Interesting Clarkmeister archived post with Ed Miller response

[deception5]

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=791991&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&fpart=all&vc=1

[AlmightyJay]

I'm totally baffled by the play, and that thread doesn't help at all. It's basically people questioning it, and Ed Miller and Clarkmeister saying, "No, this is correct, because we said so."

Could someone explain why check/raising unimproved AK on the turn is right? And in what situations would you make a play like this? I just totally don't understand /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm totally baffled by the play, and that thread doesn't help at all. It's basically people questioning it, and Ed Miller and Clarkmeister saying, "No, this is correct, because we said so."

Could someone explain why check/raising unimproved AK on the turn is right? And in what situations would you make a play like this? I just totally don't understand /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

When there's a reasonable chance you have the best hand, and a very good chance you can get it HU with a hand that is drawing against yours, then checkraising becomes a very favorable play.

Rob

[AlmightyJay]

But without reads, why is there a reasonable chance that A-high is the best hand on the turn? I have a LOT of trouble believing that BOTH opponents are on a draw, especially with CO firing again on the turn. I'm not used to seeing players not take a free card in this spot with a draw. If it was heads up, I'd like it more, but I feel like you're behind too often to make this a reasonable play.

The key word in that sentence was "feel." Make me understand, please /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SlantNGo]

The key points from that are:
1. The pot is big enough that you have to at least call on the turn.
2. CO's raise on the draw heavy board means you don't know whether he is representing a made hand or pumping the pot with draw.
3. EP has most likely a weak made hand or has 6 outs to beat you. Eliminating him significantly improves your winning chances.

From a simplified math perspective, you are getting 8.5 to 1 to call on the turn. Hence, a fold is out of the question. Raising to eliminate EP puts you heads up vs. CO getting 9.5 to 2, i.e. if he is betting a draw a bit more than 20% of the time, you will break even, any more than that, and you're making a profit... that's my take on it.

[PuckNPoker]

I think Ed and Clark explain it rather well. A lot of the time you are actually ahead here (the CO limped here,OEFD & OESD are very likely) and its a big pot. Clearing out a weak made hand or a hand that has odds to call is essential to winning the pot. You're only worried about getting 3 bet, which on the turn would probably only happen by a set, 2 pair, or 34, a very small range of hands. Top pair would go into check/call mode, and you can clear up over card outs (and made hands) like some guy with A6/A5 or 67. I like the play, but honestly I am so weak-tight on the turn with unimproved AK that I've never tried it.

[Quercus]

Great thread - thanks for posting.

[PuckNPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising to eliminate EP puts you heads up vs. CO getting 9.5 to 2, i.e. if he is betting a draw a bit more than 20% of the time, you will break even, any more than that, and you're making a profit... that's my take on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slant said it way better than I and he used numbers and stuff. I bolded the part that I think is the point that Ed and Clark were making.

[Aaron W.]

Thanks for that link.

My first response: "What is this? It's hyperaggressive-I'm-not-letting-you-run-over-my-AK!"
My second response: "Nonsense! Ace-high is no good!"
My third response: "Brilliant."

Lesson to remember:

[ QUOTE ]
But just because something is DIFFICULT or UNCOMFORTABLE does not mean it is UNPROFITABLE.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MrWookie47]

#1 reason this is correct: the pot is big. Large pots justify all kinds of wonky aggressive actions. The reason this is the case is that the larger the pot is, the less often you have to be right for it to be +EV. Could CO be betting a draw here? Maybe. How likely? 50% chance? 40%? 20%? Even if it's 20% that he's on a draw, raising is every time correct because of how big the reward is for your check/raise.

Additionally, if you're one of the other players in this pot, you are going to be hard pressed to push that call button, even if you have a Q. A guy raises preflop out of the blinds, bet/calls the flop, and then check/raises a turn blank? To a thinking player, that looks a lot like AA-QQ, AQ, or maybe KQ. Low pairs are extremely likely to fold, dramatically increasing your chances of winning. Any time you have a chance to increase your chances of winning in such a big way when the pot is large, you should be making this play every time.

Granted, this play is a lot better if you have opponents who can find the fold button. If the players are so loose that they will call 2 BB cold with any two cards, there's a great chance you still have the best hand. If they're the kind of players who will see any showdown if they catch a piece for any number of bets, but only if they have a piece, you're likely in trouble if they call, but you're then faced with an easy river decision.

The thing you have to be careful of when you're looking to incorporate this play into your game is how much you're going to increase your chances of winning. You need to ask yourself what outs you're cleaning up, and what better hands you have a chance of folding. If you can't get the pot HU, AK has very little showdown value UI. Part of the beauty of this play is that Clarkmeister got to face the entire field with two BB. No one had already called one.

In summary, here are the criteria this met to make this a good play:
1. Big pot
2. While Clark said he had no reads, it's reasonable to assume that his opponents (especially 2/4 players) could find a fold for 2 BB cold, even if they had a low pair.
3. High liklihood of getting HU, increasing the chances of not only holding the best hand, but of winning the pot in general, even if you need to hit a 6 outer to win.

[A_C_Slater]

When I move up to the 30/60 I'll be sure to make plays like these in the 2/4 games.

But for now, the variance of plays like that would give me an ulcer.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
Great thread - thanks for posting.
Thanks for that link.

[/ QUOTE ]

No problem, thought it was pretty interesting /images/graemlins/smile.gif

This Ed Miller one was pretty good as well:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=&Number=969383&page=&view= &sb=5&o=&fpart=all

Also found them from this list that someone posted in hush:
http://www.poker.favos.nl/

D5

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
But without reads, why is there a reasonable chance that A-high is the best hand on the turn? I have a LOT of trouble believing that BOTH opponents are on a draw, especially with CO firing again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key point is that you can do this even if you're fairly certain you're behind. There are 8.5BBs in the pot. Can you make a convincing case that this play has _less_ than 20% equity?

On this board it is likely you have 4 clean outs (non-heart A's and K's.) That's 9% equity right there.

If you can fold a small pair in EP it puts you in a good spot. If you can fold both players it doesn't matter whether you're ahead or not. Or, there is a small chance they're both drawing and you're already ahead. Even if there's only a 4% probability of each of these cases, that is 21%.

That said, I think I'd have a hard time finding this situation and doing the right thing.

[therockofgibraltar]

thanks for the links, I learned a lot (so I think)!

[Marquis]

Eh. Why not just three-bet the flop if you think CO is on a draw?

I don't get check-raising one street and not firing on the next.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Eh. Why not just three-bet the flop if you think CO is on a draw?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because 3-betting the flop doesn't get the trapped player out of there.

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get check-raising one street and not firing on the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - If someone checkraises me on a draw-y board and checks the next street when the presumed draw misses, I'm betting that street regardless of what I have and ESPECIALLY if my draw missed too.

Did Clarkmeister ever say whether he'd call a river bet?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get check-raising one street and not firing on the next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed - If someone checkraises me on a draw-y board and checks the next street when the presumed draw misses, I'm betting that street regardless of what I have and ESPECIALLY if my draw missed too.

Did Clarkmeister ever say whether he'd call a river bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to speak for anyone in that thread but I will say that check-raising the turn and then checking the river makes sense. Check-raising the turn is mostly for the purposes of getting the middle player out of there who very likely has a better hand than Hero but will fold a variety of hands when facing two (middle or bottom pair, some middle pocket pair, maybe even top pair with a weak kicker).

Once it get's heads-up on the river, I think betting is fruitless because worse hands aren't calling and better hands aren't folding usually. I would check/call the river there, Villain may actually do us a favor and check through a lot of hands that beat us.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
But without reads, why is there a reasonable chance that A-high is the best hand on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. A-high is likely NOT the best hand on the turn. He made this play thinking there is a good possibility CO is on a draw, but he is also more than likely behind EP. But put yourself in EP's shoes here. You are facing 2 cold on the turn from a preflop raiser/turn check raiser, and also the flop raiser in the hand. If you have a 5 or a 6, or a PP lower than Q, or even a Q with a weak kicker, what is your play? Clark made this play because he needed EP to fold if he wanted a chance of winning this hand without improving.

Now it is very possible that CO has a Q and is not on a draw, and has Clark beat. CO is certainly not going to fold this hand. However, his play is consistent with both a draw and a Q. He only needs to be on a draw a certain percentage of the time for this to be a profitable play.

Make a little more sense?

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
Did Clarkmeister ever say whether he'd call a river bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ed summed it up nicely when he said "It doesn't matter, thats not the point of the post." The purpose of the post was to illustrate the play on the turn. Sure, the guy may win one extra river bet off of Clark occasionally, but often Clark can take an entire pot that he otherwise would not have won. That is the point of the post.