Help required on poker basics.

[Nick Royale]

I just want to get a thing straight about protecting hands. Since I don't have PT on this computer I post a fictive hand:

Party 1/2 (10 handed)

Preflop: Hero is BB with AJ/images/graemlins/club.gif
4 folds, <font color="red">MP2 raises </font> , MP3 calls, CO calls, 2 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (8.5 SB) J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(4 players) </font>
Hero... think about what you would do and then continue reading.


Ok, so we need protection. When I read hands like this on the forum I often see responses like: "Bet the flop and hope for a raise by PFR." and that's the way I usually play. My question is why?

At least at 1/2$ I think these estimations would be decent:
1. If I bet I'll get raised by PFR about 40% of the time.
2. If I check PFR will bet he pot about 80% of the time. (add the chance one of the other players will bet if checked to and it's about 85-90%)

My point beeing, is it important that my opponents get to call 2 cold, and if so why? I mean, if they call 2 cold or call them 1 by 1 shouldn't make a differance. They're making the exact same mistake. They'll actually make bigger mistakes by calling them 1 by 1 since that way we'll trap them with even worse hands.

The only reasons for not check/raising I can think of is:
1. It might get checked through.
2. The opponents will get better odds on the turn. (by not forcing them out I give them a +EV situation on the turn)

Given this I believe check/raising this flop is better.
It's time for you to give me your thoughts.

[adsman]

There is a big difference between calling two cold and calling them one by one. Players often call the second bet because they've already called one and they think, "oh well, I've called one I may as well call two." They're making the mistake of thinking the money that they've invested in the pot is still theirs.

But often two cold will knock them out and here this is what you want to do. A checkraise won't work to knock players out as you're out of position relative to the preflop raiser. So bet out and hope he raises.

[KingOtter]

The idea being you get less return on your investment by calling 2 cold.

If you check and MP2 bets, then the gutshots are getting 9.5 to 1, probably more since more will probably call. When it gets back to them they're asked to put in 1 more bet, and assuming everyone called they're getting 14.5 to 1 for that one bet (the SB they put in previously is no longer theirs, if they fold they lose it).

If you bet and MP2 raises, the gutshots are getting 10.5 to 2, or 5.25 to 1, not enough to call.

Also somebody with AQ, or AK will probably fold to 2 bets, but call to one bet, and then call a raise. Or the KQ gutshot. Then if a K or Q falls on the turn or river, you're not dominated anymore. So you want them to have to call 2.

KO

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to get a thing straight about protecting hands.

[. . .]

Ok, so we need protection. When I read hands like this on the forum I often see responses like: "Bet the flop and hope for a raise by PFR." and that's the way I usually play. My question is why?

At least at 1/2$ I think these estimations would be decent:
1. If I bet I'll get raised by PFR about 40% of the time.
2. If I check PFR will bet he pot about 80% of the time. (add the chance one of the other players will bet if checked to and it's about 85-90%)

My point beeing, is it important that my opponents get to call 2 cold, and if so why? I mean, if they call 2 cold or call them 1 by 1 shouldn't make a differance. They're making the exact same mistake. .[/b][/i] They'll actually make bigger mistakes by calling them 1 by 1 since that way we'll trap them with even worse hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Protecting is not necessarily about hoping they make a mistaker by calling -- it is as much about folding hands that are threatening to your vulnerable (to a greater or lesser degree) hand. Facing your opponents with 2 cold is much more likely to induce fold than having bets dribble in 1 and 1. By betting and hoping for the raise, you very much want hands like KT, KQ, etc. to fold. If they don't fold, then you're happy to have them making a mistake in calling.

The "please fold" aspect of protection becomes clearer when you have a hand like A7, and the flop comes T72 -- now you'd very much hope to fold out about just all broadway hands. If they want to stock around, then at least they're doing so mistakenly (depending on the pot size, of course).

[VTDuffman]

No way...we want our non-pfr opponents to face 2 cold on their call. MP2 would be getting 5:1 on this call and CO would be getting 6:1 assuming MP2 calls. There is a huge difference between this and trapping them with a c/r, b/c although they are putting the same amount of money in the pot, they are getting 9:1 and 10:1 on their first call (assuming both call) the first time and then 15:1 and 16:1 on their call the 2nd time.

We want them to face 2 cold because we want to get our TPTK HU with the pf raiser. TPTK with no real redraws needs to not be in a multiway pot to do well. 2 cold helps clear out (hopefully) gutshots, Naked Ks, and Naked Qs.

Bet out this flop.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a big difference between calling two cold and calling them one by one. Players often call the second bet because they've already called one and they think, "oh well, I've called one I may as well call two." They're making the mistake of thinking the money that they've invested in the pot is still theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
And why do we not want people with 2-4 outs to call?

They will not call 2 cold because it's not correct, but might call them one by one since they think they'll not have to pay the 2nd one. They make a mistake, we make a profit.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
If you check and MP2 bets, then the gutshots are getting 9.5 to 1, probably more since more will probably call. When it gets back to them they're asked to put in 1 more bet, and assuming everyone called they're getting 14.5 to 1 for that one bet (the SB they put in previously is no longer theirs, if they fold they lose it).

If you bet and MP2 raises, the gutshots are getting 10.5 to 2, or 5.25 to 1, not enough to call.

[/ QUOTE ]
But they don't get to see another card when they call the first bet. They still have to call 2 SB to see the river giveing the about the same odds as they would call 2 cold, no?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a big difference between calling two cold and calling them one by one. Players often call the second bet because they've already called one and they think, "oh well, I've called one I may as well call two." They're making the mistake of thinking the money that they've invested in the pot is still theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
And why do we not want people with 2-4 outs to call?

They will not call 2 cold because it's not correct, but might call them one by one since they think they'll not have to pay the 2nd one. They make a mistake, we make a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're tying people on to the pot with a vulnerable hand and allowing gutshots and other 5-outers (K9s, etc.) to call profitably.

When the pot is of decent size (and 4.25BB constitutes a decent-sized pot), you should work harder to try to win the pot, not win extra bets.

Rob

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a big difference between calling two cold and calling them one by one. Players often call the second bet because they've already called one and they think, "oh well, I've called one I may as well call two." They're making the mistake of thinking the money that they've invested in the pot is still theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
And why do we not want people with 2-4 outs to call?

They will not call 2 cold because it's not correct, but might call them one by one since they think they'll not have to pay the 2nd one. They make a mistake, we make a profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's fine when they call. But it's better when they fold. I'd rather have them out of the pot with the marginally strong hand that you have. They just might hit that runner-runner draw. And if they do it's cost you the pot.

[VTDuffman]

I really think that by trapping them, you're giving them the odds (or close enough) to call the first time, and then giving them better odds the second time. Say they have a gutshot, getting ~10:1 - they have odds to call one bet on the flop, then they have better odds to call the 2nd bet because the first bet isn't their anymore. Then on the turn there's about 8BB in the pot, giving them the odds to call again, esp if you bet out and MP1 calls - they're getting 10:1 to call again on the river.

Yeah, we want people with few outs to call...but we don't want to give them the correct odds to do so. The bottom line is that you have TPTK where your TP is vulnerable. You want to get people out of this pot. The best way to do this is to face them with two cold.

I think you might be falling vitcim to "they're just going to call anyway" syndrome. I have this and have been fighting it. We can't think that way.even if they're just going to call anyway, we don't want to give them the odds to do this correctly.

[Nick Royale]

Thanks for the respons.
I guess what you're saying is we might fold hands that actually have odds to call two.

[ QUOTE ]
Facing your opponents with 2 cold is much more likely to induce fold than having bets dribble in 1 and 1. By betting and hoping for the raise, you very much want hands like KT, KQ, etc. to fold. If they don't fold, then you're happy to have them making a mistake in calling.


[/ QUOTE ]
But these hands would be correct to call. The chance for them to fold is bigger if I face them 2 cold though.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the respons.
I guess what you're saying is we might fold hands that actually have odds to call two.

[ QUOTE ]
Facing your opponents with 2 cold is much more likely to induce fold than having bets dribble in 1 and 1. By betting and hoping for the raise, you very much want hands like KT, KQ, etc. to fold. If they don't fold, then you're happy to have them making a mistake in calling.


[/ QUOTE ]
But these hands would be correct to call. The chance for them to fold is bigger if I face them 2 cold though.

[/ QUOTE ]

KT and KQ are correct to call two bets? In what world?

If it's bet and raised to them, their overcard outs are dubious at best, and they need 10.5:1 to call on the value of a gutshot alone, and are getting 11.5:2. They should fold, and it's not close.

However, if it's one bet to them, they're getting 9.5:1, which coupled with implied odds and the possibility that their overcard outs are good, is an easy call.

But most importantly, these hands have anywhere from 7 to 10 outs against you, and you want hands with that many outs to fold.

Rob

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
You're tying people on to the pot with a vulnerable hand

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so this is true?
2. The opponents will get better odds on the turn. (by not forcing them out I give them a +EV situation on the turn)

[ QUOTE ]
allowing gutshots and other 5-outers (K9s, etc.) to call profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]
Making 4-5 outers put 2SB in a ~14SB pot the flop isn't profitable, is it?

[ QUOTE ]
When the pot is of decent size (and 4.25BB constitutes a decent-sized pot), you should work harder to try to win the pot, not win extra bets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've been taught. Now I try to understand. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the respons.
I guess what you're saying is we might fold hands that actually have odds to call two.

[ QUOTE ]
Facing your opponents with 2 cold is much more likely to induce fold than having bets dribble in 1 and 1. By betting and hoping for the raise, you very much want hands like KT, KQ, etc. to fold. If they don't fold, then you're happy to have them making a mistake in calling.


[/ QUOTE ]
But these hands would be correct to call. The chance for them to fold is bigger if I face them 2 cold though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The chance is greater, yes (and your example is closer, since your hand is not as vulnerable as the example I gave).

Nonetheless, I don't think KQ or KT are correct to call 2 cold. KQ maybe, but I still say no. They have a gutshot for 4 outs, and I don't think they can cout their overs for much of anything against a pf-raise and then a bet-raise on this board. Even if we give KQ a generous 3 outs for the overs, that puts them at 7 outs, needing 6 to 1 to call profitably. They'd be getting 11.5:2 or almost 6 to 1 with the possibility of being reraised. I would not be making that call and I don't think you should either.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
KT and KQ are correct to call two bets? In what world?

If it's bet and raised to them, their overcard outs are dubious at best, and they need 10.5:1 to call on the value of a gutshot alone, and are getting 11.5:2. They should fold, and it's not close.

However, if it's one bet to them, they're getting 9.5:1, which coupled with implied odds and the possibility that their overcard outs are good, is an easy call.

But most importantly, these hands have anywhere from 7 to 10 outs against you, and you want hands with that many outs to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, made myself unclear. What I was meaning by saying they have odds to call, is that they have odds to call against me (=we want them to fold). By giving them 2 cold they won't be able to call anyways since they don't know how many outs they have (against me or the raiser), as you pointed out. Thanks!

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
My point beeing, is it important that my opponents get to call 2 cold, and if so why? I mean, if they call 2 cold or call them 1 by 1 shouldn't make a differance. They're making the exact same mistake. They'll actually make bigger mistakes by calling them 1 by 1 since that way we'll trap them with even worse hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet and the PFR calls, there are now 10.5 SB in the pot. Now your opponents can CORRECTLY call with any gutshot or any middle or bottom pair. Remember that when your opponents make a correct call, they are acting correctly under the fundamental theorem of poker and therefore they are taking money away from you. If you allow them to make a +EV call, they will almost always make it (they are loose-passive mostly). They are then forced to choose between a 0 EV fold and a +EV call. However, if you make their call -EV, they will have to choose between a 0 EV fold and a -EV call. Notice that whenever they make a +EV decision, it is -EV for you (though this doesn't ALWAYS apply in multiway pots it works for most permutations of this example).

Check raising the flop is really bad because you allow your opponents to make two calls, both of which are individually +EV(assuming they do have the bottom pair or the gutshot). It also gives them better odds to call on the turn--and by giving them more opportunities to make +EV decisions, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Read the HPFAP small section on "An important concept--borrowed from Razz". I think it might help you see why checkraising is a bad idea.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
KT and KQ are correct to call two bets? In what world?

If it's bet and raised to them, their overcard outs are dubious at best, and they need 10.5:1 to call on the value of a gutshot alone, and are getting 11.5:2. They should fold, and it's not close.

However, if it's one bet to them, they're getting 9.5:1, which coupled with implied odds and the possibility that their overcard outs are good, is an easy call.

But most importantly, these hands have anywhere from 7 to 10 outs against you, and you want hands with that many outs to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, made myself unclear. What I was meaning by saying they have odds to call, is that they have odds to call against me (=we want them to fold). By giving them 2 cold they won't be able to call anyways since they don't know how many outs they have (against me or the raiser), as you pointed out. Thanks!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why a the bet is correct; by forcing them to call two cold, you are making it seem to them that they would be correct to fold when they may in fact be correct to call.

By checkraising, you build a pot where you will tie them onto the pot, usually until the river. By checkraising you force them to call one bet twice, and in each case, gutshots and 5-outers are profitably doing so.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, I don't think KQ or KT are correct to call 2 cold. KQ maybe, but I still say no. They have a gutshot for 4 outs, and I don't think they can cout their overs for much of anything against a pf-raise and then a bet-raise on this board. Even if we give KQ a generous 3 outs for the overs, that puts them at 7 outs, needing 6 to 1 to call profitably. They'd be getting 11.5:2 or almost 6 to 1 with the possibility of being reraised. I would not be making that call and I don't think you should either.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right. What I ment was they had odds to draw against me (but still won't be able since the flop raiser could have KK QQ, and they don't know what I have either). I wouldn't call 2 cold with any of these hands and they illustrates why raising and facing them with 2 cold is good very well. Thanks again!

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
Given this I believe check/raising this flop is better. It's time for you to give me your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Nick,

I think that you are kind of right about the flop action being the same if you look at it as a black box kind of input-output system where you go into the flop and you get out of the flop with more bets in, whether they called the two cold or one by one. but, we have to look at it iteratively, step by step. from an FTOP standpoint, we want our opponents making a mistake, and they dont make a mistake with certain hands calling one bet at a time, whereas they do make a mistake calling two cold.

also everything everyone else said about big pots etc.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
We want them to face 2 cold because we want to get our TPTK HU with the pf raiser. TPTK with no real redraws needs to not be in a multiway pot to do well. 2 cold helps clear out (hopefully) gutshots, Naked Ks, and Naked Qs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Folding 3 outers wouldn't be our target. Folding KQ, KT would. Folding hands with more outs against our hand then they believe they have is the reason to face the field 2 cold, if I've gotten the ideas from Catt and Entity right.

[einbert]

I think folding 4-outers and 5-outers is very crucial here. Don't forget the implied odds of a 4 outer against your hand and the fact that you have no redraws. 5-outers also have positive implied odds, though not as much and you do have redraws.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember that when your opponents make a correct call, they are acting correctly under the fundamental theorem of poker and therefore they are taking money away

[/ QUOTE ]If my opponents had seen my hand they would have known my check/raise and folded their gut-shot. (getting at best 2:14.5)

Read the post of Catt and Entity, they will give you a great explanation why betting is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Read the HPFAP small section on "An important concept--borrowed from Razz". I think it might help you see why checkraising is a bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
I will, thanks!

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Nick,

I think that you are kind of right about the flop action being the same if you look at it as a black box kind of input-output system where you go into the flop and you get out of the flop with more bets in, whether they called the two cold or one by one. but, we have to look at it iteratively, step by step. from an FTOP standpoint, we want our opponents making a mistake, and they dont make a mistake with certain hands calling one bet at a time, whereas they do make a mistake calling two cold.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think we need to look at it in a FTOP standpoint. If the 2 calls my opponents have to make will result in a flop action which is -EV for them it's good for me. The problem is I might trap hands that have enough outs against me, but would have folded if I faces them with 2 cold. (read the posts by Catt and Entity)

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I think folding 4-outers and 5-outers is very crucial here. Don't forget the implied odds of a 4 outer against your hand and the fact that you have no redraws. 5-outers also have positive implied odds, though not as much and you do have redraws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Will calling a gut-shot getting at best 14.5:2 at worst 12.5:2 be very curcial? If the gut-shots holds overcards (giving them more than 4 outs) I agree, otherwise I don't.

[keikiwai]

I think it's very important to bet because you want PFR to bet after you, since you want weaker hands to get out, plus you want to give your best shot at getting the very possible QT out. They have atleast 8 outs more like 12 due to their Q. So, if someone has a QT they probably will not fold, but they might make a mistake and fold, but since you've already got your hands full w/pfr and possible open ended straight, you want to get everyone else out of the pot fast.

Since there is a decent chance you have the best hand right now you want to make people pay for drawing out on you. This is because even if the drawers have good odds, they basically never are greater than 50% so if you have the best hand now, the majority of time you'll keep it against 1 opponent. Your chances decrease, I believe geometrically (very fast), the more opponents stay in to draw you out. So bet and hope for a raise by pfr, and hope to go heads up with him. You'll have a fair chance of winning.

hope this makes a little sense,
Peter.

[Nick Royale]

Thanks alot everyone! This thread has been extremely helpfull for me. Betting the flop in a situation like this isn't hard (I've been doing it every time past couple of months) but understanding the concept beyond is what I consider important. Thanks again!

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think folding 4-outers and 5-outers is very crucial here. Don't forget the implied odds of a 4 outer against your hand and the fact that you have no redraws. 5-outers also have positive implied odds, though not as much and you do have redraws.

[/ QUOTE ]
Will calling a gut-shot getting at best 14.5:2 at worst 12.5:2 be very curcial? If the gut-shots holds overcards (giving them more than 4 outs) I agree, otherwise I don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay I see the point you are making now. It is like your opponents are only making one call (of your checkraise). Your opponents are making two correct decisions that cumulatively result in a -EV experience for them, which becomes a +EV experience for you. I'm glad you noted this because I had never analyzed the situation this way.

I still think that some other factors are very important in this analysis, namely implied odds and the effect of the pot size on later betting rounds. By bloating the pot you (a) will outdrawn more and (b) will be forced to call down more on BB streets even when you're beaten by a straight or two pair. For example, if you bet and get called by one player, and then the Kc comes off and you bet and get raised, you can fold. But if you checkraise and a T comes off and you get raised on the turn, you are more likely to make a mistake. Now JT, T7, and gutshots beat you but the pot is larger making calling down correct.

In HPFAP, calling a gutshot draw with 8-1 outs is advocated if you are likely to get a good amount of action on later streets. So I don't think that by making this "-EV experience" on the flop of calling 7.5-1 with a gutshot that you are really helped more in the long run than if they had simply made a correct 0 EV fold.

I'm going to think about this some more and then post again. But please consider my comments about the effect of pot size on later betting rounds and your negative implied odds against a gutshot and let me know what you think.

EDIT: I do agree that folding 8-outers that are apparent 4-outers is an incredibly good effect, but I think that folding actual 4- and 5-outers is an important part too. Getting one of these hands to fold isn't quite as beneficial to you as getting an 8-outer to fold, but I still think that it is beneficial.

[Nick Royale]

Can we agree that looking at this bet by bet isn't good? Many have argued it will be bad to check/raise simply because my opponetns get terrific odds on both calls. Reasoning like this you would be glad calling a cap as with a gut-shot as long as you get 10:1 on the first call and you only have to call one bet at the time.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is I might trap hands that have enough outs against me, but would have folded if I faces them with 2 cold

[/ QUOTE ]

it would be ok if they called two cold - they'd be making an error calling the two cold. by calling one at a time, they are usually not making an error. when calling the first bet, they can only take the likelihood that you will check-raise into account - a likelihood which you know to be a certainty.

("they" refers to those 4/5 out hands or whatever that can call profitably here for one bet.)

[einbert]

I'm saying we want hands that will stick around if they can call one bet at a time to fold, and we don't want to bloat the pot due to the result on later betting rounds.

In terms of each individual's total betting round EV, this kind of analysis works. But when you consider our fold equity (either by folding a hand correctly or incorrectly), the analysis obviously fails. I think that's one of the most important parts of any betting pattern we might take.

[DMBFan23]

if you KNEW it would be capped/checkraised/whatever, then yes the first call would be a bad call. that's why you have to give slightly less consideration to making this calls when you're not closing the action, especially in aggressive games. that's a good point. I touched on it lightly in my last post, but it probably needs to be explicit

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of each individual's total betting round EV, this kind of analysis works. But when you consider our fold equity (either by folding a hand correctly or incorrectly), the analysis obviously fails. I think that's one of the most important parts of any betting pattern we might take.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree. In this hand check/raising isn't a good strategy. But getting people caling 2 cold isn't this magic play always making you money. The problem isn't that calling the bets 1 by 1 will be better for our opponents, it's because we don't want them calling at all. We want people with many outs (but outs they're not sure they're having) to fold.

[KingOtter]

They may not have gotten to see any cards on the first bet, but it isn't theirs anymore. So he size of the pot at that point dictates that just about anything is worth tossing another bet in.

KO

[Nick Royale]

You're getting reversed implied odds from the gut-shots, but not from the 5-outer. I agree that's an important point.

Since I want players calling 2 cold with 4 and 5 outers on this flop I think I want them to call 2SB one by one as well. This is very close whether it's + or -EV IMO. I think it's very hard to estimate how your own EV will be effected by making you opponents call the flop without the odds but letting your them call the turn profitable.

I don't think the implied odds will make it correct for a gut-shot to call the flop getting 14.5:2 and certainly not getting 12.5:1 (there's a big differance between 14.5:1 and 7.25:1 as you might know).

The big reason to try to get the opponents facing 2 cold in this hand is that we want hands with more outs than they possibly can realize to fold. I think this is very comparable to the Gap theory presented in TPFAP by Sklansky.

Guess that's my summary of this thread. I'll check for more replies later. The discussion have been very intressting.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
They may not have gotten to see any cards on the first bet, but it isn't theirs anymore. So he size of the pot at that point dictates that just about anything is worth tossing another bet in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, but their overall flop EV is negative, giving us +EV.

Calling a cap with a gut-shot as long as you get 10:1 on the first call and you only have to call one bet at the time is a very -EV play and we would like our opponent doing it every time.

[droolie]

Many good points in this thread but also keep in mind the effect of passive collusion. You like to make multiple players with weak draws fold. Against one player with a weak draw we probably want them to stay in the hand but multiple players with weak draws collude against us by representing a unified threat to our winning chances. Three players with different 4 or 5 outers can make allowing them all to see the turn very dangerous. Knocking them out might cost us some bets but will be worth it when it saves us many pots we would have lost. At bare minimum we want them to make huge mistakes by calling 2 cold as often as possible. When our opponents make big mistakes we profit. When they call one bet at a time with correct odds they aren't making a mistake and we aren't necessarily profitting.

[chris_a]

[ QUOTE ]
They just might hit that runner-runner draw. And if they do it's cost you the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trying to win more pots? or trying to win more money?

Who cares if you get sucked out on from time to time if the pots you win (admittedly, slightly less frequently) are substantially bigger?

When your opponents make mistakes, you gain.

However, given the texture of this hand, I think betting out is right since it getting checked through is horrific.

[Greg J]

Let's say you are one of the guys with the gutshot. You are happy to call the initial bet on the flop. You are clearly getting the odds. But then, WTF, BB checkraised! You are still getting the odds to call. Did BB force you to make a mistake by making the initial call?

Thoughts?

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you are one of the guys with the gutshot. You are happy to call the initial raise on the flop. You are clearly getting the odds. But then, WTF, BB checkraised! You are still getting the odds to call. Did BB force you to make a mistake by making the initial call?

Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you are making a mistake. Whenever you call a bet not closing the action, you have to adjust your odds for a possible raise (or check/raise). Calling getting 11:1 on a gutshot isn't enough if you estimate that someone will raise behind you 50% of the time in a four way pot.

Let's say that someone bets and you are next to speak. There are 2 people behind you (and no one will fold). You are getting 11:1. So 50% of the time you will effectively be getting 13:1 (everyone calls) but 50% of the time you will be getting 8:1. Your weighted EV in this case is (.085*7 + .085*4.5) - 1 = -.0225 SB.

Brad

Keep messing up the calcs

[detruncate]

Shill spells it out. Effective odds also apply on one street, not just across streets. Weighted outs are an expression of this. The c/r'er is hurting you by tricking you into a mathematical mistake. If you knew you'd have to spend two bets and would have folded if you had to face them both at once (judging relative to the total expected pot size on that street), how can you say it's not a mathematical mistake when you end up putting 2 bets into the pot one by one?

You're obviously going to call when it comes back to you, as you'd now be making a further mistake by folding... but the probable action behind you is something that always needs to be considered when we're deciding whether we have odds to call. Sometimes raises just come out of the blue. Sometimes you have a pretty good idea what's going to happen. Assess the situation and act accordingly.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Many good points in this thread but also keep in mind the effect of passive collusion. You like to make multiple players with weak draws fold. Against one player with a weak draw we probably want them to stay in the hand but multiple players with weak draws collude against us by representing a unified threat to our winning chances. Three players with different 4 or 5 outers can make allowing them all to see the turn very dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]
Passive collusion. This is an intressting idea. I've read about it before but haven't heard a name of it, so I've just called it "the conspiracy of the stupids". But I thought it required that our opponents have pretty strong draws (or at least a draw to a strong hand).

I guess you mean passive collusion is the fact that you can play against opponent A and B. HU against A you're a favourite to win. HU against B you're a favourite to win. But against both players at the same time you'll win less then 33% of the time. Right?

Against multiple players with 4-5 out draws, is it possible for us to not have equity? Maybe if they're not sharing any out and we don't have any redraws. Or at least it would be MORE profitable to get them fold since facing them together lower our equity significally. And all of them will make clearly +EV calls on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
At bare minimum we want them to make huge mistakes by calling 2 cold as often as possible. When our opponents make big mistakes we profit. When they call one bet at a time with correct odds they aren't making a mistake and we aren't necessarily profitting.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean making them call 2 cold would get just 1 (or maybe 2) calls from weaker hands, putting away passive collusion as a factor?

[Greg J]

Yeah, thanks. I was mainly just posing the question. I was trying a "think of it from a different angle" kind of thing. I agree with your and detr's analyses.

In short checkraising does force a mistake, but it also is a mistake itself -- making for a very messy hand overall. It's actually quite comical!

[Shillx]

It is called Schooling (seriously). Like a "school" of fish, they call together to pose a bigger threat then whey would by themselves. Schooling is also an important concept for good players. Let's say that someone bets and you make a loose call. If the guy calls behind you, your call isn't so bad. If 3 people call behind you, your call is even better (and so forth). More callers behind you give you a better price on your draw even when you yourself might have made a bad call at the time. The other thing that you have to consider is that it can go the other way if someone raises behind you.

The thinkg that you also have to understand about schooling is that their outs can overlap each other. Say for example that you have TPTK and you bet and get 3 callers. If one of them is calling with the J high flush draw he has 9 outs against you. If someone else is calling with the T high flush draw, he is drawing dead. If someone else is drawing to the 7 high flush draw he is in the same boat. So eventhough everyone thinks they have 9 outs, they only have 9 outs combined.

This effect is sometimes known as "deschooling" where you want people to call because they are drawing thin/dead although they don't know it. This effect is more common in Omaha where it is easier for people to be drawing to dead straights and flushes. By the time the 3rd person overcalls, he is probably drawing dead. The 1st caller is usually the biggest threat (this is sometimes the case in hold'em, but not a passive table where people will frequently call with no pair/no draw). It can sometimes be useful where say you have an gutshot with a 2 flush on board. If it is HU, you probably have 4 outs. If you are the 3rd overcaller on the turn, you are almost certainly drawing to just 3 outs and you need to adjust your calling strategy as such.

Brad

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
By the time the 3rd person overcalls, he is probably drawing dead. The 1st caller is usually the biggest threat (this is sometimes the case in hold'em, but not a passive table where people will frequently call with no pair/no draw).

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is the 1st caller the greatest threat?

[Shillx]

Think about it. If someone bets and you are next to act...

Are you going to call with a weak hand if there are 4 people left to act behind you who might raise? When you call with lots of people left to act, that usually indicates a strong draw (because you don't fear a raise). Calling closing the action could mean anything because you don't have the fear of a raise.

Brad

[droolie]

Lee Jones calls it "implicit collusion" which is what i meant to say. Schooling is better though because it's more insulting!

lol

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think that by trapping them, you're giving them the odds (or close enough) to call the first time

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is the right way to look at it. By trapping them, you're making it look like they have odds to call the first time, but they don't because they're really they're calling two cold and they don't even know it.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we agree that looking at this bet by bet isn't good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Trapping isn't giving them good odds twice--why would we call it trapping if it was?--it's essentially forcing them to call two cold without knowing it.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can we agree that looking at this bet by bet isn't good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Trapping isn't giving them good odds twice--why would we call it trapping if it was?--it's essentially forcing them to call two cold without knowing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trapping is a fundamentally different play to betting out though. You must have a much better hand to make it worthwhile. It ties villians to the pot and makes the likelihood of their seeing the turn much higher. It is a strong play that announces a very strong hand or great draw. The end result is that villians put in the same amount but I truly believe they are making a bigger mistake calling two cold then they are when they wind up getting trapped because when they are trapped they can still fold before placing the second bet and they are often closing the action for the second bet when they are trapped and decide to call.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say that someone bets and you are next to speak. There are 2 people behind you (and no one will fold). You are getting 11:1. So 50% of the time you will effectively be getting 13:1 (everyone calls) but 50% of the time you will be getting 8:1. Your weighted EV in this case is (.085*7 + .085*4.5) - 1 = -.0225 SB.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is wrong.

When not raised, this will be the result:
0.5*0.085*13 - 0.5*0.915*16 = +0.095 SB

When raised this will be the result:
0.5*0.085*16 - 0.5*0.915*2 = -0.235 SB

0.095 - 0.235 = -0.14 SB

What went wrong in your calc must have been that you counted that you put 1SB in a 8SB pot when raised, instead of putting 2SB in a 16SB pot, which is different.