Follow the Hero.... we only know his showdown

[Luv2DriveTT]

This was a hand played by a fellow Trout who was sitting to my left. He is a good solid player, an amazing analyst. I doubted his play only based on what I saw on the river, what do you think he started with based on his betting patterns?

Saint John ($1/$2 Triple Draw 2-7)
Powered by UltimateBet
Started at 21/Jun/05 21:02:54

A is at seat 0 with $92.50.
B is at seat 1 with $89.25.
HERO is at seat 2 with $105.75.
D is at seat 3 with $122.50.
E is at seat 4 with $129.50.
F is at seat 5 with $39.
The button is at seat 0.

B posts the small blind of $.50.
HERO posts the big blind of $1.

A: -- -- -- -- --
B -- -- -- -- --
HERO: ?? ?? ?? ?? ??
D: -- -- -- -- --
E: -- -- -- -- --
F: -- -- -- -- --

First Round:

D folds. E folds. F folds.
A calls. B folds. HERO checks.


HERO takes 1 card. A takes 2 cards.

A: -- -- -- -- --
HERO: ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Second Round:

HERO bets $1. A calls.

HERO stands pat. A takes 1 card.

A: -- -- -- -- --
HERO: ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Third Round:

HERO bets $2. A calls.

HERO stands pat. A takes 1 card.

A: -- -- -- -- --
HERO: ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

Final Round:

HERO checks. A checks.



Showdown:

HERO shows 9s 7c 6s 4d 3d.
HERO has 9 7 6 4 3.
A mucks cards.
(A has 9c 8d 5s 4c 3s.)


Hand #6646385-225 Summary:

$.25 is raked from a pot of $8.50.
HERO wins $8.25 with 9 7 6 4 3.
TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[timprov]

7643 probably. I like it.

[The Armchair]

[ QUOTE ]
7643 probably. I like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That'd be my guess, too. I'd also put 9643 as a possibility -- you don't want to pitch the 9, because you are out of position and have very few draws that can help you if you do: 87, 85, 82, 72. (Both 52 and 75 give you straights). If you keep the 9: 2, 5, 7, 8 all improve you -- that's a lot of cards, and if you hit, you can get your opponent to keep drawing by standing pat.

[dibbs]

7643 For el hero it feels like.

A start with 345???

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
7643 probably. I like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Hero didn't like this hand at all, so now the question is what did the Hero have that he hated his play so much?

I think it was 9347 or 9346.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[randomstumbl]

Normally, if I had 9643x I'd just keep the 43. Since this is heads up, I could possibly see drawing at the one card nine instead of the 3-card draw though.

Still, this is exactly how I would play 7643.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

The Hero didn't like this hand at all, so now the question is what did the Hero have that he hated his play so much?


[/ QUOTE ]

The only hand to hate here is 9743.

[randomstumbl]

Actually, you make a good point here. The limper is announcing that he has a crap hand by limping. Raising here is probably correct with 7643.

I don't know how I'd actually play 9643. If you call, you announce that you're drawing rough. So, I'm thinking I'd just end up raising because you're not far behind if you are and it disguises your hand.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you make a good point here. The limper is announcing that he has a crap hand by limping. Raising here is probably correct with 7643.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you pretty much have to keep the pot small, as you're very unlikely to make a hand you want to show down. I'd much rather get an early fold with this hand.

[randomstumbl]

Wouldn't most people just draw two to 743?

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say you pretty much have to keep the pot small, as you're very unlikely to make a hand you want to show down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that your argument is that you'll increase fold equity more by keeping the pot small. My counter-argument is that some of the time you'll have better fold equity by representing a better draw than you really have.

Also, I think it's important to think about what the other player has and how they make decisions. What hand would you limp on the button with? I can't think of anything a reasonable player would do that with. So, the player is probably not a thinking player and probably has a three card draw.

To summarize my thoughts: I'll take a prop bet any day of the week with my 7643 against someone's 72 or 23 or whatever. Also, I figure this opponent is most likely loose passive and I can probably make better decisions than them after the draw. Additionally, this will discourage the player from limping when I have total crap in the blinds.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I see that your argument is that you'll increase fold equity more by keeping the pot small. My counter-argument is that some of the time you'll have better fold equity by representing a better draw than you really have.


[/ QUOTE ]

The other half is, I'd like my opponent to be making mistakes later in the hand if he's drawing against my probable made 876, nine, or ten.

This is very much a win a small pot or lose a big one hand.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you make a good point here. The limper is announcing that he has a crap hand by limping. Raising here is probably correct with 7643.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say you pretty much have to keep the pot small, as you're very unlikely to make a hand you want to show down. I'd much rather get an early fold with this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I raise from the big blind with a heads up button limper if I have 7643. I do not want a small pot in this scenario, although in many other scenarios you would be absolutely correct.

I think you were watching a hand I played earlier today when I had 82345 and I was first to act. I was pat on the 1st draw, but I checked before the second draw from late position. Since the pot was small, I wanted to keep it small to encourage him to suck out, or fight with an inferior hand. Essentially I was representing a hand like J9542 by checking in that position. He of course bet the third draw, allowing me to get in my check-raise once I knew I induced the bluff. Keeping the pot small in the beginning in this situation allowed me to gain more bets at the end.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[MarkGritter]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you make a good point here. The limper is announcing that he has a crap hand by limping. Raising here is probably correct with 7643.

[/ QUOTE ]

7643 _is_ a crap hand OOP. /images/graemlins/smile.gif 4 outs to one of the worst possible 8's and (in most situations) 2-3 outs to #2. Reverse implied odds out the wazoo.

I did indeed have 7643. I'd be fine stealing with this hand but I don't like defending, because I'm really not sure how to play it OOP. (For some reason I didn't remember this hands as HU, but TT did fold.) I would fold this to a raise and reraise. Getting the 9 on the first draw didn't make the decision any easier.

I didn't feel like I had much fold equity against the button here, if I remember correctly.

I would be more comfortable ditching the 6 here and drawing two, but that's probably only correct with more players if at all.

Let's look at keeping the pot small: (Math geekery ensues.)

If villian has 8532 after the first draw, he's got 10 outs to beat my 9 after the first draw (3 7's, 3 6's, 4 2's.) (I ditched a 4, no help there.) About 42 unknown cards, but two of them obviously didn't help him, so his odds are 30:10, 3:1.

He is getting 3.5:1 on the first draw, so the immediate odds are correct. After the second draw he is getting 3.25:1 which is also enough to call (he needs 2.9:1.)

Or, to calculate it another way:

With two draws his chance of making a hand is 10/40 + (30/40)*10/39 = 44%, odds are 56:44 in my favor, about 1.3:1. If there isn't any betting after the last draw (or if I fold to a bet) he is risking 1.5 BB to win the 1.25 in the pot plus my 1.5 BB. Thus he needs odds of 2.75:1.5, or 1.8:1, and his chances are better than that.

If I had raised the first round he is risking 1.5 BB to win 2.25 + 1.5, or odds of 2.5:1.

So, in this particular situation villian had odds to call with or without a raised pot. But, if Villian were still drawing two, 1.8:1 isn't nearly as attractive.

1.8:1 is a between 7 outs twice and 8 outs twice (w/ a 40 card stub.). So villian is certainly going to be able to call a bet in a 2.5 SB pot if he improves, but not if he misses. 2.5:1 is about 6 outs twice, which might be enough to take a second draw. So there is some benefit to keeping the pot small, but not enough--- raising is probably better.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

1.8:1 is a between 7 outs twice and 8 outs twice (w/ a 40 card stub.). So villian is certainly going to be able to call a bet in a 2.5 SB pot if he improves, but not if he misses. 2.5:1 is about 6 outs twice, which might be enough to take a second draw. So there is some benefit to keeping the pot small, but not enough--- raising is probably better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the key is forcing him to call at 2.25 to 1 after the second draw, which he can't profitably do even with eight outs. If he does start with a three-card draw, he's in really bad shape throughout the hand if you don't raise, but only needs to improve one card each time if you did.

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
If he does start with a three-card draw, he's in really bad shape throughout the hand if you don't raise, but only needs to improve one card each time if you did.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's safe to assume that the opponent isn't going to notice if they're getting correct odds or not. Given that assumption, I'd raise whenever I think I'm a favorite.

Oddly enough, your line of thinking (which is certainly valid in situations with a thinking opponent) keeps reminding me of doubling cube decisions in backgammon.

[timprov]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's safe to assume that the opponent isn't going to notice if they're getting correct odds or not. Given that assumption, I'd raise whenever I think I'm a favorite.

Oddly enough, your line of thinking (which is certainly valid in situations with a thinking opponent) keeps reminding me of doubling cube decisions in backgammon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thing is, it doesn't really matter if he notices. Not giving him correct odds is win/win: either he folds and gives you the pot, or calls incorrectly and gives you equity.

I did come to poker from backgammon, so that's not surprising.

[randomstumbl]

Okay, here's what I think is the flaw in your argument. If my logic is the one at fault, feel free to let me know.

You have a choice of him making a mistake of a certain percent on every street. If you give him a free pass on the first street, his later errors have the same absolute value, but are no longer compensated by the size of the pot.

So, the argument for keeping the pot small is that folding equity makes up for the loss. Or are you arguing that your ability to play later streets more correctly will punish him when he calls and allow you to get out cheaply when you should?

[timprov]

We really need a way to estimate early equity in this game.

I think that if I were for some reason to limp on the button with 27, I would be better off if you raised me with 7643 than if you just checked.

This is just intuitive at this point, but I think that as the pot grows larger, the advantage of being a card ahead is reduced, and the advantage of position is increased.

[randomstumbl]

[ QUOTE ]
We really need a way to estimate early equity in this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree with this point completely. I have an argument in my head about why raising is better, but I wouldn't be all that surprised to find out I'm wrong.

The more I think about how you'll have to call bets on later streets with rougher hands, the more your idea seems correct. On the other hand, I still have a problem believing that doubling a -EV bet is overall +EV by making later decisions more complicated in a HU limit game.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
as the pot grows larger, the advantage of being a card ahead is reduced, and the advantage of position is increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Triple Draw quote of the day. Excellent work Timprov!

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as the pot grows larger, the advantage of being a card ahead is reduced, and the advantage of position is increased.

[/ QUOTE ]

Triple Draw quote of the day. Excellent work Timprov!



[/ QUOTE ]

You sure give you a lot of awards... how do these folks collect their trophies?

(Live TD at the usual place next Tuesday?)