A leak I just figured out (yes, I'm slow)

[Ghazban]

I just noticed a leak in my play at SSNL that I really need to fix. Basically, the situation is this: I have a made hand and put my opponent on a draw. I give him bad odds to chase and his stack is too short for the implied odds to make up the pot odds difference. Then when his draw hits on the river, he pushes and I wind up calling because, even with my call, he's making a -EV play in the long run (because his stack was too short for my payoff on the end to make his earlier calls correct).

I need to stop calling these. Of course they are losing money long term with this sort of play but they'd be losing even more if I didn't make boneheaded river calls.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. I thought if I admitted it in public I'd have a better chance of not doing it any more. I'd be very surprised if I was the only one on this forum guilty of it, too.

[Ojo_Rojo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be very surprised if I was the only one on this forum guilty of it, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I do it too. One of the idiotic excuses I have for calling on the end is to prove to myself that my read was right..

Ojo_Rojo

[PinkSteel]

I'm sure I've done it. So what's the fix, apart from not calling his final bet? Make your flop/turn bet to put him all in in the first place, yes?

[jackdaniels]

That is what I normally do - put the guy all in if I think he has a draw or a weak holding.

I have heard a lot that I "overplay" these hands, but I figure applying the most pressure I can against draws is the right way to go. I'll make more $$ in the long run. If he makes the draw - it's variance, if he doesn't I've usually got his stack. I also play my own draws similarly - if a guy bets into me and i've got a good idea they don't REALLY like their hands (TPWK maybe) - I'll push my draw into them. Since I turn over the nut hand as often as I turn over a made draw (I do get called on these pushes from time to time) - it keeps the thinking opposition guessing. I don't enough hands in NL yet to prove/disprove this type of play works (just recently moved from Limit to NL) - but looks good so far.

Bottom line, being MORE aggressive (push him in on turn) rather than LESS aggressive (give him skewed odds to call but not for all his chips) should be +EV.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
Bottom line, being MORE aggressive (push him in on turn) rather than LESS aggressive (give him skewed odds to call but not for all his chips) should be +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense mathematically unless you give more information. In an extreme case, a player that will call any bet of any size on the turn while drawing should always be put all-in while a player that will only call up to a pot-sized bet should never be put all-in (taking 2:1 on a 4:1 shot). Both players are making bad calls but you will never make as much money off the 2nd player as you could by betting the pot and then folding on the river if he gets there.

[jackdaniels]

I was discussing a scenario where opponent would have little left behind and wouldn't put the money in if he missed his draw on the river. If the pot is $100 and I make a pot sized bet leaving opponent with $40 behind, I'm not getting those $40 unless he hits his draw. I rather put him all in and get the extra $$. Either way, he is making a bad call - in scenario #2, I get (or lose) $40 more. My thinking is I get the $40 more often than I lose the extra $40 and I think a player that makes a bad call in the first place makes the call for $40 more as well. I also find that players will call an all-in with a nut draw faster than a pot sized bet. All-in screams the "nuts" which they hope to outdraw or screams "I'm weak and don't want to get called" - eliciting more calls than a pot sized bet would.

Once again, I am not sure this is the right way to go about it, I've only now started NL ring games (transfering a lot of knowledge about NL from SNG's - adjusting to static blinds). If there are better ways to do this, I'm here to learn and would love to hear some ideas.

[Ghazban]

I'll agree with you that its player-dependent and something like betting $100 when a guy only has $140 is kind of silly. I'm thinking more about a scenario where the pot is $100 and he has $200 behind. If I bet $200, he won't call with a draw but he might for $100 (though its a -EV call even if he gets there and I pay him off because he will make $300 1/5 of the time and lose $100 4/5 of the time for an EV of -$20/hand).

[soah]

So your leak is that you make plays which are +EV? You're not the only one with that leak.

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]
That is what I normally do - put the guy all in if I think he has a draw or a weak holding.

I have heard a lot that I "overplay" these hands, but I figure applying the most pressure I can against draws is the right way to go. I'll make more $$ in the long run. If he makes the draw - it's variance, if he doesn't I've usually got his stack. I also play my own draws similarly - if a guy bets into me and i've got a good idea they don't REALLY like their hands (TPWK maybe) - I'll push my draw into them. Since I turn over the nut hand as often as I turn over a made draw (I do get called on these pushes from time to time) - it keeps the thinking opposition guessing. I don't enough hands in NL yet to prove/disprove this type of play works (just recently moved from Limit to NL) - but looks good so far.

Bottom line, being MORE aggressive (push him in on turn) rather than LESS aggressive (give him skewed odds to call but not for all his chips) should be +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beyond 25NL this is a -EV strategy IMO.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
So your leak is that you make plays which are +EV? You're not the only one with that leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

A +EV play that is less +EV than another play is still a leak-- do you see why?

[kurto]

I'm with you on this one.

I've had a number of hands I've posted where; I had a read about what a player had where I was certain I was beat. The villain bet out a small amount (relative to the pot) and I called because the pot was so large certain that I was beat.

When I've posted, I've stated that I felt stupid because I knew what the opponent had. I was told that pot odds said I had to call. I often found this response lacking.

Though I understand the concept of the odds, there are times when you KNOW your opponent isn't an idiot, you KNOW the opponent knows what you have, and you know they EXPECT you to call their bet.

FOR EXAMPLE, you bet $20 into a $20 bet, they reraise you all in for an additional $5... so you have to call an additional $5 for a $65 dollar pot. A possible draw just made it. You know what they have and you know you're beat. Everyone says you have to call... but unless the person is (1) The dumbest person alive or (2) The GREATEST PLAYER in the world... they can't be bluffing. (for them to be the greatest player (this is confusing but fun to write out, so here I go....),

*they would have to know, that you know that they know what you have,...
*furthermore, they would have to know that you know that they know that pot odds dictate you have to call that bet pretty much no matter what...
* then they would have to deduce that you would decide that no one would raise with a bluff here KNOWING full well that odds dictate you have to call no matter what, therefore you would decide that they can't be bluffing, so you would make the amazing laydown of folding to this small bet.
*Knowing all this, and having it work, would be a phenomenal bluff... yet I can't see it ever happening UNLESS someone read you posting about this thread and wanted to use this info against you on the table.

Pot odds be damned... its gotta be positive EV to fold even to an additional $5 bet into a $65 pot if you know you're beat.

[Rococo]

This is actially a very common leak, particularly among players that prone are to tilting. There is an easily detectable betting pattern when you have a strong hand in position on a draw heavy board against a bad opponent. Here is the betting pattern:

Flop

Donkey checks. Generally solid player with a leak bets pot with top pair/set. Donkey calls.

Turn is a brick.

Donkey checks. Solid bets pot. Donkey calls.

River makes the draw. Donkey has a made hand and bets into Solid because he is afraid that Solid will check behind. Solid makes a crying call and doubles up Donkey.

I am still learning to control my emotions and lay these hands down.

[SeattleJake]

I was just thinking of this while responding to a post with such a hand. My conclusion was that an overbet on the turn in those situations would let me fold more often on the river. That is, If I know I'm going to call a $10 bet on the river, then bumping my turn bet another $5 may be the trick. He's more likely to fold now, and if not then I can fold when he open bets his made draw, and save money without giving up ev.

Anyone see a problem with that?

[ErrantNight]

is your leak getting drawn out on? i suggest you put a stop to that.

is your leak calling suspect river raises? maybe. but i'm not certain given this post that it is.

[xorbie]

That's a bad call. IF you bet enough on the turn that even a push on the river and a call by you is +EV, then calling is fine if you think they are bluffing occasionally, and for meta-game reasons.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
is your leak getting drawn out on? i suggest you put a stop to that.

is your leak calling suspect river raises? maybe. but i'm not certain given this post that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

he was pretty clear: his leak is calling bets on the river when his opponent obviously gets there on a draw.

[Rococo]

I didn't think that we were debating whether the river call in my hypothetical was bad. That's why it's a leak . . . .

[mgsimpleton]

I reeeeeally don't understand this logic. Are you saying if the guy has a certain amount behind him, then bet a larger percentage of it on the turn? That would make a lot of sense, and it's precisely what we're debating. But I don't see how increasing your turn bet by a certain amount is going to make you LESS likely to pay him off on the river. If anything you're going to be giving him worse odds and making a more +EV play overall given your river call. Also the more I bet on the turn, the more likely I am to say "he wouldn't REALLY draw with those odds, would he?" and make a crying call.

I think maybe if you bet the pot and if his implied odds are close enough, you just have to fold... but if the play is still significantly positive EV given a short-ish stack, I'm really ok with calling here, at least against an unknown opponent. Against an opponent with whom you've had this exact situation, well someone smart once said that an idiot is someone who does the same thing twice and expects different results. (Damn I wish i could remember who)

[Sam T.]

I have this leak, too. The problem is that from time to time, I'll catch somebody with a second-best hand who decided to bet the scare card (something I need to think about doing from time to time). Nothing like randomizing rewards to encourage bad behavior.

I'm not sure that it applies in the ring game, but in Harrington's tournament book, he says a good rule of thumb is that the villain is bluffing 10% of the time, which would make calling the $5 bet in to a $60 pot correct.

Sam

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that it applies in the ring game, but in Harrington's tournament book, he says a good rule of thumb is that the villain is bluffing 10% of the time, which would make calling the $5 bet in to a $60 pot correct.

Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

it's actually that an opponent who puts in a big bet/raise is bluffing at least 10% of the time.

[tommo]

are you saying that you want to bet more on the turn so that he won't call?

if thats the case then I'll just say, if your opponent is on a draw you want him to call so long as he is making a -EV decision.

if you're saying that you want to bet more on the turn so that you can fold on the river if the draw comes...well that doesn't makes sense, you've just made the pot bigger on the river. Betting more on the turn didn't make it any more or less likely that he actually had the draw (actually I suppose it makes it less likely), and so the increased size of the pot gives you even better pot odds to call.

[SeattleJake]

I'm talking specifically about the times when I think my oppponent is on a draw and first to act, and has just check-called the flop. Say it's checked to me, and I would normally bet pot on the turn to give him the incorrect odds. My worry is when he makes his hand on the river and bets into me, I'm likely to make a crying call there. The point of the OP was that this may be considered a leak. On the otherhand, you don't want to just fold to a possible made draw on the river, because you're giving up ev.

My idea was to overbet the turn, say half as much as I think a likely river bet will be. The ev I will be gaining because of the extra fold-equity, and the times when he still incorrectly calls and does not make his hand on the river, should make up for the ev I lose by folding when I think he made his hand.

[SeattleJake]

Let's do the math...

win|fold + win|call|safe + win|call|bluff - loss|call|beat
(10)*.10 + (20)*.90*.80 + (30)*.90*.05 - (20)*.90*.15 = 14.05

win|fold + win|call|safe - loss|call|bluff - loss|call|beat
(10)*.15 + (20+x)*.85*.80 - (20+x)*.85*.05 - (20+x)*.85*.15 = 11.7 + 0.51x

x = (14.05 - 11.7) / .51 = 4.6

So if I increase my $10 turn bet by over $4.60 then I can fold to the possible made hand on the river with a clear +ev.

[jpg7n16]

If you have read TOP then you know that Sklansky's whole point is that if you play differently than you would if you could see their cards, you lose. Right? That's the whole premise of his book...

If you "know" what his cards are... and you know they beat yours... then it's proper to fold a beat hand that couldn't win if it drew out. Because every time you call with a hand that can't possibly beat (even if you hit your "out") your opponent's: they gain... you lose. That's -EV in my book.

There's a difference between pot odds to making your hand... and pot odds to making a hand that loses to what you know they have.

Good job learning your own mistake.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that it applies in the ring game, but in Harrington's tournament book, he says a good rule of thumb is that the villain is bluffing 10% of the time, which would make calling the $5 bet in to a $60 pot correct.

Sam

[/ QUOTE ]

it's actually that an opponent who puts in a big bet/raise is bluffing at least 10% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you guys play in the games that Harrington is talking about? I'm pretty sure I don't. Besides, even if that 10% figure IS correct for the games you play, it changes drastically from opponent to opponent. I really don't see it being that useful as a rule of thumb.

[mgsimpleton]

saying that the extra folding equity on the turn should make up for the leak in calling also doesn't make any sense.

as long as we are not giving the opponent implied odds, WE WANT HIM TO MAKE A -EV CALL!!! people don't seem to get this. i don't think overbetting the turn makes any sense. i want him to call every time... now the key is how not to pay him off afterwards.

[SeattleJake]

It's not so much the extra folding equity, as in my equation it only added $.50 to the ev. And yes, I do want them to call my turn bet, because I've given them incorrect odds. But there is a whole range of ev to be had based on the pot odds you are offering.

If you give your opponent 84:16 to call when they only have an 85:15 chance, then yes they will be making a mistake. But your ev will be higher if you give them 80:20 instead.

The problem here is on the river, when I'm calling even though I think they made their hand, because I feel I need to be able to catch the times I'm wrong or else I give up ev.

Instead, since I was going to call the $10 on the river, I'm suggesting putting half of it in on the turn. Now, I have a higher ev when they call the turn, and a lower ev when I don't call the river bet, that cancel out.

I've also made myself slightly more sure about their hand, and feel better about the fold. And if my opponent starts bluffing more often, I can start calling half the time, and have a higher ev all around for the same cost as before.

Does this make sense to anyone, or am I just insane?

[mgsimpleton]

that doesn't make sense. first of all, in your equation (i haven't really looked at it closely, just basing this on your explanation of it) you don't seem to be accounting for the fact that they will fold to an overbet on the turn far more often. in fact i feel that people who draw to pot sized turn bets often fold to anything more than that.

furthermore, on the river, i still don't understand what you mean that you are now more sure of the hand. i guess you are trying to say that since the overall play (given his call) was higher EV for you, you feel BETTER about it, but in no way am i more sure i'm ahead. if anything, i'm thinking "wow he called a HUGE turn bet, he must have a made hand like 2 pair or a set." i don't think that's more sure at all.

[SeattleJake]

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> bet $10 on turn bet $15 on turn
strategy call river bet don't call river
--------------------------- ---------------------------
folds on turn $10 * 10% = +$1.00 $10 * 15% = +$1.50

doesn't hit/bluff $20 * 90% * 80% = +$14.40 $25 * 85% * 80% = +$17.00

bluffs on river $30 * 90% * 5% = +$1.35 $25 * 85% * 5% = -$1.06

hits flush on river $20 * 90% * 15% = -$2.70 $25 * 85% * 15% = -$3.19

expected value total = 14.05 total = 14.25</pre><hr />

[mgsimpleton]

that's where we disagree... i think they fold on the turn much more than an extra 5% of the time. but since it's all approximations who really knows.