77

[Nate tha' Great]

Party Poker I raise 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif from UTG and am 3-bet by a good TAG player who probably respects me in UTG+1. Her range here is almost certainly AK, AQ, 88-AA or something similar. Everyone else folds and I call.

Flop K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif I check and call intending to check-fold the turn if I don't improve.

[Chris Dow]

Since you don't have the 7h it's quite marginal to even go to the turn, I don't think you can.

[CallMeIshmael]

Nate,

in this game, is AQ an automatic bet on the turn for villian? (assuming a blank)

I dont really know the dynamic of how this game plays, but, if you could expect a check a decent portion of the time, the math of the situation would probably change a lot. (especially considering AQ is now her most likley hand)

[Fnord]

*scratches head*

[Nick C]

I'm thinking she must be checking behind on the turn sometimes. (Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the play.)

Edit: Do you have bluffing outs that count as "improvement," maybe?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: Do you have bluffing outs that count as "improvement," maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not anticipating attempting to bluff against this opponent.

[Chris Dow]

You also can't possibly be expecting the opponent to give up with AQ and give you a showdown just because you called the flop.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
You also can't possibly be expecting the opponent to give up with AQ and give you a showdown just because you called the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often does she need to check behind the turn with AQ to make my call +EV?

How often does she need to check behind the turn with TT to double my chances of spiking a set?

[chesspain]

With that K-high flop, you don't think you could get her to drop 88/TT/JJ/QQ?

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also can't possibly be expecting the opponent to give up with AQ and give you a showdown just because you called the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often does she need to check behind the turn with AQ to make my call +EV?

How often does she need to check behind the turn with TT to double my chances of spiking a set?

[/ QUOTE ]


what happens if the turn goes check-check? you still have to check-fold the river, right? I would assume she'll check it down with AQ though unless she hits.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
With that K-high flop, you don't think you could get her to drop 88/TT/JJ/QQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

If she bets the turn with one of those hands and I check-raise, I might be able to get her to drop, but that is IMO too expensive, especially since I think she'll often check behind with her weaker hands.

If she checks behind on the turn, I think it becomes very difficult to bluff her off a better hand on the river.

I could also check-raise the flop, but she's probably expecting me to check-call the flop if I actually have something like KQ or KJs, which makes me vulnerable to a call down or even a bluff 3-bet.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You also can't possibly be expecting the opponent to give up with AQ and give you a showdown just because you called the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often does she need to check behind the turn with AQ to make my call +EV?

How often does she need to check behind the turn with TT to double my chances of spiking a set?

[/ QUOTE ]


what happens if the turn goes check-check? you still have to check-fold the river, right? I would assume she'll check it down with AQ though unless she hits.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a dilemma unto itself. I'd probably look her up on the river unless an A or a Q hit.

[Chris Dow]

As you can see nate, the potential dilemma of check/check turn, check/call river while honestly a big dog (albeit maybe not a big enough dog not to call), is seriously detracting from your odds on the flop. As you've mentioned you're never bluffing out the overpairs, when you're against an AQo you by default give free cards to beat you, when you hit your set you occasionally run into top set and cr right into it (or AhAc redraws and 4 flushes the river). Because this pot developed hu I don't think it is big enough for you to continue on. The situation is so complex that I haven't crunched specific numbers and am giving opinions based on feel. I'm sure you can do the same, and clearly regardless of the hand your opponent actually has, the more passive that opponent will be, the better your flop call gets. Specifically if a hand like TT will check/check behind without improvement but will definitely call a bet if you spike a 7 on the river (which I think would pretty obviously be the case here) then you're gaining a lot.

[Nate tha' Great]

I think this is kind of an important hand. One of the changes I've made recently is to make some seemingly "loose" calls out of position on the flop and on the turn when I think there's a reasonable chance of my opponent checking it behind on the next street. It can help for the board to be a little bit scary in order for me to make these calls.

For example, say that I defend my BB against a CO open-raise with 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, and the flop is T /images/graemlins/club.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif.

Note that I have some legitimate outs here: a backdoor flush, a backdoor straight, and probable pairing outs. You can make an argument for a call on this basis alone, even if you knew that your opponent was going to bet the turn, regardless of what he held. However, you should almost certainly peel here, because your opponent will often check behind on the turn, fearing a check-raise from trips. That is, I'll often be getting two cards for the price of one, making the call quite profitable.

More often, this will involve a situation in which there is some chance that you have the best hand, and also some chance that you will improve if you do not have the best hand.

For example, let's say that I'm again in the BB, defending against a Cutoff open-raise from a solid, thinking player. My hand is 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif and the flop is 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif.

I check-raise the flop and my opponent calls.

The turn is the K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. I bet and my opponent raises. There are around 7 BB in the pot at this point.

If my opponent does in fact have the King, I will usually have five outs to beat him, which is not quite enough to call with getting 7:1. However, I also believe that my opponent is capable making this play with some other overcard hand like AQ. When he does this, he will usually check behind on the river, especially since the flop contains some draws and his hand would beat a busted draw at showdown. If he checks behind the river even a small percentage of the time, calling the turn goes from slightly unprofitable to highly profitable. So I should almost certainly make this call on the turn. Against a particularly aggressive opponent, of course, I would want to call down on the river anyway, especially if another big card does not come off, but there are lots of folks against whom I suspect calling the turn and folding to a river bet is the correct play.

This 77 hand is another, somewhat more complicated example of this principle. Suppose that I've pegged my opponent's hand range correctly. The only hand that I beat is

AQ (16 combos)

Whereas I lose to

AK (12 combos)
AA (6)
KK (3)
QQ (6)
JJ (6)
TT (6)
99 (3)
88 (6)

Or 48 total combos. That is, I believe my sevens are the best hand about 16/64 or 1/4 times.

I also will usually have around 3 outs to improve if I do not have the best hand, between spiking a set and backdoor straight possibilities. Of course, sometimes I will hit a 7 and lose to a set of kings or nines, or a flush. On the other hand, if I do spike a 7, and my opponent has something like AK or AA, the implied odds situation is pretty favorable. I think 3 outs is a reasonable working estimate.

How many outs to I need to make a correct call here on the flop?

There are around 8.25 SB in the pot once my opponent bets. As it works out, I need almost exactly 5 outs worth of equity in order to make the call profitable.

As we've discussed, I have about 3 "legitimate" outs here that come from spiking a seven or making a backdoor straight, meaning that I have to make up 2 outs somehow in order for the call to be correct.

The question I posed earlier was: how often does my opponent need to check behind AQ on the turn in order for my call to be profitable? As I hope you will see, the answer is: not very often. For example, suppose that my guess is that my opponent will check behind AQ on the turn just 1/4 of the time here. How much is this worth in terms of outs?

We're looking at a parlay here: my opponent needs to have AQ (1/4 of the time) *and* she needs to check it behind (1/4 of the time). All told, this will happen just 1/16 of the time.

This seems like a longshot, but it is actually worth a little something. A 1/16 shot is equivalent to 3/48, or about a 3-"out" draw with 47 unseen cards to come. So now I have 3 legitimate drawing outs, plus about 3 checking behind outs, for a total of 6, which is more than I need to make the call profitable. In practice, I believed that my opponent would check behind with AQ more often than one in four times here, as this is one of the worst conceivable boards for AQ against a tightish UTG raiser. If she checked behind with AQ say half the time here, then folding would be a huge mistake.

Of course, sometimes my opponent will take her free card, and spike an A or a Q on the river to win her the pot. This is one of the things that I just have to live with, as I will not be ahead often enough to justify making a play at the pot and preventing free cards. On the other hand, there are a couple of other devlopments that could work out favorably for me:

1) My opponent could check behind with something like TT on the turn, hoping to see a cheap showdown, doubling my chances to spike a 7 and making it cheaper for me to draw to a straight.

2) I could pick up a gutshot or OSED on the turn and call a bet from my opponent, and win some additional percentage of the time if I don't improve, but she decides to check behind her AQ on the river.

I'd guess that these scenarios are worth an additional 1.5 or 2 outs all on their own.

There is also an important point to be considered here from the standpoint of the villian. Note that I am willing to be bluffed off the pot on the turn, if she's prepared to follow through and again bet her AQ. However, because my sense based on her previous play was that she'd often check behind this board with her AQ, she made it correct for me to make a loose peel on the flop. That is, if my opponent were more relentlessly aggressive, I would probably not have peeled on the flop, even though against an extremely aggressive opponent with a wider 3-betting range, there would be more chance that I had the best hand at present.

In poker, there are a certain set of plays that are made frequently by very good opponents, and are also made frequently by very bad opponents, but are not made as frequently by average-good opponents. Making a loose peel on the flop is one such play. A fish will call your bet on the flop with a wide range of hands because he isn't thinking about pot odds and doesn't put any stock in your "automatic" flop bet, but a very tough player may make some loose peels as well because he recognizes that the aggression he's shown you in other hands will frequently intimidate you into checking behind on the turn, giving him a free card, a cheap showdown, or possibly even a profitable bluffing opportunity.

Against both of these types of opponents, you should be more inclined to bet the turn rather than take a free card or cheaply pick off a bluff at showdown, even if you believe that there's a good chance that you're drawing. Of course, you will get check-raised sometimes by a hand that you're drawing live against, or even get check-raised occasionally by a worse hand that has picked up some sort of semibluff or otherwise senses weakness. But over the long run, you will probably give away more pots by playing the turn too meekly than by playing it too strong.

[meep_42]

Very, very interesting.

-d

[Klepton]

this is an amazing post, it now makes sense, but i believe this should only pertain to the limits of 15-30 and up, as low limit players (and still many at the party 15) still bet the turn if checked to no matter what.

not many players 'give up' like you say they do...most bet the turn regardless and then check the river UI so their nut no pair gets to showdown

but seriously, amazing post

[Azhrarn]

Excellent, excellent post! Thank you.

[cassady]

Nate,

It's posts like this that let me know how much I have left to learn.

[tunnel]

Very good post.

[SA125]

Excellent analysis. I like the play. Mixing up how you come in with 77 UTG is good. I think it's HPFAP that says, as long as you frequently c/r, checking the turn around 60% of the time even with some good hands, helps gain free cards. That seems to fit well here.

[NickRegino]

I think I would have limped in rather than raise from UTG with 77, It is still too early to think about raising. You are out of position.

[cocked&locked]

[ QUOTE ]
The selected post/thread has been added to your list. You will see this entry in 'My Home' until you remove it if you added it as a Favorite. You also will get any replies to your Favorite threads emailed to you if you have this option enabled in your profile. Reminders will not be emailed to you and will go away once you make a reply to the post. In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice analysis

[thekiller]

What if the king was an ace, what would u do then?

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the king was an ace, what would u do then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-fold.

[thekiller]

What if u had QQ and it was an ace?

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
this is an amazing post, it now makes sense, but i believe this should only pertain to the limits of 15-30 and up, as low limit players (and still many at the party 15) still bet the turn if checked to no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont think this is true at all because lower limit players tend to be LESS aggressive than the party 15/30 players and is likely to check behing way more hands than you'd expect him too.

i'll often peel on the flop like nate says and if i have a showdownable hand i'll often peel on the turn too with the knowledge that people tend to not value bet rivers enough.

[Lost Wages]

How does this line compare to your alternatives? There are ~7SB in the pot on the flop. If your opponent would fold AQ or 88 half the time then you have a profitable flop bet:

EV = (11/64)*(7) + (53/64)*(-1) = +.38SB

Lost Wages

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
How does this line compare to your alternatives? There are ~7SB in the pot on the flop. If your opponent would fold AQ or 88 half the time then you have a profitable flop bet:

EV = (11/64)*(7) + (53/64)*(-1) = +.38SB

Lost Wages

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I've established a history with this player, it's hard for me to represent enough strength by just gaybetting here.

[theBruiser500]

if she checks behind on the turn with AQ and then bets the river can you call? will she bet AQ on the river? if so that seriuosly diminsihes your "3 outs"

[sthief09]

in all honesty, this easily ranks as one of the 5 best posts I've read on 2+2, ahead of a lot of the famous Ed Miller posts. it is such a tough position to be in (IMO the second toughest behind blind defense) and you gave such a thorough analysis. this is an instant classic, and anyone who didn't get it needs to read it over and over and over untill they do

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
if she checks behind on the turn with AQ and then bets the river can you call? will she bet AQ on the river? if so that seriuosly diminsihes your "3 outs"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a big majority of tag players who would check behind with AQ on the turn would also check it on the river. If they wanted to bluff they'd bet the turn.

[tunnel]

Just a thought:

You assume the range of your opponents' possible hands is AK-AQ, AA-88. This appears to be reasonable. But you also assume that she is as likely to reraise with AQ as with say AA.
Wouldn't it be more realistic to calculate like this:
AA-TT, AK: reraise 100 % x 39 combos = 3900
AQ, 99-88 reraise 50 % x 9 combos = 450
AQ reraise 50% x 16 combos = 800
Probability she is holding AQ = 800/5150 = 15.5 %
(which is quite different from your 25%).

If she respects your raise I seriously doubt that she will certainly reraise UTG+1 holding just AQ (and I don't think she should).

Just a thought. Excellent post in any case, Nate.

[Entity]

Bump. Good read.

[beachbum]

[ QUOTE ]
this is an amazing post, it now makes sense, but i believe this should only pertain to the limits of 15-30 and up, as low limit players (and still many at the party 15) still bet the turn if checked to no matter what.

not many players 'give up' like you say they do...most bet the turn regardless and then check the river UI so their nut no pair gets to showdown

[/ QUOTE ]

My standard line against passive postflop players is to bet my Ace high on the turn, and check-behind UI on the river. However, against players I play frequently with and I know are solid players I'll be more apt to check behind in this spot because of the decent possibility I'll could be check raised.

[marching_on_together]

I agree with your general points here but you should factor in how likely this person is to 3-bet pre-flop with AQ, there certainly not doing this everytime given your position especially if they have you pegged as a good player.

[QTip]

Sweet post. I need time to digest it a bit more.

Toggle