Bad flop check/raise, missed river check/raise? [Archive]

weevil

02-08-2005, 03:09 AM

MP1 is 51.72/0/1.6(on river) over 30 hands
Button is 38.24/0/.5 over 34 hands

Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is SB with K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K/images/graemlins/club.gif.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, 2 folds, Button calls, Hero raises, BB calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, Button calls.

Flop: (10 SB) 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (5 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, Button checks.

Turn: (5 BB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif (5 players)
Hero bets, BB folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls, Button calls.

River: (8 BB) 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif (3 players)
Hero bets, MP1 raises, Button calls, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 14 BB

Do you like the attempt at the check-raise here? Four players in the pot, I don't remember if any of them were slightly aggressive on the flop, I must've thought someone would bet it for me. But is this a play that should be used very often in low limits on a board like this (two suitied, and a one gap), or are players too generally passive and willing to cold call two bets assuming a later position players bets it on the flop? Turn bet is fine, but is it an automatic bet on the river? The MP1 was most aggressive on the river, so perhaps I should've check/called a bet from him. Or do you find a check/raise on the river? I think he's like to bet the river 50% of the time if it's checked to him here, and if he doesn't and the button does, I probably just call, since he's likely to have the five. I personally like the check/raise MP1 (fold to his reraise) check/call button. Am I giving up too much with that play, and the bet/call line best?

Reef

02-08-2005, 03:17 AM

bet the flop!!!

dr. klopek

02-08-2005, 05:01 AM

Never fail to bet this flop for this exact reason. That is the worst thing that could've happened. Bet the river, do not risk another check-through. You'll puke here when he takes the free showdown.

aLOWdAkING

02-08-2005, 05:24 AM

Bet on all streets.

davelin

02-08-2005, 11:47 AM

Ugh, you're the pre-flop raiser thus the most likely person to bet the flop. You can't check/raise yourself.

dinero2433

02-08-2005, 11:52 AM

No no no - got to bet the flop here. Charge the flush draw to continue.

weevil

02-08-2005, 06:38 PM

Uhm. Thanks for the helpful responses? Seriously, I wouldn't be posting this if I needed to be told giving free cards on the flop and river were bad ideas. I was asking about the benefits of my attempted flop check/raise and further benefits of a river check raise. As I said, I must've thought it pretty likely someone would bet the flop from a later position, or I wouldn't have attempted it. So. The question is more in regards to: are the benefits of raising a late position bet and forcing everyone inbetween to cold call two worth the risk someone won't bet it? If say the button bets it, it's going to get around after my raise as 13:2, so there're good pot odds on the flop even after my checkraise for any reasonable hand to continue. So to answer my own question, I'm not shutting anyone out with a checkraise, so it'd have to be for value. What's my pot equity based on likely draws? I gave one player 67h for an offsuit gutshot, Ad10c for TPTK backdoor nut flush, QdJd for two overs, flush draw and backdoor, and Jh10h for offsuit top pair mid kicker. My equity here (given strong and reasonable draws, which I'm very rarely going to be faced with from all players) is 37% ahead of 32% to QdJd. The only holding aside from aces I'm behind to is Ad10d or pocket aces, and I'm not quick to put someone on that, and my equity is still high enough to raise for value against Ad10d. Pump it as much as possible.

But maybe I'll get more value from a turn check raise. Thinking back, this is probably the play. A lot of times if the flop bettor checks, someone will bet it on the turn with only a marginal holding, having put the flop bettor on a missed draw or somesuch (or not even thinking about it). In this case I'm hoping the guy next to me bets it so I trap everyone for two, I don't want to shut them out raising the turn and making them cold call two big bets. So if it's a late position bet on the turn, I'll cold call planning to bet out on a favorable river. This also has the added benefit of my not getting raised on the turn if the diamond card comes. That way I get to see showdown for 2 bets instead of 3. I think betting the flop, checkraising the turn to an early postion bet, check/calling a late position bet is the greatest ev. Anyone else?

davelin

02-08-2005, 07:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Uhm. Thanks for the helpful responses? Seriously, I wouldn't be posting this if I needed to be told giving free cards on the flop and river were bad ideas. I was asking about the benefits of my attempted flop check/raise and further benefits of a river check raise. As I said, I must've thought it pretty likely someone would bet the flop from a later position, or I wouldn't have attempted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Attempting it was a bad idea period. There is a good chance of this getting checked through which exactly happened. Attempting it on the river is a bad idea as well because a) after being the aggressor, why do you think someone will automatically give the opportunity to check-raise and b) check/raising opens up the possibility of the 3-bet which is not good on this board.

[ QUOTE ]

So. The question is more in regards to: are the benefits of raising a late position bet and forcing everyone inbetween to cold call two worth the risk someone won't bet it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope

[ QUOTE ]
I think betting the flop, checkraising the turn to an early postion bet, check/calling a late position bet is the greatest ev. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're thinking about idealized conditions. Sure if Player A then Player B act in a manner that's best for you, you could possibly get the most out of this hand. But once again, you are the aggressor so there is nothing to suggest that the right person you want will bet this for you.

shadow29

02-08-2005, 07:11 PM

I can't find a single spot in this hand where I could/would/should check raise.

charlie_t_jr

02-08-2005, 07:16 PM

Hey at least your thinking...but over thinking at this level. You've got pocket Kings, you've got the best hand, don't give the draws infinite odds to beat you...bet.

weevil

02-08-2005, 07:53 PM

So basically the checkraise should never be used in lowlimit? I can see how it's not a great defenisive tactic, as many players will coldcall two bets with trash anyways, and you're not gaining value by doing so. But I think as I reasoned out a turn check raise is a great +EV play, possibly gaining twice as many big bets on the turn against the chance that it's checked through which I'd put at something like a 20% chance. So it doesn't seem like the play should be criticized, only my read that it won't get checked through very often. Right?

Entity

02-08-2005, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So basically the checkraise should never be used in lowlimit?

[/ QUOTE ]

A checkraise should never be accomplished, at any limit, without some understanding of who will likely bet, why they will bet, and what the purpose of the checkraise is.

Are you aiming for protection or for value? What hands are you looking to eliminate, and how likely is it that they'll fold?

You really need to be able to answer each of these questions before attempting a checkraise.

Rob

weevil

02-08-2005, 08:08 PM

Read my earlier post.. went through a possible run down of my equity (though I failed to account for the possibility of someone having a set or flopped two pair.. I guess I was putting people on hands in the worst case where I'm not way behind situation), figured it high enough to be making that play for value instead of protection, and decided I'd get more value out of a turn check raise. My certainty of someone betting it on the flop was high enough to justify it in my mind, just one of those times it didn't.. I'm even more certain it would've worked on the turn, which should have added even more reason to go for that play.

Entity

02-08-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Read my earlier post.. went through a possible run down of my equity (though I failed to account for the possibility of someone having a set or flopped two pair.. I guess I was putting people on hands in the worst case where I'm not way behind situation), figured it high enough to be making that play for value instead of protection, and decided I'd get more value out of a turn check raise. My certainty of someone betting it on the flop was high enough to justify it in my mind, just one of those times it didn't.. I'm even more certain it would've worked on the turn, which should have added even more reason to go for that play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that going for a checkraise of a late position bettor, forcing the field to call two cold, is not a move designed to get maximum value from a high equity hand, right? It is a play designed to force out hands with weak draws that have odds to call one bet, but not two; these hands include gutshots and hands with overcards. At this table, with these opponents, and with this flop, this type of play is not necessary.

The easiest way to gain equity on this hand is to bet it. There are some situations where checkraising would be correct, but given your knowledge of the field (who would bet? this is VERY important), this is not one of those situations.

Checkraising for value is something you want when you flop a monster hand or a strong draw and are very positive that the person to your left is likely to bet his hand, allowing you to trap the field for multiple bets.

Your hand is neither a monster nor a strong draw, nor do you know who will bet the hand. Checkraising this flop, consequently, is ill-advised.

Rob

davelin

02-08-2005, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My certainty of someone betting it on the flop was high enough to justify it in my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

Your very first post said "Four players in the pot, I don't remember if any of them were slightly aggressive on the flop"

Why again were you so certain someone would bet the flop?

weevil

02-08-2005, 08:17 PM

Maybe you missed this? (taking in mind that I wasn't account for monster hands on my opponents as I just said)

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be posting this if I needed to be told giving free cards on the flop and river were bad ideas. I was asking about the benefits of my attempted flop check/raise and further benefits of a river check raise. As I said, I must've thought it pretty likely someone would bet the flop from a later position, or I wouldn't have attempted it. So. The question is more in regards to: are the benefits of raising a late position bet and forcing everyone inbetween to cold call two worth the risk someone won't bet it? If say the button bets it, it's going to get around after my raise as 13:2, so there're good pot odds on the flop even after my checkraise for any reasonable hand to continue. So to answer my own question, I'm not shutting anyone out with a checkraise, so it'd have to be for value. What's my pot equity based on likely draws? I gave one player 67h for an offsuit gutshot, Ad10c for TPTK backdoor nut flush, QdJd for two overs, flush draw and backdoor, and Jh10h for offsuit top pair mid kicker. My equity here (given strong and reasonable draws, which I'm very rarely going to be faced with from all players) is 37% ahead of 32% to QdJd. The only holding aside from aces I'm behind to is Ad10d or pocket aces, and I'm not quick to put someone on that, and my equity is still high enough to raise for value against Ad10d. Pump it as much as possible.

But maybe I'll get more value from a turn check raise. Thinking back, this is probably the play. A lot of times if the flop bettor checks, someone will bet it on the turn with only a marginal holding, having put the flop bettor on a missed draw or somesuch (or not even thinking about it). In this case I'm hoping the guy next to me bets it so I trap everyone for two, I don't want to shut them out raising the turn and making them cold call two big bets. So if it's a late position bet on the turn, I'll cold call planning to bet out on a favorable river. This also has the added benefit of my not getting raised on the turn if the diamond card comes. That way I get to see showdown for 2 bets instead of 3. I think betting the flop, checkraising the turn to an early postion bet, check/calling a late position bet is the greatest ev. Anyone else?

[/ QUOTE ]

weevil

02-08-2005, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My certainty of someone betting it on the flop was high enough to justify it in my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

Your very first post said "Four players in the pot, I don't remember if any of them were slightly aggressive on the flop"

Why again were you so certain someone would bet the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

...[ QUOTE ]
I must've thought someone would bet it for me

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe I should've prefaced that with BUT

Entity

02-08-2005, 08:22 PM

You do realize that there is only value in a late position checkraise if opponents have those hands and will call two bets cold, right? More often than not, this flop will either not be bet, or be bet by someone in late position -- and when you raise his bet, you will most often drive out the remaining players with hands like J7s, QJo, and such, which will often, for whatever god-awful reasons, call one bet but fold for two.

VBM

02-08-2005, 08:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My certainty of someone betting it on the flop was high enough to justify it in my mind, just one of those times it didn't..

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Yes, you have 4 players to act behind you, but think about this from villain's mindset for a bit; wouldn't they approach this with some measure of caution when the PFR is out of the SB (& 1st to act on all subsequent streets) and then checks the flop? If I'm one of your villain's here, i'm only betting this flop for you, if I flop 2 pair or a set or something, b/c frankly, i'm not afraid of your potential overpair.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm even more certain it would've worked on the turn, which should have added even more reason to go for that play.

[/ QUOTE ]
given that it checked through the flop, maybe? but this isn't a great board for naked overcards or even someone who's paired something to hope they'll bet it for you. And, consider this;
You check, someone bets, you check-raise and they're getting 7:1 (at least, maybe better if there are other callers) & potentially closing the action to see the river and maybe spike a 2nd pair or make trips. I don't think a turn check-raise with one big pair here is as good a play as you think it is...

Dead

02-08-2005, 08:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Charge the flush draw to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to drag this thread off topic, but this doesn't make sense to me. It is my opinion that a flush draw should never fold this flop, even if it is capped on the flop and turn. A flush draw will have 35% pot equity at least. If it's you and your kings against a flush draw then the other people in the pot are effectively dead's money .

Even heads up I think that a flush draw would be correct in check-calling.

Dead /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Catt

02-08-2005, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Charge the flush draw to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to drag this thread off topic, but this doesn't make sense to me. It is my opinion that a flush draw should never fold this flop, even if it is capped on the flop and turn. A flush draw will have 35% pot equity at least. If it's you and your kings against a flush draw then the other people in the pot are effectively dead's money .

Even heads up I think that a flush draw would be correct in check-calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

He may be correct to call, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't make him put money into the pot for the benefit of seeing the next card. He is certain to be "calling" correctly if you don't make him put in any money for the privilege. Charge him to play his draw.

shadow29

02-08-2005, 09:15 PM

The term "charging a flush draw" is retarded.

Do y'all see why?

Catt

02-08-2005, 09:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The term "charging a flush draw" is retarded.

Do y'all see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Charging" in general is kinda silly - but it's pretty common terminology and not misleading if one understands the underlying logic. I wouldn't jump on anyone for using the terminology -- but it is a good idea to point out, as you do /images/graemlins/cool.gif -- that it is misleading if taken at face value.

Dead

02-08-2005, 10:03 PM

No, I agree with shadow.

By using the phrase "charge the flush draw", you imply that there is a price that you can charge them that would make it incorrect for them to stay in the hand. And in loose limit hold em games, it can't be done.

wabe

02-08-2005, 10:48 PM

Who did you think would bet on the flop after calling a raise preflop? The people you're playing against don't even raise preflop, based on your hands.

Bet the flop.

Catt

02-08-2005, 11:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, I agree with shadow.

By using the phrase "charge the flush draw", you imply that there is a price that you can charge them that would make it incorrect for them to stay in the hand. And in loose limit hold em games, it can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I think the terminology "charge" is just silly in general, I think intrepreting "charge" as betting in a way that would make it incorrect for them to call is missing the point.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but when I see anyone use the "charge . . ." terminology, I intrepret it as "don't give away free (or even ridiculuously cheap) cards to others." Put another way: you can't and won't stop them from calling to peel off another, but it might make sense to at least make them pay (i.e., "charge them") to do so. The flush draw is a classic example: if you don't bet, they have infinite odds (they get to draw for free). If you bet, they're not going away (in most cases) but at least have to put money into the pot to see the next card.

Some examples:

When there are four other players besides you, you have the best current hand, and one opponent has the nut flush draw, straightforward math says the flush draw is earning on every bet that goes into the pot if all players are in (assuming the flush is a very likely winner if it comes in at showdown). Does that mean that it is foolish to bet if you hold the best hand? No. Does that mean that it is -EV for you to bet? No. It means that the others who choose to stick around are giving some money to you and some to the flush draw hand.

If you're heads up with a Villain on a flush draw and you have top trips, but the pot lays odds of 10-1 for Villain if you choose to bet, should you not bet because Villain will always have the odds to call? No. You're HU and Villain will hit his draw only ~35% of the time -- your equity is huge and you should bet. And Villain should call because the pot is laying odds to make the call profitable for him. Just because it makes sense for him to call doesn't mean it doesn't make sense for you to bet. By betting you're "charging him to draw" in the vernacular even though it doesn't make perfect sense linguistically.

"Charging him to draw" as is commonly used has nothing to do with trying to drive someone out of a hand -- it has to do with value betting a made hand (even a marginal one) against a drawing hand.

vulturesrow

02-09-2005, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
By using the phrase "charge the flush draw", you imply that there is a price that you can charge them that would make it incorrect for them to stay in the hand. And in loose limit hold em games, it can't be done.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bs. You can give a flush draw incorrect odds to call down. In low limit games it will probably happen more on the turn but to say you cant even do it is ridiculous.

NateDog

02-09-2005, 02:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No no no - got to bet the flop here. Charge the flush draw to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't let Ed Miller read this /images/graemlins/grin.gif

bottomset

02-09-2005, 02:38 AM

damn dude lay off the check-raising crack a little, you seem hell bent on C/R every time you have an edge, even though the situations and conditions don't merit it

check-raising is a powerful tool, but you don't use a wrench to hammer in a nail do you? it has its place and purpose and it isn't here

bet your own hand here

Al P

02-09-2005, 02:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No no no - got to bet the flop here. Charge the flush draw to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't let Ed Miller read this /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

For every 1 time he hits, he misses twice.

Charge him.

bottomset

02-09-2005, 02:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No no no - got to bet the flop here. Charge the flush draw to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't let Ed Miller read this /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

For every 1 time he hits, he misses twice.

Charge him.

[/ QUOTE ]

now find a way to give hime implied odds less than 2/1

Dead

02-09-2005, 01:16 PM

You're forgetting about the implied odds. Even if it's made too expensive on the turn when taking strictly pot odds into account. When you take into account the implied odds, I think Hero would almost always have enough to call.

Dead

02-09-2005, 01:19 PM

Read the posts above this one and I think you will see waht I mean.

It's almost always wrong for the four-flush to fold in a loose low limit game unless there's like 3 of a kind on board or something, or maybe two pair.

DMBFan23

02-09-2005, 02:15 PM

why are we talking about implied odds? yes, a potential flush draw has them, but if the flush draw has an Ace in it then HE HAS AS MUCH OR MORE EQUITY THAN YOU ON THE FLOP.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

30,457,323 games 14.031 secs 2,170,716 games/sec

Board: 5d 3d Ts
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 11.7817 % [ 00.12 00.00 ] { random }
Hand 2: 07.8454 % [ 00.08 00.00 ] { random }
Hand 3: 08.2709 % [ 00.08 00.00 ] { random }
Hand 4: 31.7197 % [ 00.32 00.00 ] { KdKc }
Hand 5: 40.3823 % [ 00.40 00.00 ] { AdJd }

a flush draw can almost never be "charged" on the flop multiway even if you make the pot odds ridiculously poor, because unless there are sets out there, the flush draw makes money on every flop bet going in as long as the pot is multiway (what constitutes "multiway" depends on the equity of your particular flush draw, but let's assume 4+ players.) however, your pocket kings make money on flop bets too. the weaker made hands and weaker draws pay the both of you money. if the turn bricks, then you can "charge" a flush draw, since his equity falls considerably. he'll still have pot odds to call, but you'd be charging him at that point.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

56,809,416 games 105.544 secs 538,253 games/sec

Board: 5d 3d Ts 8s
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 11.2890 % [ 00.11 00.00 ] { random }
Hand 2: 11.2800 % [ 00.11 00.00 ] { random }
Hand 3: 54.6537 % [ 00.55 00.00 ] { KdKc }
Hand 4: 22.7773 % [ 00.23 00.00 ] { AdJd }

Note that the flush draw doesn't have a pot equity edge at this point, so a bet will be charging him to draw. but he'll have to draw anyways due to the size of the pot.

The point: regardless of charging/notcharging a flush draw, your KK still makes money on a flop bet, and you'd hate to give a free card TO THE WEAKER DRAWS. Bet. besides, we don't even know there's a flush draw out there.

EDIT: the upshot of this is that we don't care about giving a free card to the nut flush draw, he wants it checked around even less than we do.

Read Ed Miller's "Charging the flush draws" post...it's the first "quote" box in the post that this link refers to. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=&Number=463571&page=&view= &sb=5&o=&fpart=#Post463571)

vulturesrow

02-09-2005, 02:30 PM

Gents,

Thanks for the correction. I actually did remember the issue about charging the flush draw but my recollection about the reasons it didnt make sense were wrong. Thanks for setting me straight, and thanks for ignoring my causticness, its a habit I picked from some of the older posters in micro who have moved on. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dead

02-09-2005, 07:38 PM

So basically,

The flush draw and the kings make money, while the other hands in their with maybe 30% equity combined are basically dead money.

It's almost always impossible in limit to make it correct for a flush draw to fold, unless the board is incredibly scary.

I rarely fold flush draws. I only fold if the board double pairs or 3 of a kind hits, and I see lots of action. But usually this doesnt happen, and just one pair is not enough to make me release my flush draw. The ace helps a ton because it gives you overcard outs, but even Qd 7d on that board has a crapload of equity. When you figure 5 hands, the Qd 7d has at least 35% pot equity. Maybe make it 40% when taking into account the fact that the flush draw could hit runner runner two pair or trips to bust the Kings

Am I getting this right DMB? /images/graemlins/confused.gif