Creating mistakes

[Tiggz]

Hi,

I was wondering if this would constitute creating a mistake in an opponents play.

For example, on the turn in hold'em I hold top pair and check to a player who has a flush draw whom I know will bet. After he bets I check-raise.

Now, although him calling my check-raise is correct according to pot-odds. Him betting a double bet is not.

The question is: have I, forcing him to two-bet, made him make a mistake since his double bet isn't solid according to pot-odds?

Remember, he might very well be calling correctly. The question is if I have creating a mistake in his play by my check-raise?

Best wishes,

'Fredrik

[TheHip41]

You aren't taking into account the times he just checks right behind you. I think your scenario is a weak play overall. You can't "know" he has a flush draw. If you have the best of it, bet, make them chase. The times you get "tricky" and get this c/r to work won't make up for the dozens of bets you miss when he checks behind.

Just bet.

[applej25]

I would think no, because his initial bet is already a part of the pot. Assuming you have a better hand though it is still a good play getting more money in while you are best.

[BluffTHIS!]

Since you state that the pot size was such that he would be correct to call a turn bet by you with a flush draw, then letting him bet and checkraising him has only increased the size of the pot thus making it even more correct to call the checkraise. The mistake you induced was not his calling your checkraise but his bet after you checked. Plus you are getting more money in the pot when you hold the better hand. But as the other poster pointed out, unless you were certain he would bet, then it is you who have made a mistake if he takes a free card.

[JKDStudent]

*Amatuer Advice Follows*

As soon as his money is in the pot, it no longer belongs to him. As long as he still has the odds to call, then no, he's not making a mistake.

Now let's just pick a number of small bets in the pot on the flop. We'll say four. You check, he bets, you raise, he calls. Now we go into the turn with 4 big bets. You bet, and he's getting 5:1 odds on a 4:1 shot. Your check raise made it correct for him to call on the turn. Also keep in mind that it wouldn't be horribly wrong of him to reraise you on the flop in that aforementioned situation.

Assume you don't check raise and simply call his bet. Now if you bet out on the turn, he's getting 4:1 odds on that same 4:1 shot. It's a very close call. If there were fewer bets in the pot going into the flop, it's a clear mistake because he'd only be getting 3:1 odds. If there were more, there's no way to make it a mistake for him to call in a heads-up situation.

Short answer: Once money is in, it's in. Calling a raise is not the same as calling two cold.

[Tiggz]

Thus even if I know it will cost him two bets and a call of two bets isn't warranted, I haven't induced a mistake?

Btw, the hand is hypothetical I haven't played it.

[k_squared]

I disagree with most of what has been said in response to your question.

I do think that you have forced him into making a mistake. While it is not a mistake for him to call the raise, it is a mistake for him to have to be paying 2 bets for his draw when he could have gotten it for free.

If it is true that the player aggressively bets his draws consistently, or would bet worse hands than you hold aggressively then I think the play is fine. It not only serves to sometimes add money into the pot also adds variety and deception to your game. Now when you check your draw he will think twice about betting (if he is a thinking player... and this only relates to thinking players) because of your tendency to check-raise him. It also allows you to occasionally check-raise bluff after showing a few good hands after check-raising. These strategies will not work against passive calling stations, but are worth employing and having available for when the situation presents itself.

You have to look at the hand as a whole... how much money did person X put in to win pot Y. If someone calls a bet and gets stuck inbetween two raisers with an inside straight draw they might very well be getting odds each time the bet comes to them, but really making a series of bad decisions which continue to wed them to the pot. Sure, each single bet is legitimate to call... but if you knew you were going to have to pay 4 bets to play for the pot then it often changes the odds dramatically.

To use a more clear example. Lets say you play NL... you have $100 and so do all your opponents. You hold A-K. You bet $75 and get called by 4 people. The pot know has $350 in it, and you only have $25 that pot is now giving you the correct odds to call bet in so far as you still believe hitting either an ace or king will give you the winning hand. But why are the odds in your favor? Because you over bet your hand before the flop and built a huge pot in relation to your remaining stack. We often artifically produce the right odds to call by making mistakes. It is useful to not only look at each bet individually, but to look at the round in its entirety.

-k_squared

[k_squared]

Although their is something to be said for considering where is the best place to induce these sorts of mistakes.

I also think to be clear their are two questions at hand...
(1) is calling the raise a mistake for the hypothetical player - and the answer is obviously no... he is getting odds...

(2) is making the bet a mistake considering the fact that he was raised- and the answer seems to me to be yes! He has reduced the amount of money he will win proportional to the amount he has put in by having to call that raise. If you wouldn't be willing to call 2 bets cold then you also don't want to be faced with paying a raise because you are still paying two bets to play the hand... the difference is that the structure of the hand has forced you to make the 2 bets seperately and without knowing the raise was coming each decision was still appropriate.

The fact is that for that round if paying 2 bets is not giving you the right odds, whether or not you are calling 2 cold or having to call a raise you have made a mistake.

Although their are also larger considerations of fold equity which have been neglected... which is to say if someone would fold 1/2 the time when they check to you and raise the other half it still is a worthwhile bet (because the fold equity combined with your chance to improve gives you a +EV situation) in the meta game because of the fact that they will fold so often.

-k_squared

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus even if I know it will cost him two bets and a call of two bets isn't warranted, I haven't induced a mistake?

Btw, the hand is hypothetical I haven't played it.

[/ QUOTE ]

His call of two bets is only warranted by the fact that he did so on the installment plan and he didn't call two bets cold but only called one after you let him bet first and checkraised him when he then called an additional bet that was warranted by pot odds. According to the fundamental theorem of poker he only made a mistake by betting after you checked, not by calling your checkraise.

[Estydogg]

I think it's an awesome play!

If you put him on the flush draw and you know he's an agressive/smart player, a high percentage of the time he will bet it. And Why shouldn't he, he could win it right there plus if he gets called he's going to get check to on expensive street.

You are making it as expensive as you can for him. and when a blank hits bet into him.

You holding kings is a great time to do it also. Since only an ace will slow you down.

If your sure he has a flush draw it's the best you can do because he's not going to fold it.

[Tiggz]

His call of two bets is only warranted by the fact that he did so on the installment plan and he didn't call two bets cold but only called one after you let him bet first and checkraised him when he then called an additional bet that was warranted by pot odds. According to the fundamental theorem of poker he only made a mistake by betting after you checked, not by calling your checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's my idea as well. The odd thing is that both players might actually do the right thing. Basically we get him to pay two bets when we have the best hand. Although he is correct to call our raise.

[Tiggz]

[ QUOTE ]
It is useful to not only look at each bet individually, but to look at the round in its entirety.

-k_squared

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. It was very clear answer to my question. This is the heart of my question, that you have to look at the betting as a whole.

[Tiggz]

Yeah, and the fact that he is correct to call my raise is irrelevant.

[IsaacW]

Like k_squared said, you are forcing a mistake by taking advantage of this play.

If you know 100 % that he has the flush draw, that he will bet the flush draw 100 % of the time, that he will only call if you bet, and he has no other way to beat you, then you maximize your EV by check/raising.

On the turn you have ~80 % equity and your opponent has ~20 %. By check/raising you make 3.2 BB on the turn round, and your opponent makes 0.8 BB. Since you both paid 2 BB for this earn, you profit 1.2 BB and he loses 1.2 BB. If you bet and he calls, then you profit 0.6 BB and he loses 0.6 BB. Not check/raising in this spot would be a mistake on your part.

Of course it is probably best to bet out in most real situations, because finding a player who always bets flush draws heads-up when checked to would be a rare find indeed, and allowing a free card here is a large mistake.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The odd thing is that both players might actually do the right thing. Basically we get him to pay two bets when we have the best hand. Although he is correct to call our raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again he is only doing the right thing by calling your checkraise. This followed him making a mistake by betting when you checked. This is not the same as you both acting correctly, which would have happened when you often would correctly bet if unsure he would do so and then his calling with proper pot odds.

[Moozh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's an awesome play!

If you put him on the flush draw and you know he's an agressive/smart player, a high percentage of the time he will bet it. And Why shouldn't he, he could win it right there plus if he gets called he's going to get check to on expensive street.

You are making it as expensive as you can for him. and when a blank hits bet into him.

You holding kings is a great time to do it also. Since only an ace will slow you down.

If your sure he has a flush draw it's the best you can do because he's not going to fold it.

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, this play is not awesome. If he's a smart thinking player, he'll check behind on the turn with outs to improve. If he wants to bluff, he can do it on the river if our hero checks to him again.

Second, any time you can get an opponent to put in two bets on the turn with only a flush draw to beat you, you are definitely making him make a mistake, even if he has odds to call the second bet. In the long run, you will profit more from this play, thus heads up it is against his interest to have this happen.

Think of the Fundamental Theory. If our opponent knew what you had, he would not bet the turn. Thus, when he bets the turn, he is making a mistake.

[PairTheBoard]

The correct answer is simply, Yes.

You took advantage of his overagressiveness to get in a check-raise, a pretty standard move in poker, thus getting him to pay two bets for his draw instead of one.

If he is a real maniac the better play might be to bet into him. He will semi-bluff raise you with his draw - a common move among maniacs, and you can reraise him.

PairTheBoard

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
If he's a smart thinking player, he'll check behind on the turn with outs to improve. If he wants to bluff, he can do it on the river if our hero checks to him again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this statement. A lot of smart thinking players will in fact bet out on a draw especially when heads up, and especially into an oppnent they think might fold. When you add fold-equity into the equation betting a draw heads up becomes a viable option. Anyone who just checks in that case is making a mistake as surely as anyone who just bets everytime in that situation. The proper ratio of betting to checking is of course dependent upon your opponent.

You advocate a particular line of play, checking and then attempting a bluff on the end which I consider to be too passive and too weak for a lot of situations. On the turn you are giving tight players who will fold a chance to draw out by not betting, and then if your opponent bets the end and you are unimproved (which many would do if you check the turn) you are just going to call with your draw?

Many times the best way to play that hand is to bet the draw and see what happens. If you get raised and then he bets out you fold unless you improve or the pot is laying the right odds to continue. If you get called you consider checking the end (in which case it would have cost you the the same to show down your hand plus you have added fold equity from the turn... because many players will bet into you if you check the turn!!!). It is obvious that always betting the draw is a mistake, but it is equally as obvious that betting the draw can be a very strong play in MANY circumstances!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Second, any time you can get an opponent to put in two bets on the turn with only a flush draw to beat you, you are definitely making him make a mistake, even if he has odds to call the second bet. In the long run, you will profit more from this play, thus heads up it is against his interest to have this happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. The question is not whether calling the second bet is correct (it clearly is). The question might be whether putting 2 bets in the pot on the turn is correct (and with a strong flush draw the pot might give you the correct odds even if you had been faced with cold-calling 2 bets), so even that might be 'correct.' But the real question seems to be does that maximize your EV.

The difficult part about questions like that is that they are not as meaningful to look at in an individual hand when a bluff is included in the assumptions. As soon as a bluff enters into the play the question becomes what percentage of the time will it succeed. It is a play that is not meant to work every time it is used. So correctly analyzing its worth requires us to look at the hand over a range of outcomes and possible hands. So, even though BECAUSE you had a pair, and put him on a flush draw his bet might not be a mistake in so far as you might fold enough to make that pay off even though you ended up raising him this one time.

-k_squared

[ACPlayer]

Regardless of pot odds if he takes an even money bet from you on any street where he has lower than even money chances of winning, he is taking a bad bet on the new money being invested.

If you know he will always bet the draw and you know he has a draw then go ahead checkraise and bank some long run money.