may have gotten the 3rd guy in = 1 extra BB in a +EV situation. You now have 4 guys putting in 1 more BB in a lesser +EV situation, but you're gaining more from those 4 bets than you would from the 1 even though with 1 guy out, your +EV is less.

In this case you won't really know until the action is done on the turn. But given how the prior 2 streets just played...

b

[sthief09]

to be honest with you, I was just giving an example. I haven't analyzed the turn play deeply enough to decide whether raising or calling was right. just letting you know that I wasn't disagreeing...

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't analyzed the turn play deeply enough to decide whether raising or calling was right.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's close. Close enough that i'd jack it one time. Above, i think in my initial response, i think i went into it if you want to check it out. But remember, on this hand, you have to take into consideration the flop play of the players behind you.

[ QUOTE ]
just letting you know that I wasn't disagreeing...

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem. Btw...it's ok to disagree. I didn't disagree with what you wrote, I just thought your example left some stuff out.

b

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The mathematics of value-betting draws strongly favor getting one bet from many people instead of two bets from a smaller number of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like I should expand on this statement with an example.

Let's assume for discussion purposes that your draw provides a 1/3 chance of winning. That's 2-1 odds. Which turn betting outcome is better?

A) Five players see the river for 1 BB.

B) Four players see the river for 2 BB.

Your expected value is 1/3 of the money going in the pot less the amount of money you have to contribute yourself.

EV(A) = (5 BB * 1/3) - 1 BB = 2/3 BB

EV(B) = (8 BB * 1/3) - 2 BB = 2/3 BB

That's right, it's a tie. Many people would be ecstatic about getting 3 callers on a 2-1 raise, but the truth is you have achieved less than nothing by raising. Immediate EV on the turn is not increased at all and the raise seriously damaged your implied odds on the river by knocking out one player and frightening the ones that remain.

This is what I meant when I observed that the mathematics of the game favor calling over raising. It doesn't mean you should never raise, but conditions need to be quite favorable.

Assuming that a raise cannot help you win, you should look for the following things in making the raise-or-call for value decision with a draw:

1. Chance of winning: the better your winning chance the more profitable the raise is compared to playing for overcalls. With a 40% chance of winning the above example favors raising by 0.2 BB.

2. Trapped bettors: the more people trapped for one bet the less you have to worry about forcing people out that would have called one bet.

3. Getting 3-bet with bad outs: on this deal it's very possible the bettor has a set in which case two of your outs are dead. Being forced to put extra money in when you are drawing thin or dead is a cost of raising. It's only a minor problem on this hand but it assumes enormous importance on some hands with paired boards, non-nut straight draws, or warning signs of a better flush draw.

[James282]

You sort of touched on it, but the more people see the river who wouldn't have if you raised makes you money on the river when you improve. A lot of the cards that will improve you will make people 2nd bests that they will have trouble folding on the river. I.E. clubs over nine, the tens that make your straight, etc. Not many people at this limit are folding top pair on the river regardless of the number of bets. So now you're getting more money in when you can be far more certain of your chances of winning than you are on the turn, especially if you make your straight.
-James

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
it's -EV compared to calling. it's impossible to make a -EV situation there. in general though, when someone says something is -EV, they usually mean as compared to the other possibility. on the flop, calling was -EV compared to folding, which has 0 EV. on the turn, raising is -EV compared to raising, which is has a higher EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I understand that. I was just trying to understand what he meant when he said raising is terrible. Unless someone strictly says something is higher EV than something else, I always assume -EV to refer to something that has negative expected value, not something that is less +EV than something else.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless someone strictly says something is higher EV than something else, I always assume -EV to refer to something that has negative expected value, not something that is less +EV than something else.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a useful way to talk about poker. The only question we ever ask is which of our possible plays has the highest EV. Any mention of "negative EV" when discussing a play decision must be in comparison to the alternative play.

Specifically with regard to raise/call decisions, it's useful to think of a string raise. Imagine you've already called and put the necessary chips in the pot. Now you must decide whether you want to stand pat or raise by putting an additional bet in the pot. Viewed from this perspective, calling has zero EV and raising is either positive or negative according to its merits.

I recommend this approach to thinking about raise/call decisions.

[bernie]

You do realize if you put money in as a 2-1 dog, getting 3+-1 in callers, you're making money on the the bets that go in regardless of how the river comes out? You're making money during the turn. Just as a casino is making money during a dice roll regardless of the outcome whether they win or lose.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for discussion purposes that your draw provides a 1/3 chance of winning. That's 2-1 odds. Which turn betting outcome is better?

A) Five players see the river for 1 BB.

B) Four players see the river for 2 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a 2-1 shot on the turn, i'll take B every time. If someone offered a die roll on a 3 sided die and said they'd match every dollar you put in on the die roll with 4 dollars, you picking one of the 3 sides, you'd take it.

[ QUOTE ]
Many people would be ecstatic about getting 3 callers on a 2-1 raise, but the truth is you have achieved less than nothing by raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you have. You've put more money in when you have a greater share than the # of opponents to hit your hand in comparison to your odds to hit. You're getting a better return on your money for that betting round than what the odds are giving you to hit your hand. Example: What pit game offers you a payoff of 4-1 on a 2-1 shot when you put you're money down? Again, you wouldn't put money down in this situation? Casinos would go broke if they offered that.

Along with winning a bigger pot if you hit your hand. Your variance is higher because you're putting more money in. That's a drawback for some.

Are you saying you'd never jam a draw on the turn knowing you're behind at that point? Ill admit, this is a close spot to do it in. I'd still do it.

[ QUOTE ]
Getting 3-bet with bad outs: on this deal it's very possible the bettor has a set in which case two of your outs are dead. Being forced to put extra money in when you are drawing thin or dead is a cost of raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already gave a scenario, including someone having a set + other hands above. You are far from drawing dead in this hand. At worst, other than an overflush, you are only slightly -EV given how this hand has played to the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
it assumes enormous importance on some hands with paired boards, non-nut straight draws, or warning signs of a better flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. You have to figure some of your opponents, especially the jammer, has some kind of a hand. You adjust your outs accordingly. You don't take the full outs.

b

[Cerril]

An MP call at a table this loose is just lovely. You're getting 20:1 to call with what amounts to somewhere around 2.5 outs here, so you can definitely take one off. And when it comes back to you I think you're still alright, though far less so. You're counting on implied odds, plus the slight advantage of being able to fold the turn if you don't improve.

The turn has been covered. Here's where you just hold your breath and pray, coming out swinging will lose you a lot of bets when you don't finish making your hand (most of the time).

Incidentally, I can definitely see someone steaming over a 'beat' here as Cin suggests. Anyone who is playing a few percent tighter all around is going to see calling PF as marginal rather than automatic, and is probably going to discount the very small overall EV of the call on the flop (especially the second one) due to the huge variance it entails.

This is pretty much walking the fine line between being a fish and squeezing every last bit of EV out of a session no matter what the potential cost.

I'd probably be baffled if I looked at my gametime window and saw TA-A or sLA-A after observing a play like that

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume for discussion purposes that your draw provides a 1/3 chance of winning. That's 2-1 odds. Which turn betting outcome is better?

A) Five players see the river for 1 BB.

B) Four players see the river for 2 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

On a 2-1 shot on the turn, i'll take B every time. If someone offered a die roll on a 3 sided die and said they'd match every dollar you put in on the die roll with 4 dollars, you picking one of the 3 sides, you'd take it.

[/ QUOTE ]
The EV calculations in my previous post clearly show that A and B have equal EV on the turn. Do you see something wrong with those calculations?

Analyze it as a string raise. When you put one chip in to call they match it with 4 chips. Scenario A gives 4-1 bet odds on a 2-1 chance.

Now you complete the string raise because you think scenaro B is even more profitable. What happens? You put another chip in. Three players match it but the fourth player says "I changed my mind about calling" and takes his original chip out of the pot. 3-1=2. Putting an extra chip in the pot caused your opponents to add a net of only two more chips to the pot. 2-1 odds on a 2-1 chance. No additional profit for raising instead of calling.

[beckham9]

He realizes it was a fishy move, but you are criticizing him as if this is his regular play, which I am sure its not due to the fact that he posted this thread as "most fishy play ever" or whatever it was. He is a respected poster on 2+2 so lay off the personal attacks.

B9

[StellarWind]

.

[Munga30]

[ QUOTE ]
On a 2-1 shot on the turn, i'll take B every time. If someone offered a die roll on a 3 sided die and said they'd match every dollar you put in on the die roll with 4 dollars, you picking one of the 3 sides, you'd take it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course SW would take it. But given the choice between your prop and one where SW gambles against three people, each putting up 2 dollars to SW's 1, SW would take the latter (and so should you). The latter gamble offers a better overlay (6:1 instead of 4:1) even though each opponent puts up less.

That's why the turn raise is bad. As a 2:1 dog, BStacks would make more money getting 1 bet from 6 opponents than 2 bets from 3 opponents.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Analyze it as a string raise. When you put one chip in to call they match it with 4 chips. Scenario A gives 4-1 bet odds on a 2-1 chance

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is you're getting more money in for when you do hit your hand. Yes, it's linear as far as you gaining x bets for each bet you put in. Which makes it more of a variance on BR. Getting more money in increases you're profit margin when your hand holds up. As in my example with the die, it's only a matter of how much you're willing to put at risk in that situation. You don't put the minimum in just because the odds stay the same. The odds are in your favor. That should be good enough.

Not to mention, you will get calls on the river. Who's not going to want to pay to actually believe you just did all that with a runner draw? Who, with the way the hand played, will put you on that?

[ QUOTE ]
You put another chip in. Three players match it but the fourth player says "I changed my mind about calling" and takes his original chip out of the pot. 3-1=2. Putting an extra chip in the pot caused your opponents to add a net of only two more chips to the pot. 2-1 odds on a 2-1 chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure how one guy gets to pull his chips back after putting them in. Oh well.

Yes, sometimes this will happen. Just as going for a c/r and it gets checked around will happen. It's a risk. In this case, i'd be satisfied if only 3 see the river if 1 folded. Because it's close enough to neutral im not worried.

[ QUOTE ]
No additional profit for raising instead of calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

When more chips are going in the pot, you win more chips when you win which equals bigger stacks in your pile. Or are casinos not making more of a profit from a guy betting $1 compared to someone betting $100 because on a roulette wheel the odds are always the same for every spin? In regards to BR, you're leaving bets on the table.

You're essentially in a situation that you can treat as a proposition bet.

b

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
The mathematics is getting the right number of people to call as many bets as possible given your odds to hit. In this case, i don't think he'll force enough people out with what they all withstood on the flop along with how big the pot is. There is a very good chance he will get at close to at least even money on this raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then shouldn't he call and hope to get raised behind again so he can 3-bet? Hmmmm, hmmmm????

I'm not going to get through this thread as I've been away from it, the turn rasie blows, fcking blows.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Then shouldn't he call and hope to get raised behind again so he can 3-bet? Hmmmm, hmmmm????


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought of this line today. I like it if you think the guy behind you will raise. Then you can see how many players are in when it gets back to you. If enough are in...

[ QUOTE ]
the turn rasie blows, fcking blows.



[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that bad. However, i've already dealt/dealing with it during this thread.

b

[bernie]

First off, I want to make it clear that Im not saying calling is wrong. My purpose is to defend the raise itself from how most say it's the total downfall of the hand. There are many factors that can come into play on which line i'd choose. There are many times i may just call this. There is also a benefit from calling that they won't put you on the str8 or the flush if you hit it where you may collect 2bets on the river.

Here's a way of looking at the proposition on the turn.

Say you can see the turn getting 5 callers for 1 bet on your 2-1. However, you will only get 1 bet each max.

Your gain is 5 * 1/3 = .65

Now with getting 4 callers for 2 bets.

Your gain is 8 * 1/3 = .64

I think SW did this earlier.

It's basically the same gain-wise. However, in one instance, you can get more money in overall compared to the other which you have a fixed number of bets (1). Even though you get 5-1 in the first example, if you can get 4-1 for multiple, it makes up for the lack of payoff oddswise. You're getting less return odds at 4-1, but multiple bets make up for it.

Say you have 2 booths in a casino that have the 3 sided die, you pick 1 number.

Booth 1 will pay you 5-1 'but' you can only bet $1.
Booth 2 will pay you 4-1, but you can put more than $2+ in.

Which would you rather play?

You're still on the +EV side, but one is going to return you more money on the play simply because there is more money in the pot which enables you a bigger takehome.

In the hand in question, i'd be fully expecting to get at least 1 caller maybe 2 behind of the raise. I also expect if you just called that 1 of the 3 behind you will fold.

b

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Without doing any math I assure that the initial flop call is close to 0 but -EV. The second flop call is fine

[/ QUOTE ]

The second flop call is significantly worse than the first since he has to call 2 cold here as oppossed to 1 isn't it?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The second flop call is significantly worse than the first since he has to call 2 cold here as oppossed to 1 isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Along with the fact it could be capped behind him.

b

[Munga30]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though you get 5-1 in the first example, if you can get 4-1 for multiple, it makes up for the lack of payoff oddswise. You're getting less return odds at 4-1, but multiple bets make up for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Collecting multiple bets doesn't make up for it because you are paying twice as much to get the 4:1 on your money. You win more when you hit, but you lose more when you miss.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Collecting multiple bets doesn't make up for it because you are paying twice as much to get the 4:1 on your money. You win more when you hit, but you lose more when you miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

So i guess you're applying this same principle to jamming draws on the flop, right?

You lose 1 extra bet if you miss. That's it. You're risking 1 extra bet to collect 4 more.

In this case, the only thing that seems to be bothering people is the variance of putting in multiple bets on the come with 1 card left to go.

You also didn't answer which booth you'd rather play.

b

[spydog]

I don't think the flop calls are that wrong with the pot so big.

If you make an assumption that 4 people will see every turn bet, then these are easy calls.

Look at what can come on the turn:

2 OESFD cards (the 6c and 10c) will give you a hugely profitable turn. If these cards hit with 2 or more people in the pot, you are making money on each bet. With probably 4 or 5 people on the turn, this is hugely profitable situation for you. You should cap the turn here with as little 2 other players.

8 flush cards and 6 OESD cards. If these cards hit, you will be make money on any turn bet that goes into the pot, assuming 4 other players, which is an easy assumption (as long as you don't do something stupid like raise the turn and make people fold!)

I don't think people are realizing that 16 cards landing on the turn will make you money with each turn bet going into the pot. I'm not talking about giving you the odds to call based on the pot size. I'm talking about making you money.

6 other gutbuster cards will give you odds to call, but lose you money on each turn bet. Those will suck.

25 other cards are an easy fold with no more money to be invested.

So, I think people are way out of line to say that these flop calls are 'horrible'. I think they are +EV.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
You also didn't answer which booth you'd rather play.

[/ QUOTE ]

The EV's in both situations are identical:

Booth 1:

Lose 2 times: 2*$1 = -$2
Win 1 time: 5*$1 = $5

Total EV = +$1/play

Booth 2:

Lose 2 times: 2*$2 = -$4
Win 1 time: 1*$2*4 = 8$

Total EV = +$1/play

In this case your variance would increase while maintaining the same EV. I would choose booth 1.

[maynard]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't want to get criticized, don't post hands where you play like a total fool who should be added to my buddies list. If you're looking for someone to say "hey wow, way to get lucky, LOL!" (which I think you actually are) then I think you're in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony is frightening.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=137 6273&amp;Forum=

[Lost Wages]

you've picked up all sorts of outs, but you're still drawing. you don't want to force people out of this hand, and you certainly don't want to encourage 3-betting behind you (say, MP3?).

I disagree with you and JT. He got 3 opponents to put in 3 bets each while he is only 2:1 against making the likely winning hand. His straight outs are to the nuts and his flush is backdoor making it even more unlikely than usual that he will run into a better flush.

Lost Wages

[ErrantNight]

and if he put in only 2 bets, and got 5 going for two each? that would be worse... how?

[Lost Wages]

Your assumption that if you don't raise it will be 5-way for 2 bets is ridiculous. The pot is huge, no one with a live hand is folding if you raise and there is no way of being sure that it will be raised behind you if you call. You build a pot by betting and raising not calling.

Lost Wages

[ErrantNight]

it may be improbable, but it's not ridiculous.

just as people call down when they don't have proper odds, people fold when they have proper odds. particularly when facing two bets on the turn. and it also gives anyone acting behind you the opportunity to 3-bet everyone yet to act. you need just one less person to fold here when you call instead of raise to make up the difference. and it gives you better implied odds on the river.

and it's a gross generalization to suggest you never build pots by calling. that's precisely what you have to do, for all sorts of reasons. sometimes its because you don't want to cut down your implied odds, sometimes its merely for deception, sometimes it's because players will continue betting/calling until their heart's content but will get out the moment someone wakes up and starts raising.

and i don't need a lecture about playing aggressively, being straightforward more than tricky because you win more pots against calling stations blah blah blah. i got that one a long time ago.

i don't need your condascension... your disagreement about the play is fine, but you justified because he got three players to call for three bets... which is ridiculously results oriented. so don't come down on me for asking a hypothetical which has some reasoning behind it... the point wasn't that that was GOING to happen, merely that comparing the two scenarios should say something about this pot.

it would be better to have more people in the pot, and for you to have put in a smaller percentage of the money put in on the turn. particularly when you can likely achieve a similar size pot.

[Lost Wages]

i don't need your condascension...

Uh, check the thread. Who was he first to be condecsending.

[ QUOTE ]
that would be worse... how?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a gross generalization to suggest you never build pots by calling

True...

sometimes its because you don't want to cut down your implied odds, sometimes its merely for deception, sometimes it's because players will continue betting/calling until their heart's content but will get out the moment someone wakes up and starts raising.

...but none of those apply to this hand.

your disagreement about the play is fine, but you justified because he got three players to call for three bets... which is ridiculously results oriented.

No. There was a bet and a raise in front of him. If he raises and everyone behind folds then he got 2:1 so the raise cost no more than calling. If someone else comes along (which is a reasonable expectation in this hand) then he just made an instant profit. There is no reason to fear a 3-bet. In fact, the worst mistake in the hand was not capping the turn.

so don't come down on me for asking a hypothetical which has some reasoning behind it...

Apologies if I came down on you. I don't think that your hypothetical had any reasoning, it was simply a best case.

it would be better to have more people in the pot, and for you to have put in a smaller percentage of the money put in on the turn.

You have a pot equity edge.

Lost Wages

[bernie]

Remember, you can put more than just $2 at risk in booth 2. For each additional dollar your earn goes up per roll though not per dollar invested.

Booth 1

Cost $3 to play 3 times
Win once for $5 - 3 = 2
2/ 3 spins = $.66 per roll.
After 100 rolls: $66

Booth 2 ($2 risk)

Cost $6 to play 3 times
Win once for $8 - 6 = 2
2/ 3 spins = $.66 per roll.
After 100 rolls: $66

Booth 2 ($3 risk)

Cost $9 to play
Win once for $12 - 9 = 3
3/ 3 spins = $1 per roll.
After 100 rolls: $100

Booth 2 ($4 risk)

Cost $12 to play
Win once for $16 - 12 = 4
4/ 3 spins = $1.33 per roll.
After 100 rolls: $133

b

[Lost Wages]

[ QUOTE ]
Your expected value is 1/3 of the money going in the pot less the amount of money you have to contribute yourself.

EV(A) = (5 BB * 1/3) - 1 BB = 2/3 BB

EV(B) = (8 BB * 1/3) - 2 BB = 2/3 BB


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect because the turn doesn't cost you anything when you make your hand on the river. It should be:

EV(A) = (5BB * 1/3) - (1BB * 2/3) = 1 BB

EV(B) = (8BB * 1/3) - (2BB * 2/3) = 1.33BB


Lost Wages

[ErrantNight]

i didn't consider "that would be worse... how?" to be condascending, but it probably (obviously) came across that way... sorry

[ QUOTE ]
your disagreement about the play is fine, but you justified because he got three players to call for three bets... which is ridiculously results oriented.

No. There was a bet and a raise in front of him. If he raises and everyone behind folds then he got 2:1 so the raise cost no more than calling. If someone else comes along (which is a reasonable expectation in this hand) then he just made an instant profit. There is no reason to fear a 3-bet. In fact, the worst mistake in the hand was not capping the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm, wrong... there was a bet in front of him, and he raised. with a flop raiser behind him. who would be able to raise to force remaining players to face 3 cold before it got back to the turn better. with people caught in between his raise and the flop raiser. there could be no expectation that they would all come along, and it seems likely MORE of them would have come along for one less bet... which makes his equity edge even higher.

this was addressed elsewhere in the post in slightly different context, but i'm in a hurry at the moment...

the point is that if his edge is large if he puts in three bets against 3 opponents... how much greater of an edge does he have when he puts in two bets against 4, or 5 opponents? to suggest that they would have folded anyway is purely hypothetical. peace

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect because the turn doesn't cost you anything when you make your hand on the river. It should be:

EV(A) = (5BB * 1/3) - (1BB * 2/3) = 1 BB

EV(B) = (8BB * 1/3) - (2BB * 2/3) = 1.33BB


[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

We were doing it in regards to total risked against the reward. Total money risked in 3 rolls on A is $3, B is $6. That way you get a more return per dollar invested gain. You don't get that winnning roll unless you invest in the initial gamble.

I'd like it to be right, since it would help support my view on it, but i'm not sure you can leave that last bet put in in the calculation out even though you win.

b

[Lost Wages]

ummm, wrong... there was a bet in front of him, and he raised.

[ QUOTE ]
Turn: (18 BB) 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif (6 players)
BB checks, <font color="red">UTG+1 bets </font> , MP1 calls, <font color="red">Hero raises </font>...

[/ QUOTE ]

Lost Wages

[ErrantNight]

[ QUOTE ]
ummm, wrong... there was a bet in front of him, and he raised.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Turn: (18 BB) 6 (6 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 bets , MP1 calls, Hero raises ...

[/ QUOTE ]

dude... you said that "there was a bet and a raise in front of him"

if him = hero than your statement was not true.

hero in this hand RAISED the bet on the turn. i was not, nor have i been, talking about MP3's hand or his raise.

if you are still talking about hero... I have no idea what it is you've been talking about in these last two scenarios.

i'm disagreeing w/ hero's raise... you said that it was good because "he got three players to call three bets" which simply isn't a correct way to evaluate this situation. with this situation, you must examine the play as you have it here... stop at the hero raise and discuss that.

[Lost Wages]

You're right, in an earlier thread I misspoke when I said there was a bet and a raise in front of the hero. Of course, it was a bet and a call. With a bet and a call, it's fine for the hero to raise at that point.

you said that it was good because "he got three players to call three bets" which simply isn't a correct way to evaluate this situation.

I disagree. Given the prior action in the hand it is reasonable for the hero to believe that at least one other player will continue even if the hero raises. If so then the raise is +EV. If everyone behind folds then it's EV neutral, so the hero has a freeroll to a +EV situation.

What is incorrect is to say that you shouldn't raise because you are still drawing or that you don't want to encourage a 3-bet from MP3. You should welcome a 3-bet so that you can cap it.

The only reason that you might not want to raise the turn is because you believe that can get more EV by raising the river when you hit. On this hand I really doubt if it matter which option you choose. You aren't going to get 5 callers on the river. More likely, 2 players have a hand to showdown and the other three are continuing with weak draws because the pot is so huge.

Lost Wages

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your expected value is 1/3 of the money going in the pot less the amount of money you have to contribute yourself.

EV(A) = (5 BB * 1/3) - 1 BB = 2/3 BB

EV(B) = (8 BB * 1/3) - 2 BB = 2/3 BB


[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect because the turn doesn't cost you anything when you make your hand on the river. It should be:

EV(A) = (5BB * 1/3) - (1BB * 2/3) = 1 BB

EV(B) = (8BB * 1/3) - (2BB * 2/3) = 1.33BB

[/ QUOTE ]
The difference is when I said "5 players" and "4 players" see the river I included Hero. Your calculations are correct for "5 opponents" instead of "5 players".

Our two ways of computing EV are equivalent. My equations charge you full BBs on the turn but you get them back when you win the pot.