A Small Stakes Quest: Try not to suck any more **** on the way to 3/6

[SomethingClever]

I'm going to post one hand a day as I continue to try to move from 2/4 to 3/6.

Here's today's hand. Relatively new table, so I didn't have reads yet.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP3 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB calls, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls, MP3 calls.

Easy blind defense?

Flop: (10 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP3 folds, CO calls, SB calls.

I think this is standard... I'm behind a few of his possible holdings, but I have a huge draw that I can bet for value. It's about equal to checkraising as far as making people face 2 cold, but this way, I get more information about his hand, and I won't kill my action if my draw comes through. Hmm, he called. AKo? AJo? JJ? TT? I'm starting to think of a range of hands that he might have.

Turn: (7 BB) K/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO raises</font>, SB folds, Hero calls, UTG+1 calls.

Should I just check/call here? I thought betting was better in case CO had somehting like TT, JJ, AJ or AT. Obviously, I'm now behind AKo (and of course a slowplayed AA, KK or QQ), but I've also got the 4-flush.

River: (13 BB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
Hero checks with the intention of raising?

CO raising the turn tells me one of two things. The K helped him (holding AK, KQ, KJ, KT or KK), or he's a maniac. Either way, I thought this was a good opportunity for a river checkraise. Thoughts?

[DeezNutz3]

Pretty standard for me, nice hand.

[chesspain]

Check the turn. With your 14 outs you don't have quite enough value to bet, and there is an excellent chance that the CO is going to raise with his AA/KK/AK. Furthermore, it's not like you want him to fold JJ/TT (AJ/AT probably folded the flop), because for either of these hands he's drawing to only 1-2 outs. And the odds of you being ahead of everyone now but getting sucked out on the river because you failed to bet is fairly low.

[Redeye]

Preflop: Your getting 7:1 immediate, probably 9:1, I think the call is ok here.

Flop: Raised pot, 4 opponents, you have top pair. I think going for a c/r of CO would be good here to try to protect your hand, if everyone calls two cold, cool. I don't think betting out is too bad though.

Turn: If CO is decent, your ahead of very few of his possible holdings. JJ, TT, maybe AJ, ect. I might check call, but that could be weak-tight...I'd like to hear opinions on that.

River: Missing bets sucks, I've been trying some of these c/r and I think they fail too often to be profitable unless you know your up against an aggressive player. I'd bet out

[mrpurple]

Anyone like betting out on the river? If villian is weak/tight enough to check behind on the river it would be sad not to at least get one bet in.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Flop: Raised pot, 4 opponents, you have top pair. I think going for a c/r of CO would be good here to try to protect your hand, if everyone calls two cold, cool. I don't think betting out is too bad though.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't want to protect your hand--you want to build a pot. I would bet, and hope that the CO raises so that I can three-bet.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]


You don't want to protect your hand--you want to build a pot. I would bet, and hope that the CO raises so that I can three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my plan if he raised, unless it became HU.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, it's not like you want him to fold...

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, I didn't want him to fold if he was behind, but I also didn't want him to check behind if he was behind. I guess there's not really much he's behind, if he's reasonable. Which, I still don't know.

[bisonbison]

I think the preflop call is the closest decision in the hand. Nicely played.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone like betting out on the river? If villian is weak/tight enough to check behind on the river it would be sad not to at least get one bet in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since UTG+1 called the flop and turn, I might just bet out here, and try to get a call from him as well as from the CO. Seems like an almost guaranteed way to collect two bets without risking a failed checkraise, especially since there is no way that UTG+1 calls two cold on the river unless he has at least two-pair.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't want to protect your hand--you want to build a pot. I would bet, and hope that the CO raises so that I can three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but this is a decent pot already, If we're ahead I think we should maximize our chances of winning. If people call two cold, cool, we get our value anyways. If we're up against AK and we can push some of the other clowns out we could take down the pot on the turn if a blank hits. Our flush isn't guarenteed to come in, so lets make sure we have the best chance of taking this down if we don't improve.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
but I also didn't want him to check behind if he was behind. I guess there's not really much he's behind, if he's reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you care if he checks behind on the turn with JJ/TT, since he only has 1-2 outs to improve? Having him check behind is better than his raising you, and it makes it much more likely that he calls the river when you bet, especially if no one else bets or calls the river.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, but this is a decent pot already, If we're ahead I think we should maximize our chances of winning. If people call two cold, cool, we get our value anyways. If we're up against AK and we can push some of the other clowns out we could take down the pot on the turn if a blank hits. Our flush isn't guarenteed to come in, so lets make sure we have the best chance of taking this down if we don't improve.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. You have TP and a monster draw, and you want to potentially force everyone out in between you and the PF raiser, when they all are likely chasing four outs or less? And so that you can maybe win 6BB on the turn against an unimproved AK?

2. You want to allow AK to check this flop through? That would severely suck!

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you care if he checks behind on the turn with JJ/TT, since he only has 1-2 outs to improve?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... because I'm greedy and I want to win a ginormous pot?

Honestly, this is probably a facet of my game that needs improving. I usually just think, "Oh, I'm probably ahead, I need to bet so I don't give a free card."

Given that I bet, if he raises the turn, can I safely check/fold the river when I don't spike a heart?

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You have TP and a monster draw, and you want to potentially force everyone out in between you and the PF raiser, when they all are likely chasing four outs or less? And so that you can maybe win 6BB on the turn against an unimproved AK?

2. You want to allow AK to check this flop through? That would severely suck!

[/ QUOTE ]

You make some very good points. Thanks for the reply

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that I bet, if he raises the turn, can I safely check/fold the river when I don't spike a heart?

[/ QUOTE ]

Getting 14:1 (and not closing the action), I don't know. However, unless you have a read on the CO as being super aggressive/tricky, it's difficult to believe that you would be up against TT/JJ/AT/AJ enough to make this call profitably.

[uw_madtown]

Well played. Preflop call is find, flop and turn play is exactly how I'd play it. I'm not sure on the river c/r attempt. I probably bet out. I think no way is UTG going to call when it's two bets after your c/r, but he may (but probably won't) call one bet from you. Going for the c/r, you risk having this checked through, when the CO is almost assuredly going to pay off one bet if you bet out -- and may raise.

I think betting out and checking with intent to raise is pretty close either way in terms of EV. I'd be interested in seeing more comments on this decision.

Also, why the hell are you still playing 2/4?

[Cerril]

PF/Flop, you're great, obviously, these are standard. Incidentally, it's not really a blind defense with two callers in before the raise.

Turn - This is a leak in my game too. Your equity here doesn't warrant a bet even if it's called around. I tend to bet my draws too often when I can't rake the pot immediately and don't think I'm ahead.

River - Oof, this hurts. I can't justify a checkraise here. What you want is bet, call, raise or bet, call, call. If you get check, check, bet, raise, &lt;?&gt; you're likely going to fold the caller you could have trapped. It's not that I think you're up against a king high flush or anything, but in the unlikely event that you're beaten I still don't like trying to get your extra bet this way unless you had a read that UTG+1 is just plain that loose (which you don't have).

[Festus22]

I would look to C/R the flop. This is a big pot. I would treat this hand more like a TPWK hand than I would a flush draw.

If you can knock out some overcards, great. If they cold call you which they probably will anyway, then you've built an even bigger pot for your draw. This option seems like a win-win for you.

I think the turn bet is close but fine. You have 11 likely outs if you are behind and it's still possible you're ahead.

[Victor]

Preflop: Easy call. Its not really a "blind defense" as you say. Moreover, you are getting 7:1 immediately and a likely 9:1 when the limpers call. You have a suited hand and it is about 8:1 to hit a flush draw. You still have some straight potential and a little high card strength (although the threat of domination exists.) The only time I dont call this is if your table is crazy with limpreraisers you like to cap preflop a lot.

Flop: Bet out. With the raiser in late position you want to trap the limpers for a bet. Checkraising is bad because you force the limpers to call 2cold when there is a good chance you are behind. You do not want to be isolated here.

So bet out and hope the CO raises. If you get some callers and the CO raises then 3bet. Your equity is huge here. As it was played it seems CO has overcards or an underpair as you specify. A slowplayed QQ is possible too.

Turn: Bet out again. The pot is rather large now and there is certainly a reasonable chance you are still ahead. This bet is crucial. You only need to be ahead a small percentage of the time to make betting here profitable due to your outs to the flush and 2pair/trips.

When you are raised you can almost be certain that your opp has AK so I would assume that my Q and 8 outs are good. People do slowplay so I would still be passive if one of these cards hit. I would bet out on the river and call a raise if you hit a Q or 8 though.

River: The river checkraise is totally dependent on you opponent. Will he bet into 2 opponents (1 of which played exactly like on a draw) when the obvious flush hits?

With the extra opponent and his position I am more inclined to just bet out and hope they both call. By checkraising you will likely lose UTG+1 (unless he has a flush) and gain 2 bets. But if it is checked around even somewhere around 25% of the time you lose 2 bets. By betting out you will always make 1 bet and very often 2 bets anyway.

[sthief09]

I'd fold preflop. I'd check raise the flop because you can better protect your hand. when he calls the flop you shouldn't be thinking only of hands that you beat, beacuse he could easily be trapping you with AA-QQ, which is possibly what he did. I wouldn't check the turn if you play to call anyway. most of the time you don't get raised by AK. river check raise is good

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Flop: Raised pot, 4 opponents, you have top pair. I think going for a c/r of CO would be good here to try to protect your hand, if everyone calls two cold, cool. I don't think betting out is too bad though.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't want to protect your hand--you want to build a pot. I would bet, and hope that the CO raises so that I can three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


no, you want to protect your hand over building a pot. the pot is 10 SB. betting gives them correct odds to draw to gut shots or 2 pair/trips. check-raising does not. I don't think there's much of a chance he checks the flop either. the difference is small between trapping 1 and forcing 2 to call 2 cold, or vice versa. it's probably not worth discussing. I still would rather let one guy in and force the other 2 outs. you have a made hand. you want to win with that. you don't want to rely on the flush.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd fold preflop. I'd check raise the flop because you can better protect your hand. when he calls the flop you shouldn't be thinking only of hands that you beat, beacuse he could easily be trapping you with AA-QQ, which is possibly what he did. I wouldn't check the turn if you play to call anyway. most of the time you don't get raised by AK. river check raise is good

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty rare that I disagree with you on two streets.

<font color="red">Preflop disagree </font> Preflop is an easy call. As has been stated before, he's getting 9:1 on his call - easily enough to look for only the flush draw, let alone the odds of flopping 2 pair, trips, gutshot straight draws, or even top pair.

<font color="blue">Flop agree </font> : bet-three bet is ok, CR is ok too.

<font color="blue">Turn agree </font> : bet regardless of the flop line you choose.

<font color="red">River disagree </font> : Lots of players freeze up when the 3rd flush card comes, especially with the way both Hero (bet the flop, bet-call the turn) and UTG+1 (call call call) played - either could easily have the flush. It's a disaster to get the river checked through. Also you'd be making UTG+1 call 2 bets cold on the river; it's likely he'll call one, but not two, so you're risking 2 bets to possibly make zero.

[sthief09]

I specifically threw in an "I'd" in front of "fold preflop." /images/graemlins/smile.gif I'm too tight in those spots and have different views than everyone else. I was folding AJs and KQs in that spot until recently. baby steps...

you're right about the river too. after the flop-turn action I was putting him on a really strong hand that wouldn't check the river, even in the face of a 3-flush. I guess AK is possible too though

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, why the hell are you still playing 2/4?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because I haven't beat it yet!

I have plenty of bankroll for 3/6, but I need to prove I can beat 2/4 first.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
no, you want to protect your hand over building a pot. the pot is 10 SB. betting gives them correct odds to draw to gut shots or 2 pair/trips.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with checkraising to protect your hand is that often you are behind here. Possible holdings that beat you are AA, KK, QQ, AQ, KQ. The limpers could very easily have a better Q as Q10 and QJ are very common limping hands. By checkraising when dominated you are going to pay more bets with less dead money going in. Also, realize that you are not protecting your hand from AK anyway as it is going to call you down. Protecting your hand in this situation is very overrated as you are almost always unable to and when you are behind you will pay many more bets. This is really only a good play if the CO an underpair to the Q.

[SomethingClever]

Hero checks... and it gets checked around /images/graemlins/mad.gif

CO had 66.
I can't remember what UTG+1 had, but he was probably drawing dead.

Thanks for all the insight on this hand... when I get home from work I'll post the second hand from the challenge.

It's a tricky little JJ number against an incredibly loose, passive player who limp/re-raised from the button!

[sthief09]

you can't argue that check-raising doesn't increase his chances of winning the pot. him possibly having a better hand doesn't mean anything. you are often ahead and you aim to increase your chances. I don't think it increases your chances much at all since occasionally the flop will get checked through. I think it's close and not worth worrying about

I don't know why you're thinking about protecting your hand against AK. I'm not protecting my hand against the preflop raiser. I'm protecting it against the other people.

you absolutely are NOT unable to protect your hand, and protecting your hand is NOT overrated. I don't feel like arguing for something that I said was basically even. you're failing to understand the situation though

[Victor]

I understand the situation.

You never said that it was basically even.

[eagletmr]

A check raise could make a middle position Q9 or QT held by a moderately tight player to fold.

[witeknite]

How long are you planning on playing at it and what do you consider "beating"?

WiteKnite

[sthief09]

you don't understand the situation if you think check-raising is an attempt to protect from AK

to quote myself, "the difference is small between trapping 1 and forcing 2 to call 2 cold, or vice versa. it's probably not worth discussing."

so yes, I did say it was basically even.

[SomethingClever]

Regarding all the checkraising talk... I am with Chesspain on this one.

I have both a made hand and a nearly unbeatable draw. AKo is a very likely holding for CO, and it would be awful for the flop to get checked through.

If I knew him to be an aggressive player with overcards, I think it's safer to try a checkraise to try and protect my made hand, but the bet/3-bet line will trap more players for more bets with my huge draw.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
How long are you planning on playing at it and what do you consider "beating"?

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd consider a winrate of 1.5 BB/100 or above to be beating it. But at this point, I'd settle for less... just a solid stretch of 10,000 hands or so where I am confident that I'm outplaying my opponents.

I've played 14,000 hands, and I'm at -0.1 BB/100.

[PantherZ]

I wouldn't defend with Q8s. QJs, QTs, yes, maybe even Q9s. For a suited 4-gapper, I'd probably want at least K9s.

You're basically hoping to flop at least two pair or the 3rd nut flush draw. There are times that you'll hit your queen high flush and not win.

Flop play is OK. I might checkraise the flop. I wouldn't lead out on the turn. I don't like to check the river when I hit my flush in a multiway pot. I'd bet out.

[Victor]

You said
[ QUOTE ]
you don't understand the situation if you think check-raising is an attempt to protect from AK


[/ QUOTE ]


I said
[ QUOTE ]
Also, realize that you are not protecting your hand from AK anyway

[/ QUOTE ]


Of course I do not think you will protect from AK. That is exactly what I said.

What hands, exactly, are you trying to protect from?

[sthief09]

those two statements are different. I'm telling you that check-raising to protect your hand has nothing to do with the PFR. you are not trying to protect against his hand. sometimes he has you and sometimes he doesn't. you are trying to protect from the limpers, who could have a gut shot or one pair. these hands are getting odds to call 1 bet but not 2.

[witeknite]

Were you running good early and hit a downswing, or was there an early downswing and you're crawling out of it? Have you been swinging up and down a bunch?

I don't mean to pry, just curious.

WiteKnite

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I do not think you will protect from AK. That is exactly what I said.

What hands, exactly, are you trying to protect from?


[/ QUOTE ]

I've come to think that with this flop that protecting our hand probably doesn't matter much as stheif has pointed out. However, make the pot a little larger, and change the board to something like QxTh4h or Qx9h4h and I think going for a c/r to protect yourself from gutshot draws, people w/ 5 outers against your hand (AT, KT, etc), and other hands could increase your win rate enough to be important. It seems to me, at some point the pot must be large enough that a small increase in win % will overcome the added value of trapping the field for multiple bets.

Just looking at players w/ random hands, eliminating two of the players would increase our win % by nearly 10%. Its probably not too accurate modeling all the limpers using random hands, but I think its close enough that it shows the effect of eliminating players. This hand may not be the best example, but by trapping players we can expect to maybe gain 7SB at best, however only a percentage of that is going to us in the long run. By increasing your winning chances, even slightly, in a large pot should eventually become more important than jamming the draw.

Again, I've come to believe that on this board, and not too large of pot, it probably doesn't matter much. But I do think that everytime we flop top pair with a big draw, we shouldn't always be looking to trap the entire field for multiple bets. Also, even if we know the PFR has AA,KK,AQ, etc, it doesn't make trying to protect your hand wrong. Forcing out gutshots and other hands to clean up our two pair outs is still important.

Also, people may say that hands like KT, AT, in my above example may not fold for two bets if they are fishy enough. But either way, we would be protecting our hand since by betting out they are getting sufficient odds to call, whereas they are not if faced with multiple bets. Making players call incorrectly will greatly benefit us.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
This hand may not be the best example, but by trapping players we can expect to maybe gain 7SB at best, however only a percentage of that is going to us in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

A percentage is going to us in the long run you say. Is that 1%, or 50%? Do you see the difference?

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Were you running good early and hit a downswing, or was there an early downswing and you're crawling out of it? Have you been swinging up and down a bunch?


[/ QUOTE ]

I ran decently to begin with... then I had some up and down swings of around 75 BB... then I started slowly losing about 10 BB every time I played.

This weekend, I won 50 BB. Yesterday, I lost 50 BB.

From my peak, I'm down probably 130 BB, but only in the red 15 BB.

[sthief09]

it's all compared to the pot size. let's take 2 extreme examples:

example 1- there are 1000 SB in the pot. if you protect your hand, you will win the pot an extra 1% of the time. if you try to get extra callers, you'll make an extra 5 SB on later streets. that 5% of the pot is worth 10 BB. getting extra callers is worth 5 SB.

this is why it's worth spending extra bets in big pots even when you might be behind. small increases in equity

example 2- there are 2 SB in the pot. protecting your hand will help you win an extra 50% of the time. however, you can forego that and win an extra 2 SB postflop. now, you only win an extra 1 SB by protecting but 2 SB by not protecting.

this is why it's sometimes a good idea to give free cards heads up. what you lose in equity by letting him catch a miracle card you gain in later bets

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
A percentage is going to us in the long run you say. Is that 1%, or 50%? Do you see the difference?


[/ QUOTE ]

I do understand this. We may have as much as about 50% pot equity here, and I agree that in this hand protecting is probably not important. If the pot were a little larger, and the board contained cards making gutshots more probable (even people w/ 2nd and 3rd pair), I think that increasing our chances of winning even 5-10% would eventually outweigh the effects of trapping the field. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think protecting your hand is as bad as people make it out to be.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd fold preflop. I'd check raise the flop because you can better protect your hand. when he calls the flop you shouldn't be thinking only of hands that you beat, beacuse he could easily be trapping you with AA-QQ, which is possibly what he did. I wouldn't check the turn if you play to call anyway. most of the time you don't get raised by AK. river check raise is good

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow...we disagree on every street. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
it's all compared to the pot size. let's take 2 extreme examples:

example 1- there are 1000 SB in the pot. if you protect your hand, you will win the pot an extra 1% of the time. if you try to get extra callers, you'll make an extra 5 SB on later streets. that 5% of the pot is worth 10 BB. getting extra callers is worth 5 SB.

this is why it's worth spending extra bets in big pots even when you might be behind. small increases in equity

example 2- there are 2 SB in the pot. protecting your hand will help you win an extra 50% of the time. however, you can forego that and win an extra 2 SB postflop. now, you only win an extra 1 SB by protecting but 2 SB by not protecting.

this is why it's sometimes a good idea to give free cards heads up. what you lose in equity by letting him catch a miracle card you gain in later bets

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks sthief, can you help me with my multiplication tables too?

[Victor]

I agree with you that if the texture of the board was "more coordinate" or if there were more cards in the "playing range" that I would like a checkraise a lot more.

As is, the board is so nonthreatening that I dont think a checkraise increases your chances all that much and it will increase the amount you lose when behind (which is likely.)

[sthief09]

a lot of things have changed since I made that post, like my opinion on every street

[tolbiny]

"no, you want to protect your hand over building a pot."

I disagree with you sthief09-
In this pot post flop you have an equity of at leat 50%. I would venture to say that if your Q is good on the river just 10% of the time then your equity is in the 60% range. With up to 4 callers you probably gain on average of 1.5-3 sbs with just one bet going in. YYour flop raise will have to win you the pot 15-30% more of the time When you are currently ahead. When you are behind you have to add in an extra 10% for the extra bet you put in- there are not enough draws/scare cards out there for you to be able to improve your chances of winning this signifigantly when you attempt a c/r. Especially when you factor in
1. The chances of three betting the preflop raises bet.
2. The chances of it getting checked through.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
Especially when you factor in
1. The chances of three betting the preflop raises bet.
2. The chances of it getting checked through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont forget:
3. When a player smooth calls your flop checkraise and jacks you on the turn when a nonheart hits. (Thats how I playe AA, KK, QQ and AQ.)

[tolbiny]

"3. When a player smooth calls your flop checkraise and jacks you on the turn when a nonheart hits. (Thats how I playe AA, KK, QQ and AQ.)"

This could be an argument for c/r the flop. Getting jacked on the turn is not good for you as your equity is now well below 50%. Your only clean out to be able to three bet him on the turn is an 8 (assuming he wont jack with an overpair with a three flush on the board)- so the majority of the time you get pumped on the turn you are behind and drawing to 11-14 outs- which isn't terrible but isn't a good thing.

[Victor]

If you were hero would you rather be 3bet on the flop or raised on the turn (if a non heart hits)?

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How long are you planning on playing at it and what do you consider "beating"?

WiteKnite

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd consider a winrate of 1.5 BB/100 or above to be beating it. But at this point, I'd settle for less... just a solid stretch of 10,000 hands or so where I am confident that I'm outplaying my opponents.

I've played 14,000 hands, and I'm at -0.1 BB/100.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may have some leaks, although most of your posts I've seen have led me to believe you're fairly solid. I had similar problems at 2/4 (although I wasn't at negative BBs for more than 6k hands or so). Right now, playing four-tables, my progression has looked like...

.5/1 -- 16k, 3.28 BB/100
1/2 -- 16k, 2.42 BB/100
2/4 -- 22k, 0.75 BB/100 (negative for a long time in there)
3/6 -- 14k, 2.90 BB/100

Point being, if you hit a nice run of cards over the next 8k, you might be at .75 BB/100 or so. If you've been running bad early at 2/4, don't be afraid to move up. If you aren't sure, or if you know of significant leaks, then take your time.

Also, be more aggro, because you can never be aggro enough. That's my motto, and probably not so good advice. Feel free not to take it.

[SomethingClever]

Well, after the first 8K hands at 2/4, I didn't think I was doing that well, so I took a month off and bonus whored.

At the beginning of this month, I cashed out everything except for 300 BB for 2/4 on Empire. If I get to 300 BB for 3/6, I'll move up. If I drop to 200 BB for 2/4, I'll drop to 1/2.

Right now, I'm at 235 BB, so I'm sort of dangerously close to dropping down to 1/2.

Here's how my progression has looked.

.5/1 -- 23K hands, 5.3 BB/100
1/2 -- 7K hands, 2.9 BB/100
2/4 -- 14K hands, -0.1 BB/100!

I also have a lot of .5/1 and 1/2 hands from UB that never made it into PT. I think they reflect similar winrates to what I had at Party skins.

[tolbiny]

That depends on what happens with the limpers.
I would rather bet out the flop and then be raised on the turn than c/r the flop and get three bet.
However getting popped on the turn is not "good" for your hand. It isn't enough to justify c/r- but it is in favor of c/r.

[Victor]

Assuming your opp had a better Q, what is his best way to play it if he "knew" you had a flush/tp draw?

1. 3bet the flop
2. call the flop and raise the turn.

[tolbiny]

if you are c/r the flop? I would then call and raise the turn assuming that the other players folded their hands. If they called then you are giving up to much by not three betting the flop.
If it was heads up i call and raise the turn with that "knowledge"

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a disaster to get the river checked through.

[/ QUOTE ]
No it's not. Realistically, it will cost you at most two bets. Sometimes it might only cost you one because the player in the middle would have folded anyway (trapped between a guy who bets when the the flush card comes and a guy who liked his hand enough to raise the turn). This is far from disaster. Disaster is when you cost yourself a massive pot or miss a ton of bets. Missing a bet or two is a small risk and could easily be worth taking if you think the check-raise will succeed fairly frequently.

[sthief09]

EV-wise, if this gets checked through, you're losing like 1-1.5 BB since they would've probably called. that's a disaster. when you cost yourself a massive pot, it's not really a massive pot EV-wise, since you just cost yourself equity by not giving an opponent the chance to fold. if you give a gut shot a free card in a 20 BB pot, you lose 20 BB about 8% of the time, which is 1.6 BB. by letting him stay in the pot, you give him his equity

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
No it's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly felt like a disaster to me!

T-minus an hour and a half until hand 2 of my Small Stakes Quest.

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
EV-wise, if this gets checked through, you're losing like 1-1.5 BB since they would've probably called. that's a disaster. when you cost yourself a massive pot, it's not really a massive pot EV-wise, since you just cost yourself equity by not giving an opponent the chance to fold. if you give a gut shot a free card in a 20 BB pot, you lose 20 BB about 8% of the time, which is 1.6 BB. by letting him stay in the pot, you give him his equity

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

Both types of errors (missing sure bets because of failed check-raises) and losing large pots due to a bad fold or due to not forcing longshots to pay are usually of similar magnitude -- mostly because of the infrequency of the latter. For example, if you fold a hand on the river that you are absolutely sure will win a 20 BB pot (for example, folding the nuts because you're an idiot), that fold loses you 20 BB. However, you very rarely can be 100% sure that your hand will win -- and that's fine, because when the pot is large, you often only need to win by calling once in ten, eleven, twelve times or more times. However, when you do fold one of these marginal hands in a large pot and it turns out it would have been the winner, it doesn't actually cost you 20BB or whatever. It theoretically costs you some amount much smaller (because your fold would have been correct many -- but not enough -- times). So by folding in a large pot with a marginal (but the best) hand, you really are losing 1 or 2 BB most of the time. That's why Ed Miller suggests calling more liberally on the river in large pots -- losing 1 or 2 BB by constantly trying to make big laydowns adds up quickly.

On the other hand, almost EVERY TIME you let this get checked through, you're losing more than one bet (since middle guy will call x% of the time as well). That's why both are "disastrous". They're not as disastrous as laying down the nuts in a 20 BB pot, but in terms of long-term effects, they can eat at your winrate pretty quickly.

On check-raising vs. betting out:

You can say with almost perfect certainty that he will call your bet (and the guy in the middle is more likely to call one bet than 2 bets on a check-raise). It's a very high percentage likelyhood that he's calling if you bet out -- or raising. By betting out, you're guaranteeing one bet from him and potentially three bets. Plus, you may get an extra bet out of the middle guy. If middle guy calls half the time, you're going to average 1.5 bets -- more than that, because villian will raise behind sometimes and then you'll 3-bet.

On a check-raise, there's a fair amount of the time that villian checks behind. There's also a fair amount of time that he correctly lays down after you check-raise him. He almost certainly won't 3-bet. Further, the chance of pulling a bet out of the middle guy is nearly nil. I'd say you're getting about 1.5 bets here at most (the times he checks behind or folds to your check-raise make it less than 2 bets on average).

The first scenario is 1.5ish for sure, with potential for more.

The second is 1.5ish, and I highly highly doubt you ever get more than 2.

Hopefully that makes it clearer why I think betting out is easily the best option here.

[bobbyi]

Your thinking on this is fairly confused. You say that when you make a mistake that costs you a 20 BB pot, the mistake didn't actually cost you 20 BB's in EV because you couldn't know that you know whether you were beaten in this particular case and in the long run, this mistake will only cost you a few BB's (or less) each time you make it. This much is obvious.

But then you try to use the opposite reasoning for the (potential) mistake in the hand under consideration. You say that if you check and it checks around, you lose 2 BB's every time you make this mistake. But that isn't true at all. Sometimes your check will cost you two bets, but frequently it will allow you to check-raise and will break even compared to betting out or will do better. The reasoning here is exactly the same as in the first case. We can't know whether this will check around or gain us a few extra bets at the time we check, so in the long run, if our decision is a mistake, it will cost us a small fraction of a bet each time we make it.

To phrase this differently: You are being results-oriented in the second case by presupposing that things will work out poorly every time (which they obviously won't), but refusing to be results-oriented in the first case by making the same assumption, even though at the time that we make either decision we can't know how it will work out. Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges.

The first mistake costs you at most 20 BB's. This is a potential disaster. The second costs you at most 2 BB's. This is not a potential disaster. You are doing sleight of hand by examining them under different assumptions (using the true failure rate in the first case, while assuming an absurd failure rate of 100% in the second) to make it look as if they are equal-sized mistakes, but they are not.

[bobbyi]

There's no way that checking costs 1.5 BB in expectation. That's completely ridiculuous. You lose at most 2 BB's by checking, should it check around. But you will very frequently pick up an extra bet when you get to raise and you will frequently break even in cases where betting picks up two bets (both opponents call) and check-raising picks up two bets (the bettor calls your raise, but the guy in the middle folds facing two cold).

In the long run, regardless of whether betting or checking is right, it is very close. To get something like 1.5's more out of betting, you need the river to end up checking around almost every time you check and you need both players to be able to call a bet if you bet out, which is not realistic.

[uw_madtown]

No, I'm being results oriented in both cases, because that's what we were discussing (whether this getting checked through is a "disaster" like folding a potential winner of a pot is a "disaster").

I agree that the decision to check this doesn't cost you 1.5 bets every time you do it (like you said, sometimes you can check-raise and get 2 bets). However, every time it gets CHECKED THROUGH costs you at least one bet (probably about 1.25-1.5 bets). Which is why I said "having this get checked through is a disaster".

I'd say the average EV difference between checking with intention to raise and betting out is much less than that (although I think betting out is still more +EV). I don't think checking here is a disaster -- it's a disaster when it gets checked through.

That's why I elaborated on c/r vs. betting out. If you notice, I figure they're both pretty closer to 1.5 in EV in the long run, although I think betting out opens up the possibility of getting raise (allowing you to 3-bet) wheras I don't think the opponent will ever 3-bet your check-raise. I think this occassional scenario available in betting out would push it to slightly more EV -- maybe .2 or .3 BB.

Hope that makes sense.

[Jeff W]

I think this is an easy call pre flop.

Flop: I would check/raise. A pre flop raiser at $2/$4 will not auto-raise but will bet most of the time when checked to.

Turn: Fine.

River: I think this is the closest decision in the hand. I am leaning towards a bet because I think you're more likely to get at least 2 bets by betting out with the intention of 3 betting. Check-raising will sometimes fail and you will rarely win more than 3 bets unless UTG+1 cold-calls(unlikely).

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]

No, I'm being results oriented in both cases, because that's what we were discussing (whether this getting checked through is a "disaster" like folding a potential winner of a pot is a "disaster").


[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, I'll try to explain one more time:

You are not being results-oriented in both cases. When you check your flush, you are hoping that it turns out that someone bets. However, we don't know whether that is the case at the time we check. You are taking it as a given that no one bets and things turn out badly, so that we can examine the potential downside in the worst case. That's results-oriented. That costs us two bets. Fine.

In the other case, you fold because you are hoping that it turns out that your opponent had you beat. If you were being results-oriented there, as in the first case, you would take it as a given that things also turn out badly there and we make a mistake and fold the best hand. In which case we lose twenty bets. But you aren't taking that as a given. You are regarding the checking around as guaranteed, but the possibly of folding a winner as only "potential". Thus, you are comparing apples and oranges.

So: When we screw up in the first case, we end up with two less bets in our stack than we should have. This is essentially the least any mistake can end up costing you (in a particular case, not in expectation), thus it is not a disaster. When we screw up in the second case, we end up with twently less bets in our stack than we should have. This is at the upper end of what it is possible to lose, and thus is a disaster.

Of course, at the time we make the decision we can't know that the first hand will check around or that we had the best hand in the second case. Thus, it's possible that the first mistake costs more in expectation. Losing two bets frequently is worse than a disaster occassionally. But that doesn't actually mean that losing two bets is a disaster, which was the original assertion.

[SomethingClever]

Wow, I'm surprised hand 1 generated so much discussion.

Hopefully, this one will too.

Reads: Button is loose and passive preflop (VPIP 59, PFR 2.4 after 83 hands). BB is a little laggy (VPIP 38, PFR 24). MP2 is unknown. I don't think I've ever seen someone limp re-raise from the button before....

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is SB with T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Button <font color="#A500AF">(Loose!)</font> calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, BB <font color="#A500AF">(Semi-LAG)</font> calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Button <font color="#A500AF">(Loose!)</font> 3-bets</font>, Hero calls, BB <font color="#A500AF">(Semi-LAG)</font> calls, MP2 calls.

A limp reraise from the button??? I knew this player was trash... do I cap this to make BB and MP2 call two cold?

Flop: (12 SB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Semi-LAG calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Loose! raises</font>, Hero calls, Semi-LAG calls, MP2 calls.

Huge... an OESD. Bet for value... but should I 3-bet?

Turn: (10 BB) 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, Semi-LAG checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Loose! bets</font>, Hero calls, Semi-LAG calls, MP2 calls.

Not a very good turn card... but I have to call here.

River: (14 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
Hero checks, Semi-LAG checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Loose! bets</font>, Hero calls, Semi-LAG folds, MP2 folds.

I thought Button could literally have anything, so I figured this was worth a call.

Final Pot: 16 BB

[ErrantNight]

the 8 on the turn isn't very good... but it doesn't necessarily mean much ot this hand. the river is scarier.

do you know much about this loose! guy postflop?

if you're willing to call for one more on the river, i think i'd bet out. i think a raise from pretty much anyone means i can leave this hand pretty safely...

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
do you know much about this loose! guy postflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

AF-Flop: 0.45
AF-Turn: 1.86
AF-River: 3.67

Checkraise: 0.49%

[bobbyi]

If you think that BB and MP2 will fold for two more bets preflop, then capping and getting it heads up with the button (whose limp-reraise in this position probably indicates that he is just fooling around) is much better than calling. However, if you think that getting it heads up is unlikely (which is probably the case), then I don't think there's anything wrong with just calling here with the intent of check-raising a friendly flop.

On the flop, I really think you should three-bet. If you lose someone, there is enough money in the pot that that is a fine outcome. If everyone calls, you are going to win the pot often enough that that's fine too. Sometimes the flush will come in and beat you, but sometimes you will end up winning unimproved, so you should be are winning often enough that you are fine with the money going in either way.

Agreed that you are stuck calling the turn and river.

[chesspain]

Please don't keep adding hands to this thread, because it may become so long that it will knock numerous threads off of the first page.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't keep adding hands to this thread, because it may become so long that it will knock numerous threads off of the first page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you use "threaded" mode? You really should switch to flat.

I'll post the next hand in a new thread.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
you are trying to protect from the limpers, who could have a gut shot or one pair

[/ QUOTE ]
But anyone drawing to two-pair/trips has to not only hit, but also has to dodge your superior two-pair/trips/flush, and anyone drawing to a 3-out gutshot (or a 2-out set) has to dodge the flush redraw. I wish I was able to mathematically demonstrate it to be true, but my gut feeling is that you make more money when A2o calls. After all, isn't the reason we make money in poker because fish chase their 3 and 2 outters?

PS: This point is not to be overstated, because it ignores the size of the pot, but: You are mathematically ahead of 42s on the flop.