Waiting till the turn to protect a hand

[Stuck]

So I've been playing limit hold'em for a while, and my basic strategy has been to get as much money in the pot when I think I'm ahead. But I keep coming across the idea that occasionally it might not be right to raise a bettor on the flop, because you're unable to raise sufficiently to protect your hand, and instead wait until the turn, where draws will be unable to correctly call your raise. But then when I think about it some more, it seems like a case of winning more pots, but not winning more money. Don't you want them to call on the flop, even though they may then have odds to call on the turn as well, since, even though they have good pot odds, you're still more likely to win the pot than they are? Can someone explain to me where I'm going wrong in thinking about this? Thanks!

[Stork]

If they have correct odds to call, then they're not making a mistake when they do so. In the case where you are the favorite to win, you still make money, but not as much as you would if you had waited for the turn, when they have insufficient odds. Then when they call, they do so to their detriment, and you gain.

[johnc]

I see two times where waiting for the turn is better in terms of winning the pot: 1) you got the best but somewhat vulnerable hand such as two pair with draws on board - you call flop bets, see if the turn card is a blank - then you can bet/raise/reraise(this is not a slowplay!), 2) the pot's too big on the flop to get people to fold to your better holdings so wait for the turn when the bets double allowing your bets/raises to give those longshot draws improper odds to continue.

[Stork]

Waiting for the turn to raise is best when: you cannot offer people incorrect odds on the flop, you know they will call getting correct odds on the flop, and waiting for the turn will offer opponents incorrect odds. All the above have to be true for waiting for the turn to be more profitable than a flop raise.

[Stuck]

Thanks for the reply but I still don't get it - maybe it needs to be more concrete. I mean, suppose you're up against a flush draw (2:1 by the river). He may have the correct pot odds (due to a bunch of preflop limpers) to call your raise on the flop. But, you're still more likely to win the pot than he is, so everything additional you can throw in there is +EV, right? Even though you're now giving him the correct odds on the turn too you'll still be favorite there as well? What am I missing? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[johnc]

You're correct in that many times the pots become too bloated to offer incorrect odds by putting more chips in. You might be giving a cheaper card by not raising the flop, but your intention is to wait for the blank card on the turn then bet & raise to make it as painful as you can for those draws to call to the river. Raising will also make up for those occasions when you do get drawn out on.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you want them to call on the flop, even though they may then have odds to call on the turn as well, since, even though they have good pot odds,

[/ QUOTE ]

no. I like to make them call as incorrectly as possible for as much as possible when their odds are longest to hit their hands. Why, on the expensive streets, do you want to let them off so easy instead only trying to make them make mistakes on the smaller streets?

Does a casino make money offering 2-1 or 3-1 payoff on a coinflip?

[ QUOTE ]
But then when I think about it some more, it seems like a case of winning more pots, but not winning more money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Longrun, you're not winning more money in some cases. It's not about the # of pots you win. Many times, the guy who wins the most pots is the biggest loser on the night.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though you're now giving him the correct odds on the turn too you'll still be favorite there as well? What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't you a bigger favorite on the the turn? Add to that that the turn bets are double size. Wouldn't you rather get the most money in when you can put in bigger bets while you're the bigger favorite also?

In your example the flush draw goes from about a 35% chance of hitting to about 20%. That's almost a 50% increase in EV for you just on his odds to hit alone.

b

[Stuck]

Oh, OK, I think I might have missed something fairly obvious - there's an underlying (obviously quite reasonable!) assumption in all of this, i.e. that if you raise the flop, you won't have chance to raise the turn?

[Womble]

No,

If you raise the flop the pot is bigger. So even if you raise the turn you will give your opponenets the correct odds to call

[CMonkey]

I don't think you're missing anything, but it seems to me you're talking about two different types of raises, value raises and protection raises. A raise can be one, the other, or both.

A concrete example: You are on the button. Two players limp, and you limp (even though you considered raising to drive out the blinds and sabotage the implied odds of the limpers). The SB completes, and the BB checks. The flop comes two of a suit and you hold top pair with top kicker. All four opponents check to you; should you bet?

It depends. First off, can you bet for value here? That is, do you win more often than 20% of the time with your hand? If so, you can bet. Sure, if anyone is on a flush draw they will call your bet and then call again on the turn if the pot odds/implied odds warrant it. But as long as you win often enough overall, you can still bet. Of course, the practical side is that since everyone limped, you have limited information with which to judge whether or not you can value bet (so maybe you bet for information here).

But say you somehow determine you cannot value bet because you won't win often enough. Can you bet for protection? Through your supernatural powers of reading other players, you surmise that their limps and checks indicate that at least one player is on a flush draw. So you can't bet for protection either. You have to wait until the turn and then reevaluate betting.

But you can take this further. Maybe you can value bet on the flop. However, maybe you also know your opponents are very weak-tight postflop and will likely fold if they don't hit anything on the turn and they don't have proper odds to continue. In this case, even though value betting on the flop is a +EV play, it might be even more +EV to check and bet on the turn if a blank hits. By denying proper draw odds to your opponents, it may allow you to pick up additional pots you might not otherwise have won. If the pot size is already large enough, the value of picking up additional pots might outweigh betting for value on the flop (or it might not, hence the need to use experience and good judgement). Conversely, maybe you know that you can bet for value and that your opponents are very loose-passive, taking any draw at all to the river. You're not going to pick up the pot on the turn in this case so you can value bet.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
No,

If you raise the flop the pot is bigger. So even if you raise the turn you will give your opponenets the correct odds to call

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's what he said. If you raise the flop, you won't get to raise the turn. If you had the chance to raise both the flop and the turn, as you suggest, you would clearly rather do that than only raise the turn. You get to charge them a total of six small bets (over two streets) rather than a total of five small bets (over two streets) by raising twice, so it does a better job of protecting your hand and makes your opponents play less correctly. You have the best hand and everyone else is drawing. You want to charge them as much as possible. If you can raise the flop without affecting the turn action, it should be clear that you are happy to see more money go in on the flop rather than less.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

There are a few things at work here.

One is that while raising is a +EV play, calling is also a +EV play, just not as positive. However, in certain cases, it may be correct to give up some EV on the flop knowing that you will get it back and more on the turn.

Another idea that may interest you is that in multiway pots, a raise may be more EV for a drawing hand than for a made hand. (This is sometimes called Morton's Theorem.) With two cards to come and multiple opponents, some hands have a hard time holding up. It is sometimes best to slow down and re-evaluate on the turn rather than raise and reraise on the flop.

[ACW]

What you're missing is that when they call, you get a share of their bet. When they fold you get their share of the pot, which is bigger whenever they have the correct odds to call.

[Yosemite Mark]

I just finished ready the "Protecting Your Hand" chapter in SSHE, so this is fresh in my mind. If I have this correct, you want to wait for the turn to knock people out when these conditions are met:

1) The pot is large. This is the most important condition. In large pots, you usually gain much more in pot equity by knocking people out of the pot than you ever can extract from their extra future bets. Because of this, your general strategy of 'getting as much money in the pot' should take pot size into account before being applied on each hand.
2) The flop gives you have a marginal to good hand, but there are a lot of cards you don't want to see. A good example is you have AhTh and the flop comes up Tc 7d 3c. You have TPTK, but you'll be very nervous if a K, Q, J, 9, 8, or any club comes up on the turn or river. If the pot is large, you will not be able to chase out OESD or 4-flushes, but you would like to get gutshots + players with single overcards out to the picture if you can.
(The above two apply in any hand protection scenario. The following conditions apply specifically to the 'wait for the turn ' strategy:)
3) On the flop, the pot is so large that cold-calling two small bets is correct for weaker draws.
4) By raising on the flop, you make the pot on the turn so large that these weaker draws will also be getting correct odds to call two big bets.
5) If you did not raise on the flop, the resulting smaller pot would make it incorrect for weaker draws to cold call two big bets.

(Having just digested the chapter, I haven't been able to apply this in the real world. Perhaps others with more experience can comment on how often they apply this play?)

SSHE says the basic plan in this scenario is:
- Call on the flop (since you can't chase out weaker draws)
- If a safe card hits on the turn, then you can execute the C/R or raise play to make it 2 bets to chase out the weaker draws, who will now no longer be getting pot odds to call.
- If a danger card hits, you can either fold or call down (whichever is appropriate for the current hand), and you've saved the extra bet on the flop.

HTH,

Yosemite

[djoyce003]

You are missing the point. Poker isn't about winning more money, it's about making the right decision. You win money when you make the right decisions, and your opponents make the wrong ones...that is how you arrive at profit.

Example. You have JJ in the SB...button raises, and you just call, 3 players to the flop. We'll make this a $1/$2 table to make the math easy.

On the flop, the pot is $6...it comes 5 10 9, two hearts..you have no hearts. You check...it's checked to button who bets, you call, and the other calls. $9 in the pot.

On the turn an offsuit 2 comes. Now you still have an overpair. You check, MP checks, button bets, you raise...now if MP has a flush draw he's facing a $4 bet into a $15 pot...so he's getting less than 4 to 1 on his money and he has a slightly worse chance 4-1 to make his flush..therefore he loses money every time he calls here assuming nobody will pay off the flush on the river. granted you could have gotten more in on the flop, but he'd have still been right to call if you bet, because he's gettin 7 to 1 on his $1 and he's way better than that to make his hand...see where this is going?

[bernie]

You forgot that your edge can be much bigger on the turn than on the flop.

b

[bernie]

I see a preflop mistake in your example.

b

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the reply but I still don't get it - maybe it needs to be more concrete. I mean, suppose you're up against a flush draw (2:1 by the river). He may have the correct pot odds (due to a bunch of preflop limpers) to call your raise on the flop. But, you're still more likely to win the pot than he is, so everything additional you can throw in there is +EV, right? Even though you're now giving him the correct odds on the turn too you'll still be favorite there as well? What am I missing? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Incorrect. Let's say it's you, with TPTK, vs a flush chaser. Think of it this way. If flush guy has correct odds to chase on the turn (ie, his call is +EV) that +EV has to come from somewhere. That someone is you. The +EV he gets actually comes from your flop raise, which subsequently gives him proper odds to call the turn as well as the flop.

The reason is that when he hits his flush, he doesn't just win your bet, he wins the entire pot. Your goal is not to charge him as many bets as possible, it is to give him improper odds to chase his flush, so that his call will be -EV, and the times he makes his flush and wins the pot will not compensate for the times he misses. By giving him -EV to call, you are gaining the most +EV.

If by raising the flop he gains proper odds call the turn and see the river, he gains a +EV call on the turn, and you are making a -EV play, because you are going to cost yourself the entire pot when he hits.

The most positive +EV play would be to call the flop, and bet/raise the turn to give him improper odds to see the river.

[bernie]

One thing about a flush draw on the turn. Say it's HU or 3 way on the turn. Even if the pot is giving them odds to call, that doesn't mean that they are making money on each additional bet they have to put in. They are losing money, it's just the pot odds make up for it.

On the turn, they are not sharing equity with additional bets going in the way they are on the flop.

For instance. If the pot were small on the flop, yet there were 4-5 people in, even if there was no pot, they can make money on the flop with the odds they are getting on their money to make their hand if everyone is putting a bet in. This isn't true if there was no pot, yet only 4 people on the turn. They have no pot odds to call, and putting a bet in, there isn't enough people to (immediately) cover the odds of hitting his hand.

b

[CMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Let's say it's you, with TPTK, vs a flush chaser. Think of it this way. If flush guy has correct odds to chase on the turn (ie, his call is +EV) that +EV has to come from somewhere. That someone is you. The +EV he gets actually comes from your flop raise, which subsequently gives him proper odds to call the turn as well as the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. If you raise on the flop and allow your opponent to now correctly call on the turn as well, part of his now slightly +EV turn call is coming from you, but the rest is coming from his own bet that he must put up on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is that when he hits his flush, he doesn't just win your bet, he wins the entire pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, by the same token when he doesn't hit, you win the flop bet and the entire pot. And with TPTK against only a flush draw, you have greater pot equity and win more often than he does.

[ QUOTE ]
Your goal is not to charge him as many bets as possible, it is to give him improper odds to chase his flush, so that his call will be -EV, and the times he makes his flush and wins the pot will not compensate for the times he misses. By giving him -EV to call, you are gaining the most +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. True, if you don't bet, leaving your opponent improper odds to call on the turn, if he then calls on the turn to draw, it's -EV to him. But now instead of charging him to draw out on you on the flop, you are giving him a free shot. In exchange for forcing him into a -EV situation on the turn, you increase the +EV of his flop draw.

bernie covered the topic of equity already, but you can see in this heads-up situation that value betting cannot be bad. If value betting is bad holding TPTK because it decreases your EV, then betting must be good for the flush draw. By betting it up, the flush draw is artificially creating his own pot odds for the turn. But this doesn't make any sense; how can it be a value bet for the flush draw if he's behind?

The balance that needs to be considered in these value bet vs. protection situations is the worth of the making a value bet vs. the value of merely checking/calling and getting people to fold on the turn (thereby increasing your pot equity).

[djoyce003]

yeah I know but was just workin on making the math work, that made it easier and more pronounced with this particular example...should have made it a gutshot str8 or something. Thanks for nitpicking tho.

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
What you're missing is that when they call, you get a share of their bet. When they fold you get their share of the pot, which is bigger whenever they have the correct odds to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this comment makes a great point, and would indicate that you are okay raising both the flop and turn against a heads-up opponent, but against multiple drawing hands it is crucial to be able to make them fold.

If you are against one guy w/ an open ended straight draw you have a lot fewer cards to dodge on the turn and river than if you're up against a flush draw, open ended, and backdoor flush of a different suit. Thus, much more important to be able to offer incorrect odds on the turn against multiple draws. If you've given all 3 of them extra odds on the flop, you're very likely beat.