O8 hand. Trips /w nut low draw.

[bigredlemon]

Everyone limps PF.
You have A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif in EP



Board is 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif A/images/graemlins/spade.gif
Checked to button who bets. 2 calls + you

Turn: 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif A/images/graemlins/spade.gif [ A/images/graemlins/heart.gif ]

you have made trips with a draw to the nut low.

If you bet, both will call.

If you check, button will bet again. If call here, MP wil call. If you raise, MP will fold and button will call.

What do you do?

[Yads]

What if you bet?

[Buzz]

Big Red Lemon - Interesting.

Option 1 (bet) seems to have about the same result as option 2 (check/call). In either case, you end up getting 2 to 1 fresh money odds and playing against two opponents. Option 3 (check/raise) gets you heads-up against Button.

The way you've posed the problem, seems like you have the option of playing against two opponents, if you don't check-raise, or one-on-one if you do check-raise.

So the question seems to be: Do you want to play this draw against two opponents or one?

But who has the case ace? That's the opponent I'd want eliminated, but seems to me that's the opponent you won't get rid of whether you check raise or not.

I don't know how you'd know in a game what would happen. Seems like it would depend on who, if anyone, had the case ace. If nobody has it, I think you want to play the hand heads-up. If one of your opponents does have it, your kicker stinks. (You also have to be concerned about an opponent holding a pair of queens, and to a lesser extent, a pair of eights).

I'd think that if you checked, MP might bet with the case ace (or QQXX or 88XX). But, O.K., let's say MP would also check and Button would bet. How is Button's credibility? Does Button have the case ace and possibly a better kicker? Does Button already have a full house? How tricky is MP? Is MP the one with the case ace or full house? I guess that's not possible because you have MP folding to your check-raise.

In a real game, I'd bet and see what happened (option 1).

Buzz

[Phat Mack]

Interesting post. It seems to me I'm playing for half the pot (unless an A or possibly a 9 rivers), so I'd want three people seeing the river. The way you describe MP, there's no way to know which way he's going. There's no low. If there's a made full, you can beat it by hitting your kicker. Keep the dead money in.

The above assumes a limit game. In a big-bet game I might play the check raise.

[gergery]

I'd Check-Raise, since getting an opponent to fold is of paramount importance here.

If you check-call or bet out, you are putting in one bet on the turn. If you check-raise, you are putting in two bets. The pot after this betting will be around 10 big bets. So if that 1 extra bet folds an opponent who would have beaten you for half the pot, its worth 5 bets to you, and if it folds someone who would have scooped you, its worth 10 bets – so your bet doesn’t need to work very often to make it very profitable

So how likely is it that someone has a hand that might beat you for 1-way, that they would be willing to fold? Pretty likely. Any heart, J, T, K could gives someone a straight or flush that would beat your high -- and any straight or flush draws should fold now that the board paired. Any A7xx could hit their kicker to beat your current best high. Any ATxx that is ahead of you now might fold. Anyone with 23xx and no high would not have odds to call two bets cold and should fold. So, a bet would be likely to get someone to fold, and there are many hands they could have that you would want to fold.

Now weight that against what you gain if they stay. You only win an additional 1 bet from each of them if you bet on the river and they call and your hand is good, or just 1 bet if you get half the pot. So letting him stay risks 5 bets to win 1 additional bet.

--Greg

[bigredlemon]

I had been playing those two players for half a day, they both had been fairly consistent in the way they play. It's a loose passive low limit game, and i'm fairly sure that's what would have happened judging by how they played other hands.

The question of whether I wanted to play against two or one is what I want to know the answer to. Here, someone could already have a full house, and if not have a straight or flush draw. I'll be behind if any 9, T, J, K, or heart hits the river. Even if I do hit a full house, it might be a sucker full house, and I can't win low.

[bigredlemon]

[ QUOTE ]
So if that 1 extra bet folds an opponent who would have beaten you for half the pot, its worth 5 bets to you, and if it folds someone who would have scooped you, its worth 10 bets – so your bet doesn’t need to work very often to make it very profitable

So how likely is it that someone has a hand that might beat you for 1-way, that they would be willing to fold? Pretty likely. Any heart, J, T, K could gives someone a straight or flush that would beat your high -- and any straight or flush draws should fold now that the board paired. Any A7xx could hit their kicker to beat your current best high. Any ATxx that is ahead of you now might fold. Anyone with 23xx and no high would not have odds to call two bets cold and should fold. So, a bet would be likely to get someone to fold, and there are many hands they could have that you would want to fold.

Now weight that against what you gain if they stay. You only win an additional 1 bet from each of them if you bet on the river and they call and your hand is good, or just 1 bet if you get half the pot. So letting him stay risks 5 bets to win 1 additional bet.

--Greg

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a wonderful analysis and was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to read. I have one issue though: it presupposes that 1. I have the best hand right now, and 2. the button doesn't have a straight/flush draw.
If someone has a full house already, I'm paying twice as much to draw to a high full house. If I do hit that full house, I won't have a low. That's a reason to call on the one hand and also to raise on the other, hoping to kick out someone with a weak low draw. But for the raise to be profitable, I have to presume that the button cannot make any low.

The button here may be betting on the strength of his draws. If he has 23JKh and another heart, he may infer that no one has a full house given the checks, and could scoop if any heart or straight card comes. With such a hand, he'll have to call the extra bet.

It's quite possible that MP is drawing to the second best low and second best straight/flush. His calls would just be dead money. I'd only want him to fold if he was the only one with a straight or flush draw, and no one else had a full house, correct?

[gergery]

--
This all comes down to the fact that getting MP to fold when he would have taken some of the pot from you cost you a lot. But losing his bets from the time he folds and you wanted him to stay costs you very little.
--

[ QUOTE ]
it presupposes that 1. I have the best hand right now,

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn’t. I merely note that IF an opponent has A7xx, THEN you have the best hand. Even if you don’t have the best hand right now to button, forcing MP out would only cost you 0.5 of his bet and only in the times that you hit your low – very small EV loss.

[ QUOTE ]
2. the button doesn't have a straight/flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the button is staying in -- You must beat him in showdown. It assumes that MP MIGHT have one of those hands. If he does, then he is likely to fold. And it is primarily to improve your chances of winning high, not so much for low, that you want MP to fold

[ QUOTE ]
If someone has a full house already, I'm paying twice as much to draw to a high full house

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone has a fullhouse, then you are beat and lose for high (or have 3 outs to beat A8). But you will win low and get your investment back a good percentage of the time. But if someone has a fullhouse here then they are betting and thus won’t follow your scenario.

[ QUOTE ]
If I do hit that full house, I won't have a low. That's a reason to call on the one hand and also to raise on the other, hoping to kick out someone with a weak low draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a very weak argument to call. If you hit your fullhouse and don’t have a low, but button does have a low, then you would only get 0.5 of MP’s big bet on river. That’s not much upside.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd only want him to fold if he was the only one with a straight or flush draw, and no one else had a full house, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but you’d also want him to fold if he had a low but button didn’t, and a low came that you couldn’t win ie. 2 or 3, and no one else had a full house

[ QUOTE ]
That's a wonderful analysis and was exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to read

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks!

[Buzz]

Big Red Lemon - I ran some sims this afternoon using Wilson's Turbo Omaha-8. The earning power of AA89s peaked with three opponents and then gradually dropped back down, but never got as low as one-on-one. Here are the numbers:

<ul type="square">$11870.....1 opponent
$36548.....2 opponents
$39840.....3 opponents
$21107.....4 opponents
$21601.....5 opponents
$19322.....6 opponents
$14703.....7 opponents
$13503.....8 opponents
$12464.....9 opponents[/list]

For the line-up I was using, looks like you ideally want to be playing that hand with two or three starting opponents. Of course those numbers would change and possibly would peak at a different number of opponents with a different line-up.

It's impossible for you to control how many opponents will be in the hand when you happen to get dealt AA89s. Seems to me the numbers simply indicate the hand is playable against any number of starting opponents.

But that's for opponents holding random starting cards, which is not the case here. I don't see why you particularly want to eliminate anyone except someone who will end up beating you. And I don't know how you'd know who that might be.

If neither MP or Button has a full house or an ace, (or if Button has it) the betting might go as you have suggested. But if MP has a full house or an ace, the betting may not go as you have suggested. And there's not really any way to tell at the start of the third betting round.

In any event, the way you've posed the problem, seems to me the options are to risk two bets to win two bets or risk one bet to win two bets.

Why would you want to risk two bets to win two bets (by check-raising) when you can risk one bet to win two bets (by either check/calling or betting yourself)?

Seems to me you're stubbornly playing MP for nothing and Button for a bluff if you go for a check-raise. That's a possibility, of course - but it's not the only possibility. If Button does have a full house already and bets after two checks, the check raise will cost you an extra big bet for nothing (unless you make low or make a better full house). In the meanwhile, if everything goes as you seem to think it will, you'll get nothing more from MP.

If you end up scooping it probably doesn't matter. However, if you split with Button, you'll get your own chips back plus what MP will contribute. In that case, why would you not want MP to contribute here?

I still vote for betting in a straight forward manner. You have a set of aces and possibilities to improve. You probably have the best hand here, (but you're not guaranteed of having the best hand here). Bet it and see when happens.

Just my opinion.

Buzz

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
I still vote for betting in a straight forward manner. You have a set of aces and possibilities to improve. You probably have the best hand here, (but you're not guaranteed of having the best hand here). Bet it and see when happens.


[/ QUOTE ]



FWIW, my recommendation to checkraise was based on the scenario set up in the intro.

In actual live play, betting out may be better than checkraising, since in my experience even checkraising is unlikely to get someone to fold if they have Axxx or 23xx here, and a low draw with good hearts might also call. And if they’re not going to fold, then you’re just putting an extra bet in when you are ahead but two bets in when behind (and someone raises).

So I think checkraising and betting out are both viable depending on what you want to assume for chances MP might beat you, chances he’ll fold, chances your current hand is not good, etc. But getting MP to fold when he might have taken 5 or 10 bets from you is pretty powerful stuff.

--Greg

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
getting MP to fold when he might have taken 5 or 10 bets from you is pretty powerful stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Greg - Agreed. Yes. Absolutely. If MP would (1)call a single bet, (2) make a flush or straight and (3) take the pot away from Hero, Hero should much prefer to figure out some way (like check-raising) to knock MP out of the hand. However, this scenario is only one of several possibilities.

There's a very important consideration you may be ignoring. To make it clear, let's turn things around and look at them from the perspective of MP. Let's pretend that you are MP and have a flush draw (two hearts) after the turn.

Do you want to pay one big bet to draw to a flush when the board is already paired? I know you wouldn't want to pay two big bets - but would you want to even pay just one big bet?

In general, I don't want to pay one big bet to draw to make a flush when the board is already paired. Why not? I'll tell you.

(1) I don't even <font color="white">_</font>have a flush yet, (2) it's unlikely that I'll make a flush, and (3) even if I do make it, there is simply too great a danger somebody already has a hand that beats a flush, or will make such a hand with the very same card that will make a flush.

If I already <font color="white">_</font>have a flush and the board then pairs, that's a different matter. Or if I already have low locked up and am freerolling, <font color="white">_</font>that's a different matter too.

But otherwise I don't want to pay one big bet to draw for a flush when the board is already paired. Indeed, after the board pairs on the turn I would be <font color="white">_</font>loathe to pay one big bet to draw to make a flush.

I fully realize some of our opponents do things they really shouldn't, and yes, whoever bets after the board pairs could be bluffing or semi-bluffing. Even so, when somebody bets after the board pairs on the turn with no low yet possible, unless you're in a whacko micro or mini limit game, everybody at the table should be very wary of the strong possibility the player who is betting already has made a full house.

The point is, you shouldn't need a check raise to induce MP to fold if MP is on a flush (or straight) draw. And if MP is so dense that you do need a check raise, are you sure you really want to knock MP out of this hand?

If you check here, in a real game against real opponents, you're risking giving a free card. In my humble opinion, it would be an absolute blunder to give a free card here.

I realize Big Red Lemon seems convinced that if he checks, (1) MP will also check and (2) Button is guaranteed to bluff. And I'll admit that is a possibility. But I don't think you should want to put all your eggs in that basket, because there are other viable possibilities, notably (1) Button could already have a full house, and (2) by checking you could be giving a free roll.

MP or Button might not pay even a single big bet to draw to a flush or straight, but anyone with a flush or straight draw should be absolutely delighted to get a free roll. And even though the board is paired, it might be difficult to get rid of a player who makes a heart flush or a straight on the river.

(Actually, giving a free card would work to your advantage if the river was 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, or 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, but it would work against you if the river was
K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, or 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif. There are more hearts on the river you don't want to see than hearts you do want to see.)

I hope you see the difference between drawing to make a heart flush when the board is already paired and playing a made heart flush when there is a pair on the board.

And in terms of knocking an opponent out of a pot, whether the board is paired or not, it should be a lot easier to knock out someone who is on a flush draw than someone with a made flush.

If Button flopped a set or top two pair, Button will have made a full house on the turn and is yet to act on the third betting round.

If Hero bets and Button does have a full house, Hero probably will get raised. However, from the betting, Button is not guaranteed to have flopped a set or top two pairs (although either of these seems a distinct possibility).

You don't want to bet and get raised, but neither do you want to give a free card.

Playing it straightforwardly, Hero will bet and most likely get raised if Button has a full house. But if Button does have a full house and Hero goes for the check-raise, Button would probably gleefully re-raise! Being out of position is awkward, but betting and getting raised is better than check-raising and getting re-raised! And betting is surely better than risking the free card.

Yes, I like knocking MP out of a pot he would otherwise take away from Hero, but there are these other possibilities (which include giving a free card and facing a Button who already has a full house).

I'm not meaning to be stubborn. Rather, I'm trying to learn here and appreciate your opposing point of view. However I still vote for directly betting the turn rather than going for the check-raise.

Just my opinion.

Buzz