WA/WB

[chopchoi]

I've this term, WA/WB written all over the place. I know it means that you're either way ahead or way behind. For example, if you defend your BB with Ax, and flop an ace, you're way ahead of a big PP, but way behind a bigger ace.

What I don't get is that when people say "you're WA/WB, so you should (act in a certain way)," they almost never bother to explain why the fact that I am WA/WB means that I should act as they say. For example, if I am in the situation I described above with the weak ace, and someone says "you're WA/WB, so just check." This isn't telling me anything more than if he simply said "just check." I still don't know why I shouldn't bet.

Is there a standard way to play a WA/WB situation that I don't know about, so that someone telling me that I'm WA/WB should be enough for me to understand the rationale behind the advised action?

[cold_cash]

Think "Win the most, lose the least".

Usually this means simply calling or betting when checked to.

If you raise and you're way ahead, he might fold, which sucks.

If you raise and you're way behind, well, that sucks too.

Also remember who your opponent is. If he's a tool who will never fold, or a tool who will barf chips, you should probably re-think your approach to the hand.

[kapw7]

Most of the times ppl in micros use WA/WB as an excuse to play passively. You are better off at micros forgetting about this b/c you are usually WA and not WB. I think this is a difficult line that can be played correctly and thus be EV+ by more advanced and experienced players.

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
You are better off at micros forgetting about this b/c you are usually WA and not WB.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the italics may be true, the bold certainly is not.
The game is $1-$2 and you have

A/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif

in the big blind. All fold to the small blind who completes and you raise, and the small blind calls. Small blind is loose, but passive preflop, yet becoming aggressive postflop with any marginal hand, while showing tendencies to back down against aggression. There are two players to the flop, four small bets. The flop is

A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif T/images/graemlins/club.gif 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif

The small blind bets. What do you do? Certainly the WA/WB lind has merit in micros.

[cold_cash]

I agree to a certain extent, but I don't agree that it's a difficult line.

Much of the reason why it's misapplied is because a lot of players who are trying it out fail to think about the specific opponent they're up against.

Let's say you open for a raise UTG w/ AQ and are 3-bet and isolated by an over-aggressive retard. The flop comes down Ace high. What to do?

How would this situation be different if instead of an over-aggressive retard, the 3-bettor was a tight, aggressive, solid player?

In the second scenario you're likely way ahead or way behind.

In the first, you're likely way ahead.

[Disconnected]

[ QUOTE ]
Think "Win the most, lose the least".

Usually this means simply calling or betting when checked to.

If you raise and you're way ahead, he might fold, which sucks.

If you raise and you're way behind, well, that sucks too.

Also remember who your opponent is. If he's a tool who will never fold, or a tool who will barf chips, you should probably re-think your approach to the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. To add a little more detail, WA/WB is when your heads-up, and your actual line will depend on whether you're in position or not, and on reads.

When I'm OOP without a good read, to win most, lose least, a lot of times I'll check/call on the flop and turn. On the river, I'll bet, most of the time calling a raise. The theory of the river bet is to not let it get checked through those times you're WA.

[deception5]

Here's a pretty thorough post on the subject:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=2206499&PHPSE SSID=&fpart=1#Post2206499

[kapw7]

Maybe I was overdramatic saying "forget this line". My point was that it is very easy by less experienced players to be missapplied ending up in costing you missed bets. I can easily find too many posts in the micro thread with ppl missaplying the line most common mistake being to try to play this multihanded. No doubt that it is a valuable line in the arsenal of every player micro or not.

Your example: This is an easy turn (or river) raise (?)
Correct me if I'm wrong but the WA/WB line is not always defensive. Sometimes it can cost less to find out if you are actually WB or not.

[shadow29]

Overaggressive players will raise here. They reason, "I have top pair, therefore I bet and raise." However, this play is not always correct. There is a large likelihood that you have the best hand

here. Moreover, given your read, a raise might result in a call-fold line taken by your opponent, thereby winning the minimum. A line of call-call-raise may allow you to win the maximum, while simultaneously losing the minimum against an ace with a better kicker.

http://tinyurl.com/7o3xm

[kapw7]

Interesting link. But it looks inaccurate. I also suggested to wait for the turn or river to raise but this looks more like a WA line. We invest 3.5BB to win 4.5BB (assuming he will fold the river bet when behind).

If you worry you are behind then raising the flop might be better. If you get reraised or bet again on the turn then you are probably behind and fold. So you invest 1BB (or 1.5 when you call his reraise - but not a great idea) to win 2.5BB. Does this look like the best play to make sure you win the most and lose the least?

Check the mathematics for any mistakes.

[Fantam]

My understanding of WA/WB situations is that presumably you should bet/raise to try to get a better idea of whether you are ahead or behind in a hand.

So you would continue in the hand if you were only called, but probably fold if raised.

I liken it to the idea of a probe bet in no limit, which is a smallish bet designed to draw an opponent into either folding if he has nothing, or raising if he has a legitimate hand.

I see from other posts that check/calling may also be appropriate for WA/WB situations.

I suppose the correct decision depends upon the particular circumstances in each hand.

[no1super2001]

[ QUOTE ]
My understanding of WA/WB situations is that presumably you should bet/raise to try to get a better idea of whether you are ahead or behind in a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with betting to get information on your hand in the micros is the information that you get. In nearly all cases checks, calls, bets and raises will clearly indicate to you that the player has 2 cards on the screen in front of them and little more. I think we have to consider our hand strength, reads on the other players and the pot size in determining the correct play in a given situation.

I may be wrong, but I just do not think that some of the more sophisticated strategies are applicable to the micros.

FWIW.

[DMBFan23]

there are a couple sections in HPFAP that discuss this line.

in one section, they mention that if you have a top pair of Aces or Kings, with a weak kicker heads up, it is often right to check and call because you don't have to call a raise if youre behind (ad you keep him betting his 88 or qhatever if you're ahead). we usually apply this to people who have re-raised us PF, because as low limit players we are not used to players showing aggression - we need some kind of evidence that checking is not missing value bets, and a pf three bet from our opponent gives us that.

HPFAP mentions the pf re-raise scenario specifically when they talk about pairs in the hole, they use QQ as an example and say that if you are three bet before the flop, be prepared to simply check and call all the way. we are obviously going to go to war with a set, and a lot of times we can bet the river after check-calling the turn (we also might have to check raise somewhere to force out some middle player) but heads up, we don't really care about giving free cards.

and that's the third time they talk about that. they mention somewhere in the loose games section (I don't have it with me) that it's not the strength of your hand that merits a slowplay, its how often slowplaying will cost you the pot. so you should look at your likelihood of being drawn out on IF you currently have the best hand. again this mostly applies heads up, and it's kind of the definition of WA/WB. the example they gave is you have KK, raise and the BB calls, and he bets into you on an Ace high flop. you're heads up, so protecting your hand isn't an issue, and besides there are no draws, and raising will slow him down if he has a worse hand, which is the key component of the line.

taking a line merely to save bets isn't usually the way to play, but when it also wins you the most when ahead, it's definitely worth considering.

of course, this is all opponent dependant. if you know that an opponent's turn bet means a certain thing, like he has the top pair beaten, (that is one HELL of a read) then you have to modify things.

you can read about a hand which pretty much started the craze on the SS and micro forums here (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=&Number=993638&page=&v iew=&sb=5&o=&fpart=)

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]

Your example: This is an easy turn (or river) raise (?)
Correct me if I'm wrong but the WA/WB line is not always defensive. Sometimes it can cost less to find out if you are actually WB or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

often times it does cost us less to find out if we are behind. it would also be great if we could combine that with making the most when we are ahead.

if we have A9 on a Axx board and we were three bet preflop, we could bet the turn and probably not get raised except by an A (better kicker since he three bet). we might get raised more often on the flop, but a flop raise will often mean ace better kicker too.

but, the problem isn't only confined to finding out we're behind. how do you expect him to respond with KQs or 99 if we bet the turn? how about if we just check the turn? by checking we let him bet to try and force us out, and we also make it more likely that he'll call a river bet (if he is not paired he might catch his pair, or if he has TT-JJ he probably won't call turn and river if we bet both, but he'll call a single river bet-out).

I agree that it's often misapplied

[GoHoosiers]

The best explanation of WA/WB that I have seen is you are basically going to put in one bet on every street. Whether that means check-call if you are first to act or simply calling (and let Villian keep betting into you) if last to act.

If you are WB you only lose 1 bet per street. If you are WA, you win 1 bet per street (which is the most you'll win because a raise will shut your oppoinent down)


Rich