DHP worthy? Checking an overpair on a 3-straight flop

[sweetjazz]

I don't have PT available at the moment, so I'll have to give the play-by-play from memory.

I am at a good Party 5/10 table. The opponents in my hand are generally loose and passive for this limit. The villain who bet the turn has some TAGgish qualities.

Three people limp in early to mid position and I raise 2 off the button with Q /images/graemlins/diamond.gifQ /images/graemlins/club.gif. One blind calls as well as the three limpers, so there's five to the flop in a 10 SB pot.

Flop is 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 6 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. All check to me, and I check.

Turn is 2 /images/graemlins/club.gif. Blind checks, first limper bets, other two limpers call, I raise, blind folds, the three limpers all call (or maybe one of them folded, I don't rememer for sure).

River is the J /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Checked to me and I bet.

[Padawan Learner]

Sweetjazz:

I would just bet the flop.....I don't offer Ax or Kx free shot at me. Also, checking here could put you to some difficult decisions on the turn.

[jba]

what is DHP?

I would definitely be betting that flop. I can't really think of any arguments for checking there. Can you explain what you're trying to accomplish?

[jason_t]

It is imperative that you bet that flop.

[Wepeel]

OK... you need to bet this flop 100% of the time. This bet is for value and to not give the infinite draws out on the board a free card.

[sean c]

Against loose passives I think your giving up to much value by checking the flop. I understand your thinking behind the wait till the turn to make overcards/gutshots have incorrect odds to call but against these type of players is that really going to work? I doubt it I would save this line for tougher thinking opponents and a smaller field.

[colgin]

Checking the flop here is just horrible. You must protect your hand.

[sean c]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking the flop here is just horrible. You must protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any four out hand has odds to call IMO the bet is simply for value

[thejameser]

[ QUOTE ]
It is imperative that you bet that flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
by not betting you just gave someone infinite odds to draw to any number of hands(including overs)that severly cripple your holding.

[QTip]

Can you talk to us about why you checked the flop?

[sweetjazz]

First, let me begin by saying that I don't know whether the flop check was right, and I am very open to considering it to be wrong (possibly even horribly wrong as some have suggested). That's the main reason I posted this hand.

Let me explain my reasoning. First, despite having an overpair here, I don't have a whole lot of equity in this hand. Any 9, 8, 4, or 3 puts a four straight on the board, a spade puts a three flush on the board, any A or K is an overcard, and any 7, 6, or 5 could make someone trips. There's no doubt that betting the flop does have value, but how much?

As the hand played out, I got much better equity by raising on the turn, with weak draws being trapped for 2 BBs in what was a 6 BB pot after the flop. But that doesn't mean my play was necessarily good. There aren't many good cards for me on the turn -- the best cards would be a Q, J, T, or 2 that isn't a spade. There's only 10 of those cards in the deck (out of 47 possible). And I can't just assume I'm beat and fold if a scare card comes, though I do get a chance to get away from a beaten hand if a scare card comes and its bet and raised in front of me. Say the 3d hits the turn and an EP player bets out and is called by two people before it gets to me. The EP player could have two diamonds, J7, 63, or A4 for all I know. The overcallers probably don't have a straight, or maybe they do and they are waiting to make sure a flush doesn't come on the river before raising. So I have to deal with a fair number of headaches for myself on the turn...to me, an important question is how many of those headaches aren't there if I bet the flop?

In summary,
(1) A flop bet would be for value, but it's not that much value.
(2) If a blank comes on the turn, there's a good chance someone will bet the turn with their one pair, straight draw, flush draw, and I'll have a chance to raise, which will either force weak draws to either put too much money in the pot given their odds or to fold.
(3) If a scare card comes on the turn, the hand gets tricky. But that's probably true regardless of whether I bet the flop or not.

So I fail to see why this is a mandatory flop bet, though I also admit that I have my doubts that checking the flop is better than betting the flop. I'm gonna reread the relevant section in SSHE tonight and see if that clarifies my thought process at all.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking the flop here is just horrible. You must protect your hand.
[ QUOTE ]
Any four out hand has odds to call IMO the bet is simply for value

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course it is also a bet for value. I didn't think it needed to be stated, but I suppose I should have said "you must bet for value AND protect your hand".

While I think the concept of protectng your hand is often overused (that is the concept itself and not the action dictated by the concept, e.g. raising to cut down someone's odds) on these boards and the poker literature in situations where I think pot equity edge is the better concept, giving a free card when you are ahead but vunerable in a multiway pot is a clear case to me of failing to protect your hand.

There are plenty of hands with fewer than 4 outs here: single overcards, hands like JT that need to hit the board twice, etc. Not betting is missing a value bet against someone who will call anyway. But it is failing to protect your hand against someone who would have made a correct fold and to whom you have given infinite odds to beat you. You might prefer that such a person call with incorrect odds but not everybody sucks. People do make correct folds. While you might prefer them to make incorrect calls what you really don't want to do is give infinite odds to someone who is only going to put more money in the pot when he is now ahead (or has picked up a playable draw) as a result of the free card you gave him/her.

There are situations where you risk free cards against such players because you stand to make more money if they pick up a second best hand than you risk losing from the free card. But those situations are rare in a multiway pot and certainly not on this board.

[sean c]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Checking the flop here is just horrible. You must protect your hand.
[ QUOTE ]
Any four out hand has odds to call IMO the bet is simply for value

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course it is also a bet for value. I didn't think it needed to be stated, but I suppose I should have said "you must bet for value AND protect your hand".

While I think the concept of protectng your hand is often overused (that is the concept itself and not the action dictated by the concept, e.g. raising to cut down someone's odds) on these boards and the poker literature in situations where I think pot equity edge is the better concept, giving a free card when you are ahead but vunerable in a multiway pot is a clear case to me of failing to protect your hand.

There are plenty of hands with fewer than 4 outs here: single overcards, hands like JT that need to hit the board twice, etc. Not betting is missing a value bet against someone who will call anyway. But it is failing to protect your hand against someone who would have made a correct fold and to whom you have given infinite odds to beat you. You might prefer that such a person call with incorrect odds but not everybody sucks. People do make correct folds. While you might prefer them to make incorrect calls what you really don't want to do is give infinite odds to someone who is only going to put more money in the pot when he is now ahead (or has picked up a playable draw) as a result of the free card you gave him/her.

There are situations where you risk free cards against such players because you stand to make more money if they pick up a second best hand than you risk losing from the free card. But those situations are rare in a multiway pot and certainly not on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice reply I get what your saying now. Which makes checking all around bad.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) A flop bet would be for value, but it's not that much value.
(2) If a blank comes on the turn, there's a good chance someone will bet the turn with their one pair, straight draw, flush draw, and I'll have a chance to raise, which will either force weak draws to either put too much money in the pot given their odds or to fold.
(3) If a scare card comes on the turn, the hand gets tricky. But that's probably true regardless of whether I bet the flop or not.

[/ QUOTE ]
1) I think it's for more value than you think. Not only do you gain the value on your existing equity, but you'll pick up the bulk of equity on hands that fold too. Why let a single /images/graemlins/spade.gif or weak overcards see the turn for free?

2) But, as you point out, a blank only comes 10/47 times. You're giving a completely free card to all sorts of draws on a 21% chance that you'll be able to raise the turn.

3) Many scare cards are a lot easier to play if you bet the flop. When you check through the flop, people will bet with all sorts of goofy stuff on the turn. After a flop bet, people will tend to be more circumspect with their turn bets.

I don't often say this, but I think the flop check here is horrible.

[sweetjazz]

(1) What do you estimate our pot equity is on the flop?

(2) What is the least scary turn card and action to which you would consider releasing your hand? (A similar question for the river is interesting too, but probably gets into discussing two many different possibilities.)

Say you bet the flop, and the 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif falls on the turn. Are you folding if someone in front of you bets out? What about the 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif? The K /images/graemlins/spade.gif? The A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif? The 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif? If it's checked to you on the turn, which of those cards are you betting? For those which you are checking, are you calling a river bet if a blank hits?

[QTip]

Just because someone has the odds to call, doesn't mean the bet is bad. It's just means that we can't place them in a lose/lose situation. We still want to put preasure on some folks and get them to fold. We want a lot of hands to fold here...even just a lonely overcard needs to get out of our pot.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I think it's for more value than you think. Not only do you gain the value on your existing equity, but you'll pick up the bulk of equity on hands that fold too. Why let a single or weak overcards see the turn for free?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the best reason I have seen given for why to bet the flop. It is a mistake (not in a FTOP sense, but in a good poker strategy sense) for Kx or Ax to call if there x doesn't given them a good straight draw. I'd like to fold K /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif, which should be folded. Even A /images/graemlins/heart.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif should be folded here. That said, I'm not sure whether these hands actually would be folded. Still, there's a big difference in what people will call for 0 bets (anything) and what they will call for 1 bet -- and that difference is much bigger than what they will call for 1 bet but not 2. This is a strong reason for betting the flop.

One thing I don't really understand here is how committed people are to a showdown. Our flop bet only has value if we end up winning at least 1/5 of the showdowns (assuming everybody calls the flop bet). I believe that we will win more than 20% of the time, but not much more. The fact that we are giving infinite odds for draws is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the flop bet is in our best interest or not. The reason stated above gives one reason, in addition to just our basic pot equity, for betting the flop. That in itself might be enough reason to wait and try to get a double bet in on the turn (as there are some risks with this strategy which nobody has yet commented on).

The infinite draw logic is nonsense because it's missing the point. The odds that draws are getting is not our primary concern. Our primary concern is maximizing our EV for this hand. All I will say is that I am pretty sure checking the flop is close in EV to betting the flop. Checking the flop might be wrong, but I think most people who think it is horribly bad are not thinking about the right factors in this decision.

Just my (unpopular!) opinion. Please feel welcome to criticize. (I don't mean to come off as pretentious, especially since I could be very wrong, but I want to make my opinion clear. Nothing wrong with some good debate.)

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) What do you estimate our pot equity is on the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'd run this through PS already so...
With 3 random hands in, you have 32% and they have 22% each. You probably have a little better than 32% since random hands hit this flop better than normally played hands.
But the important part is that you jump all the way to 45% against 2 random hands (you gain 13% and the other hands split a total of 9% between them). Knocking out someone on a hand as coordinated as this one is very favorable to you.

[ QUOTE ]
(2) What is the least scary turn card and action to which you would consider releasing your hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
No offense, but releasing is irrelevant to my point. The premise of your check was that you could protect on the river and I'm only pointing out that 80% of the time your plan isn't going to work and the only thing you'll have accomplished is that you missed a chance to charge draws on the flop.

Say a /images/graemlins/spade.gif turns and someone bets out. You're still winning much of the time, but now you want to get to a showdown as cheaply as possible. And anyone without a strong draw/made hand is folding and you didn't even get them to pay a flop bet to the pot.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a mistake (not in a FTOP sense, but in a good poker strategy sense) for Kx or Ax to call if there x doesn't given them a good straight draw.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think one of the things that are often overlooked in situations like this is that you are making a mistake in the FTOP sense by NOT betting the flop. You make this mistake in order to entice your opponents to make bigger mistakes later in the hand. In this hand, you are only going to get paid off on your mistake 20% of the time. I seriously doubt that's a +EV proposition.

[sweetjazz]

Maybe I haven't made this clear, but the only reason I am checking the flop is to be able to force the field to call an extra BB on the turn.

I am assuming that someone will bet the turn after it got checked around, and I think this is a safe assumption. Though I'd be interested to hear opinions to the contrary. I have no idea where this bet will come from.

I also like the fact that I save 1 SB when a really bad scare card comes that allows me to fold on the turn, but this is not my primary reason for checking, and in fact, this would be a horrible reason for checking by itself.

The logic I used in checking the flop was similar to Ed's logic in waiting until the turn to raise with TT in his "Two Overpair Hands" section. The big difference is that instead of having 1 SB on the flop instead of 2, I am choosing to allow 0 SB go in on the flop instead of 1. This is more dangerous, and it may be why the flop check is wrong.

But I think people are missing the point. Absent the possibility of raising the turn, not betting the flop is really bad, because I obviously have a pot equity edge (albeit not a very big one). Because I have a small pot equity edge that has the potential to become a big pot equity edge on the turn if the right card comes, I think it's worth considering checking the flop.

It might be FPS and I could be a complete idiot for making this play. I'm just disappointed in the quality of responses so far. Here are the two best criticisms I can think of for why checking the flop is bad:
(1) Players will fold a lot of weak hands (single overcard to Qs, bottom pair) for a single bet on the flop.
(2) Because most of the players are passive, there's too great of a risk that the turn is checked around to me again.

I actually think it's primarily reason (2), and somewhat reason (1), which is why checking the flop here is probably wrong. That's the decision I came to when analyzing the hand on my own after my session. But I think it's much much closer than people here are suggesting. It's not even clear to me that people are even considering the benefits of getting an extra bet in on the turn; the only reason for checking the flop is the belief that these benefits outweigh the drawback of giving a free card on the flop. I'm gonna think some more on how to come up with a simple model that can quantify these considerations in a way that is at least roughly on the ball.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
It is a mistake (not in a FTOP sense, but in a good poker strategy sense) for Kx or Ax to call if there x doesn't given them a good straight draw. I'd like to fold K /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/club.gif, which should be folded. Even A /images/graemlins/heart.gif 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif should be folded here. That said, I'm not sure whether these hands actually would be folded. Still, there's a big difference in what people will call for 0 bets (anything) and what they will call for 1 bet -- and that difference is much bigger than what they will call for 1 bet but not 2. This is a strong reason for betting the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a flip side to this as well. I've seen a lot of posts lately that mention not betting/raising, etc, because "people will have odds" to draw. But the thing is, they won't always do so. This is the fundamental theory of poker - you have to give your opponents the chance to make a mistake, one which if the cards were turned up they wouldn't make.

And that's why you have to bet. If someone who DOES have odds decides to fold, that's huge for your equity in the hand. But they can't make that mistake if you don't bet. You want a hand like K5s that missed their flush draw flop to fold, even though they have 5 outs. If you can get an Ace to fold, that's huge too.

I don't mind mixing things up a bit, but I'd actually rather pull a move like this on a ragged flop, not a coordinated one.

Part of the reason is because by waiting until the turn, I think you're going to pay a lot more before finding out that you're beat. Say someone flopped a straight, or two pair. They might have missed a flop check-raise, and now bet out the turn. You're raising a "safe" turn card, and then getting 3-bet on a more expensive street. Whereas if you bet the flop and get check-raised, or if you get check-raised on the turn, it's a little easier to interpret that as a sign of strength.

In the end, you talk about how EV should be the only factor in the decision. Well, you have the most equity on that flop against most holdings, not betting is -EV - period.

[hicherbie]

am i missing something? with 5 in hand i dont see a reason not to bet. if they are loose and passive then why not value bet this hand?

edit: read your reply, imo the hand is much tricker with more villians. seems like a clear bet to me...

[sweetjazz]

There are four hands in, so we have an equity of about 24% against four random hands. That equity edge + possibility of getting a weak draw to fold (correctly or incorrectly) + possibility that the turn does not get bet = better to bet the flop? Probably.

Put in a fifth opponent, and our equity is 18% (just barely over 16.7% for a bet to be break even). With just one more opponent, I think the flop check is correct. That's how close it is in my opinion.

I agree that against two opponents, checking the flop is horrible. Against three opponents, it is bad. Against four it is closer, but probably wrong.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
In the end, you talk about how EV should be the only factor in the decision. Well, you have the most equity on that flop against most holdings, not betting is -EV - period.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only factor is EV for the entire hand. Not betting the flop is -EV overall only if the way the turn and river play out is independent of whether we bet or check. So it's not as simple as you suggest (even if, in the end, betting the flop is best).

You make an interesting point about the possibility of a flopped straight or two pair or set. That should be taken into account somewhat (although not a primary consideration, because of the relative infrequency of it occurring). But I actually think the hand is easier to play if I am raised on the turn than on the flop. Even bad players that are generally passive (in the 5/10 game) often raise draws. If someone check-raises the flop, I assume you plan on calling. If they bet the turn when it comes the 2c, are you seriously folding here? I think I am seeing a showdown at this point, barring a horrible river card. So I'm losing at least 2 BBs if they flop a straight.

OTOH, if I check the flop and raise the turn and get 3-bet, I think I can safely fold against a passive player. So I lose no more than 2 BB and I can safely fold knowing that I am drawing dead. (It's possible I lose more if he just calls with his straight when I raise, as I will value bet a lot of rivers and may even have to pay off a river check-raise.)

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the end, you talk about how EV should be the only factor in the decision. Well, you have the most equity on that flop against most holdings, not betting is -EV - period.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only factor is EV for the entire hand. Not betting the flop is -EV overall only if the way the turn and river play out is independent of whether we bet or check. So it's not as simple as you suggest (even if, in the end, betting the flop is best).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I probably didn't phrase that very well, but what I meant in the end is that I think a flop bet is +EV, so it shouldn't regularly be passed up.

And again, I'm not against switching things up and making moves like this once in a while to keep people on their toes, especially live. If there's one thing I sometimes fault people for on this forum, it's being too rigid in recommending ONE specific way to play a hand in many cases.

I still bet the flop though on this one. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
the only reason for checking the flop is the belief that these benefits outweigh the drawback of giving a free card on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll look at what you come up with, but I'm going to be really, really pressed to believe this. A free card here sucks something very, very serious.

[sweetjazz]

Thanks to sean c for pointing this out to me.

On pages 171-172 of HPFAP, there is an overpair given in which it is argued that checking the flop is best. I'll give the hand and the recommended play. I won't print the reasons because
(1) you're supposed to own a copy of HPFAP and I don't think it appropriate to post a large amount of copyrighted material.
(2) some of the assumptions made in the book may not be applicable to loose no foldem holdem found online.

You have AA on the button and the pot is large and multiway. Flop comes Jc 8s 7d. Everyone checks to you and you...check. The plan is to raise the turn provided it's not a T or 9.

This hand is significantly different than the one posted. For one, there are only weak draws (other than one pair + gutshot possibilities which is not overly likely). In my hand, there were several big draws (OESD, flush draw) and my raise on the turn was not enough to knock out anyone with these draws (if they are playing correctly).

Notice that in the HPFAP example, you are giving up much more pot equity on the flop by not betting than in my example.

My hand is significantly different that I cannot conclude that David and Mason would approve of the line I took. Nevertheless, perhaps this is food for thought and it does give an example when the best play is to check the flop even though you have a large pot equity.

[QTip]

IMHO, your hand difference is more significant than the board difference in this example.

There are no overcards to AA and therefore free cards are a bit less devestating.

[sean c]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, your hand difference is more significant than the board difference in this example.

There are no overcards to AA and therefore free cards are a bit less devestating.

[/ QUOTE ]

QTip I agree but if you look at the two hands you have risks with both. IN the OP hand our biggest risk is giving a free card to someone holding an overcard that would have correctly folded to a flop bet or giving a free card to someone making two pair on the turn and river that would have correctly folded to a flop bet. Evey other draw out likely has odds to correctly call a flop bet. In the HPFAP hand example we have a rainbow flop so our biggest risk in giving a free card is giving someone a free card with a BD flush draw who would have correctly folded to a flop bet or giving a free card to someone who makes two pair on the turn and river who would have correctly folded to a flop bet. I think there are risks in both hands. If I am wrong or completely missing something flame away but this is how I see it.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, your hand difference is more significant than the board difference in this example.

There are no overcards to AA and therefore free cards are a bit less devestating.

[/ QUOTE ]

QTip I agree but if you look at the two hands you have risks with both. IN the OP hand our biggest risk is giving a free card to someone holding an overcard that would have correctly folded to a flop bet or giving a free card to someone making two pair on the turn and river that would have correctly folded to a flop bet. Evey other draw out likely has odds to correctly call a flop bet. In the HPFAP hand example we have a rainbow flop so our biggest risk in giving a free card is giving someone a free card with a BD flush draw who would have correctly folded to a flop bet or giving a free card to someone who makes two pair on the turn and river who would have correctly folded to a flop bet. I think there are risks in both hands. If I am wrong or completely missing something flame away but this is how I see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

At this point, I don't care if someone has the odds to call or not. I want them out of them out of the hand. They can't do that if I don't bet.

[QTip]

oh...the big draws you're talking about can call a turn bet even if the flop gets checked through anyway.

The more I think about this, the worse I think checking this flop is.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
You have AA on the button and the pot is large and multiway. Flop comes Jc 8s 7d. Everyone checks to you and you...check. The plan is to raise the turn provided it's not a T or 9.

This hand is significantly different than the one posted.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's enough different to be apples and, um, crab apples.

Sklanksy notes 8 scare cards; you have 37. As a result, Sklansky is able to divide his opponents into two groups: those who aren't folding the flop and those who aren't a threat.

In Sklanky's hand, he's not really worried that he could have folded someone on the flop who'll end up drawing out on him. In this hand, there are all sorts of hands that will fold to a single bet on the flop that you would like gone. In particular, you'd like any club to fold or any Ax or Kx to fold. Granted, some hands like AQ are going to incorrectly call a flop bet, but some hands like KJ or KT will probably muck.

But the most important factor here is that in Sklansky's hand, he's going to be willing to bet/raise over 80% of the time - 4 times the amount you are. Even if we don't consider fold equity, he can give up 4 times the EV on the flop and still catch up to you in EV on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that in the HPFAP example, you are giving up much more pot equity on the flop by not betting than in my example.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really true because what we're giving up is the difference between our equity on the flop and our equity on the turn. AA has a very high equity on Sklansky's flop and there aren't many turn cards that will impact that equity. Specifically, folds aren't as important to him (i.e. he gains less equity from a fold). In fact, folds are less than half as valuable to him as they are to you. It's not just the EV you get from the value bet, it's the EV you get from folding out opponents against your extremely vulnerable hand.

I realize there's probably nothing I can say to make you look at your play in a different light. You happened to catch one of your 21% good cards. You also happened to get a great situation where a bunch of extra bets went into the pot and your hand held up. I just can't help but wonder if you would have posted this hand as an example of good play if one of the 80% scare cards came off - or when running clubs came off and some lucky guy with J/images/graemlins/club.gifTx took home a nice pot.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have AA on the button and the pot is large and multiway. Flop comes Jc 8s 7d. Everyone checks to you and you...check. The plan is to raise the turn provided it's not a T or 9.

This hand is significantly different than the one posted.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's enough different to be apples and, um, crab apples.

Sklanksy notes 8 scare cards; you have 37. As a result, Sklansky is able to divide his opponents into two groups: those who aren't folding the flop and those who aren't a threat.

In Sklanky's hand, he's not really worried that he could have folded someone on the flop who'll end up drawing out on him. In this hand, there are all sorts of hands that will fold to a single bet on the flop that you would like gone. In particular, you'd like any club to fold or any Ax or Kx to fold. Granted, some hands like AQ are going to incorrectly call a flop bet, but some hands like KJ or KT will probably muck.

But the most important factor here is that in Sklansky's hand, he's going to be willing to bet/raise over 80% of the time - 4 times the amount you are. Even if we don't consider fold equity, he can give up 4 times the EV on the flop and still catch up to you in EV on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that in the HPFAP example, you are giving up much more pot equity on the flop by not betting than in my example.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really true because what we're giving up is the difference between our equity on the flop and our equity on the turn. AA has a very high equity on Sklansky's flop and there aren't many turn cards that will impact that equity. Specifically, folds aren't as important to him (i.e. he gains less equity from a fold). In fact, folds are less than half as valuable to him as they are to you. It's not just the EV you get from the value bet, it's the EV you get from folding out opponents against your extremely vulnerable hand.

I realize there's probably nothing I can say to make you look at your play in a different light. You happened to catch one of your 21% good cards. You also happened to get a great situation where a bunch of extra bets went into the pot and your hand held up. I just can't help but wonder if you would have posted this hand as an example of good play if one of the 80% scare cards came off - or when running clubs came off and some lucky guy with J/images/graemlins/club.gifTx took home a nice pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

SeaEagle....awesome!

[Grease]

The difference between this hand and the HEPFAP hand is that in this case, the turn can present some very unsavory cards for your hand and you don't have position on everyone. (Not sure the pages, but it has AKo flopping TPTK).

Bet the flop and collect your fair share of the equity.

[PokerBob]

IMO betting this flop is mandatory.

[sweetjazz]

Thanks for this reply -- it is a really great analysis of the situation.

First off, I was very lucky in what turn and river cards fell. And I definitely realize that while I got a very good result this time as the cards played out, that my flop check might well have been wrong. That's why I am posting this hand. The main reason I am trying to argue for checking the flop is not that I am certain it is right, but that I think it is really valuable for myself to make sure I truly understand whether it is right or wrong. I am leaning now to it being wrong, though the more people who were in the pot, the more likely I think it would be right.

Let me continue to play devil's advocate a bit, because while I think you bring in a lot of important things to consider, I do think you are overstating some aspects of the hand.

First off, I think you are greatly overestimating how many scare cards I have. I have 10 cards which are completely non-scary (even though, of course, they could make someone a freak hand -- e.g. the 2c could have made a bad player sixes and twos). Just as Sklansky doesn't worry about the board pairing in his AA example as producing scare cards (even though that might make someone trips), I have 9 more cards which are probably pretty good for me. Yes, I could be behind trips and drawing slim, but I'm in a fairly similar situation to what Sklansky would be if the board pairs on the turn in his AA example. What to do when that happens involves playing poker.

Also, a non-straight spade or an overcard is not necessarily that bad of a card for me. If someone leads into me when one of these cards falls, I might raise anyway (depending on my read). If I get 3-bet, I can safely throw my hand knowing I am beat. If I am ahead, I put a lot of pressure on draws to fold and may end up creating new outs on the river. Even a passive player may fold A4o if they are facing two bets when the Js hits the turn.

So while I agree that S & M will be in better position to raise the turn more often than I will, my plan for the turn is not to turn into a complete vag if one of my 10 "perfect" cards doesn't fall. It will take a lot of discretion and good judgment to play it correctly, but I'm raising the turn more than 20% of the time.

I also think that while it is important to consider the value of Kx or Ax folding on the flop, keep in mind that it is only helpful if everyone with that overcard folds and that overcard is the only thing that causes us to lose the pot. So if KJ folds but K8 calls (which any K8 is going to do), we haven't gained much of anything. Also if the board comes K - 8 on the turn river, then knocking out KJ (assuming it is the only K held among the active players in the hand) is likely going to be irrelevant in that we are going to lose on the river anyway 95% of the time.

I certainly agree that there are bad things that can happen by checking the flop. And I know that what happened in the actual hand was much better for me than what I can normally expect. That is why I think the decision is tough. I think the key to the analysis is that we must evaluate not just the bad things that can happen on the flop, but also what strategic benefits there are to playing the turn differently.

Lastly, while I may be disagreeing with you or trying to argue against your line, I really appreciate your insights into the hand and I am sincerely trying to reevaluate the play. I am no doubt biased in certain ways, but I am trying to look at this hand as objectively as I can. I acknowledge that I underestimated some of the drawbacks of checking the flop when I played this hand; I'm just still struggling to figure out how bad these drawbacks are and whether I really benefit by waiting until the turn as much as I think I do.

I do agree that if I am going to play scared when 37 of 47 possible cards fall on the turn, then I am not going to get much back here. But my plan for the turn -- even though I can't articulate it completely in a case-by-case manner -- is to try to play selectively aggressive poker. Depending on where a bet comes from, the passivity of that opponent, and what the turn card is, I'm going to consider folding, calling, and raising. If I bet the flop, I'm going to consider things just as carefully, but I'm most likely only going to have the choice between checking or betting more often. Also, S & M advocating folding the turn if a straight card hits and you're bet into -- that advice my differ if they were thinking of a Party game. But depending again on who bets out that can be right. At the same time, I don't know that I would advocate folding if any 9, 8, 4 or 3 came, but I would certainly consider it. And in the times when I fold this correctly, then I benefit from not betting the flop.

So in the end, it comes down to dealing with the overcards and flush cards. I don't think I can just fold the turn if one of those scare cards comes. I also don't think I am forced to just call a bet if one of these scare cards comes; I might very well raise the turn, with the intention of reevaluating whether to fire a river bet if checked to depending on what happens after the turn raise and what river card comes. There is some risk to this. Maybe the turn comes the Ah, it gets checked to the person to my right and he bets. I think I should raise here, putting pressure on the people behind me who may fold hands like one-pair or a gutshot or an OESD to the dummy end (or may be incorrect to call two with these hands). I can easily fold if the turn gets 3-bet. Then I have to figure out what to do on the river. Suppose a blank like the Tc hits the river; do I value bet if checked to? What do I do if the turn bettor donkbets the river in front of me? if someone else donkbets the river? This is the kind of hand where the turn and river decisions seem to get tough for me, especially given that Party players will from time to time make ill-considered bluffs into big fields that have virtually no chance at working for them -- but might get the best hand to fold.