Check-Raising and HEPFAP

[QTip]

This thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2641956&page=4&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1) was the start of an idea that a poster (Flair) had about discussing HEPFAP articles.

Anyway, in that thread we had an example like this:

You're bb with J4o, there are 4 limpers, sb completes, and you check.

The flop comes something like : J72r

sb checks,

At this point, HEPFAP suggested checking and hoping that a LP player bets so we can raise.

Now, the majority of us liked to just bet right there, and I still do.

I continued reading HEPFAP, and the next section deals with check/raising. In this section he talks about things like when you have top pair like Aces, Kings or Queens with an overcard kicker in a multiway pot and you're EP, it's usually correct to go for a check/raise.

Now...that's the last thing in the world I'm thinking about when I have an Ace and hit top pair in EP.

I think this is one of those things in HEPFAP that doesn't really apply to the SS party games against say typical 2/4 opponents. Here's my thinking that I want to throw out here to be discussed.

I understand (I believe) why HEPFAP is saying this. The size of the bet on the flop is just not large enough in these situations to put your opponents in a losing situation in a large or multiway pot. So, we go for a check/raise so that we can do so on the flop.

However, the typical 2/4 player isn't thinking about odds anyway. They may call with something as little as a back door straight draw or even worse. Therefore, we're missing out on a lot of value by risking this getting checked through or giving them free cards. Granted, they may also have a legitamite draw, and their call is not good, and this may make the pot large enough that now they're call on the turn is good as well...things to consider.

However, I'm thinking that for SS games, the majority of our EV comes from just betting and betting and betting. Our opponents aren't generally thinking about odds, so there's no reason for us to go out of our way to manipulate the odds. However, I also know that theoretically, that's the way to take advantage of people...putting them in a lose/lose situation (which is why SSHE talks about waiting for the turn to raise to protect when we think we'll be bet into again).

Anyway...I'm just throwing some thoughts out here to discuss. Basically, I'm thinking that c/ring isn't nearly as important in SS games as it would be against better players. I think we'll lose more than we gain just because we're missing out on so many bad players who will just call our bet with practically nothing but will check it through if we check.

Make sense? Any thoughts?

Thanks.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand (I believe) why HEPFAP is saying this. The size of the bet on the flop is just not large enough in these situations to put your opponents in a losing situation in a large or multiway pot. So, we go for a check/raise so that we can do so on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think it's a lot simpler than this. You have a killer hand and want to get the most money in the pot that you can. In the HPFAP world, the best way to do that is to c/r on the flop.

IMO, this is a great example of something that doesn't apply near so much to online SS.

*In SS you always bet. If you don't, you might whiff the flop. At the HPFAP table, somebody is going to bet and allow you to raise.

* At the SS table a bet will get a bunch of callers with a tiny piece of the flop. At the HPFAP table, everybody knows an EP bet means TPGK or better, so pretty much everyone is just going to fold due to insufficient pot odds.

*At the SS table, you'll get raised and be able to 3-bet some of the time. At the HPFAP table, your opponents are only raising with TPTK or better, since they've put you on a minimum of TPGK.

[chief444]

I check/raise weaker made hands out of the blinds quite often at 2/4. The more multiway a hand is the more likely I am to check. I won't always raise though. But I think this concept definitely applies to loose games.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand (I believe) why HEPFAP is saying this. The size of the bet on the flop is just not large enough in these situations to put your opponents in a losing situation in a large or multiway pot. So, we go for a check/raise so that we can do so on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think it's a lot simpler than this. You have a killer hand and want to get the most money in the pot that you can. In the HPFAP world, the best way to do that is to c/r on the flop.

IMO, this is a great example of something that doesn't apply near so much to online SS.

*In SS you always bet. If you don't, you might whiff the flop. At the HPFAP table, somebody is going to bet and allow you to raise.

* At the SS table a bet will get a bunch of callers with a tiny piece of the flop. At the HPFAP table, everybody knows an EP bet means TPGK or better, so pretty much everyone is just going to fold due to insufficient pot odds.

*At the SS table, you'll get raised and be able to 3-bet some of the time. At the HPFAP table, your opponents are only raising with TPTK or better, since they've put you on a minimum of TPGK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the great response. I should have also added this quote from "HEPFAP" page 78.

"There is another very important reason to check/raise. It may be the most important. It is the fact that in games of today's structure, the bet on the flop is often not large enough, when compared to the size of the pot, to make it incorrect for drawing hands (and this includes hands like middle pair) to call. This means that you should c/r a fair amount of time in an attempt to cut down the odds for opponents to draw out on you when the pot is large. (If the pot is small, you should be more inclined to bet your good hands, your draws and semi-bluffs.)

A good guideline to follow is to consider check/raising when it's unlikely that an overcard can hurt you. That is when you flop top pair and your top pair is Aces, Kings or Queens (with an overcard for a kicker)..."

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
I check/raise weaker made hands out of the blinds quite often at 2/4. The more multiway a hand is the more likely I am to check. I won't always raise though. But I think this concept definitely applies to loose games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're checking top pair when it's aces or kings or queens (with an overcard kicker) though, right?

[chief444]

SeaEagle,

It seems like you're sort of missing the point of this play. It's not with a "killer hand". It's with a decent hand that may be best but you're not sure. If it checks around to a LP opponent who bets then it's more likely your hand is best but it's also vulnerable, especially multiway, so you raise to hopefully get HU against a likely inferior hand. If there is a bet and a raise in front of you then you can get away from the hand easily.

[ QUOTE ]
At the HPFAP table, everybody knows an EP bet means TPGK or better, so pretty much everyone is just going to fold due to insufficient pot odds.

At the HPFAP table, your opponents are only raising with TPTK or better, since they've put you on a minimum of TPGK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Also, I think your impression of HEPFAP type (middle limit...usually decent opponents) games is off.

Chief

[karitek]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think you're checking top pair when it's aces or kings or queens (with an overcard kicker) though, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually SS games have so many people seeing the flop, that it's going to be bet somewhere. So I'm not that afraid of checking.

The problem I see is that you couldnt' make this move often. People are automatically suspicious of an EP raiser who doesn't bet out the flop. If you check-raise them once, even unobservant players would be less inclined to allow you to do it again.

[chief444]

I thought you were talking about TP weak kicker. A/K/Q good kicker is usually a completely different situation. I don't check/raise these too often, no. But in certain situations I will, like if I had say AQo in the BB 5-handed on a Qxx board and LP raise preflop and was certain to bet the flop. Normally I'd prefer to be able to raise a LP bet if I knew or thought that I would get the opportunity.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
If you check-raise them once, even unobservant players would be less inclined to allow you to do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
That could be very good. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think your impression of HEPFAP type (middle limit...usually decent opponents) games is off.


[/ QUOTE ]
You think? I consider myself a HEFAP player. I'm playing mostly 30/60 these days but was 15/30 for a long time. It seems to me that HEFAP is aimed at that level.

If, in a 5-way pot an early player bets out on a Q-high board, I put him on Qx, with x being no less than a T since he's an EP player. If I had, say K9s and the flop was Q9x, I'd give myself less than 4 outs since there's a decent chance EP has KQ. I believe most of my opponents think the same way.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
If, in a 5-way pot an early player bets out on a Q-high board, I put him on Qx, with x being no less than a T since he's an EP player. If I had, say K9s and the flop was Q9x, I'd give myself less than 4 outs since there's a decent chance EP has KQ. I believe most of my opponents think the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
99,xx, TJ, Q9s, flush draw if possible, A9, etc...there are many many other possibilities than just Qx especially if you're playing in a generally more aggressive middle or higher game.

[W. Deranged]

I think that there are a lot of things that are being left out of the discussion of check-raising, or which are among the most considerations and aren't getting talked about much here:

1. Whether or not I was the pre-flop raiser:

If I'm the preflop raiser in early position with a hand like AJ, and the flop comes J high, there is no way I am ever checking. People will expect a bet.

2. Pre-flop Action

If you are not the last person to put a raise in pre-flop, you can count on a bet coming on the flop with a MUCH higher degree of certainty. Whenever pre-flop activity and/or reads can point to a player X that is likely to make a bet, the dominant thought in my mind with a hand like TPGK is "how can I use player X in order to effect my desired outcome" (maximizing the number of bets that go in, protecting my hand, etc...)

3. Number of players in the hand

With any kind of hand that might be kind of vulnerable (including hands like TPTK and two pair), if there are five players on the flop or more, my primary thought is protecting my hand by cutting down the field. If in early position, I will often risk whiffing a check-raise in order to get the added protection from a check-raise. (True, bad players don't think about odds, but they do think thoughts like "I'd play for $3 but not for $6"... you'll hear that all the time in live games).

Here's an example of a similar hand where you are second to act on the flop with KQ and a Q hits the flop:

Case 1: You have KQ under the gun. You raise. A loose MP player and the button call. BB calls. Four to the flop.

Here, I am without question betting out, and it's not even close.

Case 2: You are in the BB with KQ. Three limpers to the CO who raises, button folds, SB calls. You call and all the limpers call. Six to the flop for two bets each. Flop comes Q high and the SB checks.

Here, I think the correct play is a check-raise, and, again, I don't think it's even close. You can expect that the CO has some kind of hand which he is likely to bet, and that it's likely to get checked to him. Namely, you have a very good chance of getting in a check-raise and facing all the limpers with two cold. Considering that: a) you were NOT the pre-flop raiser; b) you can identify where a bet is likely to come from; c) the pot has many players, betting out is I think a very big mistake and a check-raise is the only option.


So, those are my thoughts, usually, and generally I think I've given them in their order of importance. I will very rarely check as the pre-flop raiser if I hit. If I'm not the pre-flop raiser, I'll tend to avoid check-raising if I can't identify the location of a bet. Finally, I'll always be more likely to check-raise a multi-way pot.

[QTip]

I agree with what you have here. However (and I guess this was my problem when reading the HEPFAP text) I don't like the thought in a SS game where...let's say it's like this.

Hero has A8s UTG and limps. 4 more limpers, sb folds, bb checks.

Flop: AT4r

bb checks, hero ?

I'm assuming this is a spot that HEPFAP is suggesting a check. However, we have no reason to believe that anyone will be betting this. Poor player will call here with K5 hoping to get their straight by the river...etc.

I'm betting this every time. Are others here going for a c/r in this spot?

[DMBFan23]

not sure this has been mentioned but against tough opposition there's also the metagame of free cards to consider, that is your opponents might not bet a hand like middle pair against your gutshot with one overcard if he's seen you do a lot of checkraising. he'll be looking for free cards versus you when you check more often because a check could mean great strength - even when he is a favorite against you and should bet. you're making him make the mistake of checking when he should bet and betting when he should check more often that way.

against non thinking players you don't have that balancing factor of getting free cards with weak hands because if anyone has a hand they will bet and if they don't they will check. this may be an argument for check raising your strong hands, actually.

by just betting them out you're making the opponents make the mistake of calling when they should fold. they like making this error, so its usually good to just bet unless you know you can check raise for strategic reasons (ie you're SB and can checkraise button to face the field with 2 cold)

[27offsooot]

I'm betting that every time as well.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]

However, I'm thinking that for SS games, the majority of our EV comes from just betting and betting and betting. Our opponents aren't generally thinking about odds, so there's no reason for us to go out of our way to manipulate the odds. However, I also know that theoretically, that's the way to take advantage of people...putting them in a lose/lose situation (which is why SSHE talks about waiting for the turn to raise to protect when we think we'll be bet into again).



[/ QUOTE ]

I checkraise quite often in these situations. However I modify it. Since almost all the times I am playing a K or Q hand from EP, I have raised, most of the time I am forced to bet.

However, PF I will adjust my play to set up a checkraise on the flop.

For instance say I have a hand like AQs, KQs, KJs from the sb, there is a MP limper and a LP raise. Much of the time I am not three betting here, even though I almost certainly have a PF equity edge (Although if I have a hand that really does not like company, I am three betting). The reason being is because it seems almost 3/4 of the time the PF raiser is firing on the flop.

Another situation is I raise from EP with AKo get a caller in MP, a three-bet from LP. I am most likely just calling, with the intention of checkraising many different flops.

Also even in a limp situation there are plenty of oppurtunites. At 5/10 full it seems that flops rarely get checked through. For instance last night I had a hand that went like this

Hero UTG1 w/ 6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif

PF: Hero limps, MP1 (moderate tight, slightly aggressive AF 1.7) limps, Loose aggressive Button limps, Passive BB checks

Flop: J /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Checked to button who bets, BB folds, I raise...

So the situations are there.

I think in the HEPFAP players setting the assumption is that late position players are going to be doing a fair amount of seni-bluffing, even after a check from the PFR. Whereas in a lot of the games that we play 5/10 and below, checking after raising from LP, runs a high risk of being checked through.

[chief444]

I'm normally betting this. If the board were a little more coordinated and the coordination didn't match my hand...such as AJT or two suited I may check here.

[QTip]

What's more is this.

Let's say I check. A donk to my left bets and then a Tight/decent player immediately after him raises...I can't get away from this hand. In fact, I might 3 bet. /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[W. Deranged]

Q,

I think we actually agree here. I think (and I should have added this) that flops with Aces on them are totally different:

1. At small stakes, player are afraid of flops with aces because they assume that every ace always gets played. It is thus generally worthwhile to bet out with a pair of aces because you are not likely to get a bet later from anyone with a lesser hand. (It's a psychological thing about aces...)

2. Aces are not vulnerable to overcards, so less effort needs to be taken to really protect them (unless there are a lot of medium strength draws that you might be able to fold-out, like gutshots). With a pair of aces my thought is much more about value, and so I think more complex plays are generally not necessary and risk losing too much.

Another thing to consider for this hand is that the pot was unraised pre-flop. I can't identify a likely bettor here.

So, yes, this flop I'm almost certainly betting right out.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm normally betting this. If the board were a little more coordinated and the coordination didn't match my hand...such as AJT or two suited I may check here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...that's probably a good idea, but I'm not doing that at this point (fault). Would you fold that 2 back to you, though?

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you have here. However (and I guess this was my problem when reading the HEPFAP text) I don't like the thought in a SS game where...let's say it's like this.

Hero has A8s UTG and limps. 4 more limpers, sb folds, bb checks.

Flop: AT4r

bb checks, hero ?

I'm assuming this is a spot that HEPFAP is suggesting a check. However, we have no reason to believe that anyone will be betting this. Poor player will call here with K5 hoping to get their straight by the river...etc.

I'm betting this every time. Are others here going for a c/r in this spot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, it comes down to the player types. HEPFAP is not assuming you have a bunch of 34/1/.5 types. If they were to give a statistical example of their typical player, I bet it woul be 24/6/1.8 or something like that.

IT really depnds on how likely the LP pl;ayers are to bet. That is the concept.

To step out of HEPFAP for a second. Lee Jones addresses this issue in WLLH in the checkraising section. This is a spot where his advice is spot on for a loose passive game... I fyou don't have a specific reason to think there will be a bet, you should bet yourself.

IT comes down to what you know about the players and how they have been playing.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I check. A donk to my left bets and then a Tight/decent player immediately after him raises...I can't get away from this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Aces are not vulnerable to overcards, so less effort needs to be taken to really protect them (unless there are a lot of medium strength draws that you might be able to fold-out, like gutshots). With a pair of aces my thought is much more about value, and so I think more complex plays are generally not necessary and risk losing too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the quote from HEPFAP...

[ QUOTE ]
A good guideline to follow is to consider check/raising when it's unlikely that an overcard can hurt you. That is when you flop top pair and your top pair is Aces, Kings or Queens (with an overcard for a kicker)..."

[/ QUOTE ]

[W. Deranged]

Q,

I'm a big proponent of the "two-way check." On your original board, as you said, it is pretty hard to get away from the hand because it is so uncoordinated. If you check and it's too back to you, you're in a very tough spot. If you bet and it gets raised and three-bet behind you, then you may be able to get away from it. So a bet has more informational value than a check on the board from your original post.

On a more coordinated board, a check might be worthwhile because it allows you to get away from the hand for nothing if betting goes crazy behind you and allows you to get a better sense of other players' hands before committing.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say I check. A donk to my left bets and then a Tight/decent player immediately after him raises...I can't get away from this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I feel like he's trying to protect his hand. If he had an Ace with a better kicker, I feel like a decent player raises that PF. The only hand I think I'm behind to write now would be 2 pair with an ace...but probably he's got something like Axs himself, and wants to get HU with the donk.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
"two-way check."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with the term.

[W. Deranged]

I remember that line, but I tend to interpret it slightly differently.

With a Q-high flop holding KQ, I'm not THAT vulnerable to overcards; only an A hurts me. But, there still are obvious cards that will hurt me, so I want to protect my hand. So I check-raise.

With an A-high flop, I'm not vulnerable to overcards, but I am vulnerable to missed bets.

Here's how I think of it:

In HPFAP, Sklansky assumes that player's are playing with a certain amount of competence. Particularly, he's assuming that players are not going to chase on the flop for one bet with nothing but a single overcard A or some runner-runner draws. Hence, he concludes that on hands vulnerable to overcards, betting out is a necessity to drive out one-overcard type hands.

BUT THIS WON'T HAPPEN IN SMALL STAKES GAMES. In small stakes games, the assumption of competence MUST drop. You CANNOT assume players won't chase with junk. In a multi-way pot, the risk of getting nailed by someone chasing with one overcard is very high. Hands that are vulnerable to overcards now demand a HIGHER degree of protection, including hands that are vulnerable to only one overcard (like KQ on a Q-high flop). Hence, vulnerability to overcards in small-stakes games ENCOURAGES me to check-raise, almost exactly opposite from HPFAP, because that is the only way to protect your hand.


Essentially, the best way to read HPFAP in order to apply it to small games is to set up a kind of glossary of "equivalent strength plays":

Mid-High Stakes Small Stakes
Betting Out = Check-Raising
Check-raising = Betting out and hoping to 3-bet

Thoughts?

[chief444]

If it makes you feel any better about folding you'll end up splitting the pot anyway a good portion of the time even when your kicker is better.

A big part of the reason I do like checking TPWK hands from blinds/EP is to see what happens and get away from them in some cases, not just to check/raise LP bets. A8 though is a little different than A2 or A3 here for obvious reasons which is part of the reason I would bet out this hand.

[W. Deranged]

That's probably because it's a term I coined for myself. The idea is that you check a flop with a hand that may or may not be best with the intention of making up your mind after you see all the play behind you.

Often I use it with a suspect top-pair hand. I'll check in early position, planning to raise a late position bettor or fold to a bet and a raise...

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
That's probably because it's a term I coined for myself. The idea is that you check a flop with a hand that may or may not be best with the intention of making up your mind after you see all the play behind you.

Often I use it with a suspect top-pair hand. I'll check in early position, planning to raise a late position bettor or fold to a bet and a raise...

[/ QUOTE ]

So....with your plan, let's change to this hand.

Hero has A5s and limps UTG, 4 limpers behind, sb folds, bb checks.

Flop AT4r

Hero says "two-way check" and checks.

Limper to his immediate left bets, 2 calls, 2 folds, bb calls, hero ? And what's hero's plan on turn for different cards if he's staying?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
than A2 or A3

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously...I've been betting an A flop in a large field with these hands EP...has to be close to 100% of the time. Need to stop this I'm thinking now. But a piece of this has to be a greater sensitivty to flop textures, and I need a better understanding of what and why.

My mind is going back to a lot of conversations we've had in threads about flop textures and adjusting, but I know I've not got the principles down yet on what I want to do when different flop textures are present.

[SeaEagle]

So I was at lunch reading Matt Hilger's book and I came across this exact quiz question:

Q: You limp UTG w/ KQs. 2 more limpers. The CO raises and 4 people see the flop of QT4r. What do you do?

A: Bet.

LMAO. I'd c/r in this situation since I'd expect CO to bet any hand that's checked to him. Hilger says there's too much of a chance of a whiff to try for a c/r. I think Hilger's right (and I'm a donk).

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
So I was at lunch reading Matt Hilger's book and I came across this exact quiz question:

Q: You limp UTG w/ KQs. 2 more limpers. The CO raises and 4 people see the flop of QT4r. What do you do?

A: Bet.

LMAO. I'd c/r in this situation since I'd expect CO to bet any hand that's checked to him. Hilger says there's too much of a chance of a whiff to try for a c/r. I think Hilger's right (and I'm a donk).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not read that yet...

1. I'm raising PF, as we all probably are.

2. I'd go for the check raise there 100% of the time if the hand was played PF the way it was presented.

3. What I'm interesting in know is what if CO just called and we had 4 to the flop in an unraised pot with that flop. I'm betting this everytime. However, HEPFAP players is saying check/raise.

[W. Deranged]

That is a pretty tough situation.

Options would be (I guess):

1. Check-raise flop, lead turn.

I probably prefer this because it allows you to take control of the hand and gives you more information (I think a fold is pretty easy on the turn if you get raised and don't improve). It also may encourage more players to fold the turn since you've shown more strength (I think what you gain from showing strength is more important than the odds distortion that occurs by building the pot... but this is arguable). It also makes the turn easy to play.

2. Call... lead turn (stop'n'go). This is also a pretty good route here, largely for pot-size reasons. Instead of putting pressure in for a small bet on the flop, you wait and use your early position to put it in on the turn, while the pot is smaller and the bet is bigger. Problem here, I think, is you get less information... namely, I don't think you can automatically fold to a turn raise here (though you often will) because you haven't shown enough early strength to define anyone else's hand. Overall, I may prefer this to check-raising, though I think both are good options and the EV difference is probably not huge.

3. Call, check-call.

Lame. I don't want to simply go into call down mode, because I like to maintain some self-respect whenever possible. I'd rather get a raise in somewhere and allow myself to make a more informed decision early. In a very short-handed pot, I might check call the flop and the turn here and then lead the river in a sort of way-behind/way-ahead kind of mode, but that's not the right tack for a multi-way pot.


I doubt anyone here is taking a radically different path: for example, folding the flop or check-raising the turn.

Let me know what you think.

[W. Deranged]

Again, this is not a valuable quiz question for my play because I DON'T GET MYSELF INTO THIS SITUATION. I will raise KQo UTG almost every time (it's certainly +EV for me over about 10,000 hands; small sample size, I know, but I'm pretty sure over my lifetime I'm making money on it). One of the main reasons I do it is so I can play a top-pair type hand against a small field and be able to lead the flop automatically.

Hilger's point is valid, but, as I've said, with some other factors (big field, not being the pre-flop raiser, LP raiser, etc...) I think a check-raise will become correct.

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm interesting in know is what if CO just called and we had 4 to the flop in an unraised pot with that flop. I'm betting this everytime. However, HEPFAP players is saying check/raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is specified that in order to go for a check raise you have to be quite sure that someone will bet behind you. I don't think you can be so sure someone will bet behind you when there's no PFR.

-WT

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I will raise KQo UTG almost every time

[/ QUOTE ]
The value of KQo UTG is very table dependent. I would guess where most of the forum plays it's +EV to raise, and where Hilger plays it's -EV to raise. As I recall, all his quiz questions are from actual play and I think this one was from a 20/40 table.

[ QUOTE ]
Hilger's point is valid, but, as I've said, with some other factors (big field, not being the pre-flop raiser, LP raiser, etc...) I think a check-raise will become correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that if the flop had been Q84 instead of QT4 it would have been correct to c/r (not sure if Hilger would agree since it's not a good question if the answer is that close of a call). At any rate, the whiff factor goes way up because CO will/should take a free card on any two broadway cards that didn't connect, due to the gutshot.

At any rate, the reason I posted this quiz question was mostly to point out that there's no absolute right or wrong in this situation.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
It is specified that in order to go for a check raise you have to be quite sure that someone will bet behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or that a free card won't hurt you. TPTK is a pretty safe hand unless the flop is really coordinated and if no one bets it's not the worst thing in the world.

Specifically, if you're trying to manipulate the flop to make people fold, it can be a good thing. In the example of 4 limpers to the flop, a player faced with 2sb has marginal pot odds to call with a draw as strong as a flush or OESD. If there's no betting on the flop, then flush draws and OESD certainly don't have pot odds to call a big bet.

However, I don't believe you want to manipulate the pot here. Even if all 4 people go to the showdown, you'll win more than 50% of the time. Your edge is so big that you just want people to put money in the pot. It would be a huge mistake to miss several sbs on the flop so you could fold out a player or two on the turn.

[chief444]

I like a check/raise in your example. How often does a QTx flop get checked through when there is a pfr? I'd say not very. And if it does, it's not the end of the world. I think open limping with KQs in pretty much any game sucks though so he sort of lost me there. I don't think I've read his book.

[thejameser]

i have had many a c/r attempt checked through, losing bets to weak opponents who call everything to the river or check everything to the river, either way going to the river. especially against live, weak opponents i have suffered this result. i began to consider it a leak so i leave c/raising in the bag unless the quality of my opponent or the way i played a hand dictates it to be a useful tool. i think there is a place in SSH for check raising, but it is usually a hand involving an opponent that is actually aware that they no longer have profitable odds to call or otherwise understand they are unprofitably behind in the situation. this is all about the reads of your opponents. as a general rule, even with semi-bluffing, i have limited my check raises as many a player that would have called checks it through, thus losing that which we are so fancifully trying to obtain, a bet. or a fold.

[oreogod]

Ive seen a certain kind of thinking going around, and I see it here to some extent.

It does not really matter if you're opponent has an idea about odds or not...if he makes a call without odds, its bad for him and u benefit. He may not know he is misplaying his hand, you do.

Whether he calls or folds, u gain. Sometimes he hits, but against this type of player u gain big time in the longrun. Play your hand how it should be played, whether you opponent is new to the game or not, regardless if he knows or doesnt know the concept of pot odds.

If he has odds, you gain if he folds. If he doesnt have odds, for chasing his gutshot and calls getting 5:1...you gain.

Just because he doesnt fold, doesnt mean u havent protected your hand...you put your opponent into an undesirable, unprofitable situation.

[DMBFan23]

you gain more if he calls with bad odds, with higher variance. you'd start to prefer he fold in the big pots because his calling the two cold becomes more correct.

basically I'm agreeing with you

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
you gain more if he calls with bad odds, with higher variance. you'd start to prefer he fold in the big pots because his calling the two cold becomes more correct.

basically I'm agreeing with you

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutly.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I was at lunch reading Matt Hilger's book and I came across this exact quiz question:

Q: You limp UTG w/ KQs. 2 more limpers. The CO raises and 4 people see the flop of QT4r. What do you do?

A: Bet.

LMAO. I'd c/r in this situation since I'd expect CO to bet any hand that's checked to him. Hilger says there's too much of a chance of a whiff to try for a c/r. I think Hilger's right (and I'm a donk).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not read that yet...

1. I'm raising PF, as we all probably are.....


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I could go either way. Tight game I mix it up with limps and raises. I know SSHE's tight table chart says this is a limp UTG. King Yao's book, he prefers a limp in this position, with a raise being his second choice.

I prefer limping 60-70 percent here on a tight table, Id rather encourage getting some weaker hands in there.

By the way, on Hilger. I dont disagree with this move, but I like check raising here as I believe CO will almost always bet. Add in another player or two, Im betting, as there is a bigger chance overcards will check through...that and I like having a little more control with hands Im in with.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has odds, you gain if he folds. If he doesnt have odds, for chasing his gutshot and calls getting 5:1...you gain.

Just because he doesnt fold, doesnt mean u havent protected your hand...you put your opponent into an undesirable, unprofitable situation

[/ QUOTE ]

There's actually 2 factors at work here. Pot Equity and Pot Odds. This is easiest to explain heads up. In a HU situation, everytime your opponent puts money in the pot with less than 50% equity, you gain, regardless of the Pot Odds. Pot Odds simply defines the point where your opponent loses more by calling than folding and vice versa.

Example. You have a made hand and your opponent has a hand that will draw out on you 20% of the time. Statistically (i.e. in the long run), for every $ he puts in the pot, you get 80 cents and he gets to keep 20. I doesn't matter how big the pot is for this to happen.

Pot Odds come into play when Villian's equity in the pot crosses over the amount a bet would cost him. Let's suppose there's only 3BB in the pot. Villian's share is .6BB, which is what he gives up if he folds. It will cost Villian .8BB to call a bet, so he's better off folding, i.e. he doesn't have the pot odds to call. If there were 5BB in the pot, he would have pot odds to call.

When villian makes the wrong decision regarding pot odds, you make the most, but you still make money any time you make him put money in the pot when he's behind.

Sorry, if I was long-winded on this discussion, but I've seen quite a few posts the last few days that make it look like you're not making money unless you protect your hand, and in a lot of cases, protecting your hand isn't anywhere near as important as just getting villian to put money in the pot.

[oreogod]

Well, that was what I was trying to say, although in the most general sense.

You're ahead, villian is behind, calls without outs to chase his gutshot, 3-2 outer....you gain. He's made the mistake of not folding and is essentially making u money.

Where if he has odds and a chance of drawing out a decent amount of the time u want him to fold. (especially in big pots, where he will usually have odds to draw...and if the pot is big but he doesnt quite have odds, whether he knows it or not, he may have implied odds on his side)

But if he is the type that plays against odds, while u are ahead, with him only having a marginal number of outs...well u dont really mind when he goes against the grain and sometimes hits. Playing a number of hands against him u expect to gain far more than when he gets "lucky"

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
Where if he has odds and a chance of drawing out a decent amount of the time u want him to fold. (especially in big pots, where he will usually have odds to draw...and if the pot is big but he doesnt quite have odds, whether he knows it or not, he may have implied odds on his side)

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted SeaEagle's point to be: we should have a very good reason for foregoing betting when we are ahead. It is nice to protect (because your opponent has to choose between two unprofitable choices); but just because you can't protect doesn't mean you don't bet - when you have an edge, you bet and make him pay to draw out on you, even when he has proper odds to call your bet. So in the situation you describe (Villain has sufficient odds to call), we do want Villain to fold; if he doesn't, we're still making money by betting and collecting his calls (just not as much as if he folds the hand and is done with it).

(I know you and SeaEagle are aware of this - but lots of lurkers may not be).

[SeaEagle]

Heh.

And I hope you noticed the context in which I used Protecting your Hand. It hurt me to type it. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
It is nice to protect (because your opponent has to choose between two unprofitable choices);

[/ QUOTE ]
And not to nit pick, but anytime we make hero choose between calling and folding when we are ahead, we are making him choose between two unprofitable choices. When we are protected, it only means that calling costs more than folding. There are a lot of times, generally short-handed, where my equity edge is so high that I'd just as soon not protect my hand.

Really, protection only has 2 uses. First, it can reduce your variance (at the cost of EV). Anytime you protect your hand heads up and your opponent (correctly) folds, you make less "in the long term" money than if he'd called. However, you also ensure you never get drawn out because you win the pot now.

Second, in multiway pots, a single raise can sometimes force multiple opponents to (correctly) fold. The leverage from getting multiple folds can make a raise correct even if you don't have the proper equity to raise if everyone calls. (This is why you will sometimes see books say "You should raise here even if you think you are losing.")

Note: I'm not suggesting that protecting your hand is in anyway bad, just that it's not usually an end in and of itself; there are not that many situations where you should specifically manipulate the pot to protect your hand. Instead, Protection is usually a by-product of you finding a way to bet enough to face your opponents with a difficult decision.