77 flop 556 turn 6

[beekeeper]

This hand has been on my mind for some time--I think I made the right play--what do you think?

Two weeks ago, playing NLHE, $20 buy-in, tourny format. Blinds: $2/$4. Chip stacks are roughly even at between $250 and $350. UTG+1 and I have about the same stacks.

I hold: 77
I don't recall the suits, but there was never a flush draw out.


UTG: calls
me: raise $10
button: calls
BB & SM: fold
UTG: calls

Flop: 556

UTG: bet $10
Me: raise $30
button: folds
UTG: calls

Turn: 6

UTG: bets $40
Me: raise $60
UTG: All-In

I thought for a while and folded. UTG shows K6 for full house. Dealer turns over next card (they like to rabbit almost every hand in this game) and it's a 7.

My thinking: Even though the UTG is the kind of guy who will call down with a straight draw, I thought his preflop call was questionable for a 34 or 87 holding. If he was on a straight draw, I thought that I would be right to call his all-in, but since I thought he had the full house, I folded.

My question is, should I have considered that UTG could have had either a straight draw or the full house when I evaluated whether or not to call, and if so, how many times would I have had to be correct to make calling profitable?

[Pov]

K6 is a far more questionable holding than 87 so at this point I think you should stop trying to put him on specific hands - he could have just about anything at any time if he'll play K6 UTG when it's still 5 handed. To the list of hands you were considering on the flop, add medium pocket pairs as they are very likely from the way this played to that point. The reason I would not put this guy on a straight draw on the turn is that he showed some agression on the flop (consistent with a straight draw) and then got more aggressive on the turn - that seems to indicate he was helped by the turn while a straight draw would now need to worry that he was drawing dead even if it isn't likely - the point being I would expect him to play a little more cautiously with his draw at this point. The only way he is helped by the turn is if he has a 5, a 6 or a pocket pair of 7's or higher in which case the 6 only helped him in that it wasn't an overcard. I think the best you can hope for is the guy has an Ace in his hand and figures he's got two-pair, best kicker. But with you being the PFR, he would have to think you could have a pair or share an Ace with him so his turn play just doesn't seem likely to be anything other than a full house. But as I mentioned before, if they guy will play K6 I'm not sure how much you can read into anything he does. Folding seems like an okay play to me. Don't sweat the river.

So to your specific questions - yes, you should always consider all the hands that beat you or might beat you and how likely they are. How many times would you have to be correct? Well, that depends on how much it cost to call. Set it up like this:

How much it costs to call: x
Money in the pot: y
Chance of winning: z

Your EV is then:

(z * y) - ((1-z) * x)

If you want to know how big z needs to be to break even, just set the equation equal to zero and solve for z after filling in the real values for x and y.

[beekeeper]

Thanks for the formula--it's what I needed. I know you're right about trying to put him on the hand. I was surprised when he showed me K6. I have trouble betting this guy because if he thinks he's on a draw, he'll call any amount. I haven't found the right amount to make him rethink staying in.

Example: Without going into too much detail, on a night when I hadn't played a hand for a few rounds, and could be perceived as being very tight, I raised with A4s on the button and he was the only caller. When the flop came A46 rainbow, I made a ridiculous overbet (like $100 into a $50 pot) just because I had watched him play and knew he chased 1 outers and the like. He called with A7 of diamonds--of course he caught the runner runner diamond for the flush. His buddy asked him why he called on the flop and he said that he had a straight and a flush draw with an Ace.

He's actually a really nice guy, but he reads a lot about poker (I know this because he's always explaining why he does everything to everyone at the table) and then most of the time wrongly implements what he reads.

[Pov]

Well hopefully I got the formula correct - I was in a bit of a hurry when I typed it, but I think it holds. I'm sure someone will post a correction by tomorrow if I've got anything wrong.

Here's one kind of tough concept for you that may make it easier to play your friend at least mentally. If you read Sklansky's definitive work, Theory of Poker, you can't escape his Fundamental Theorem of Poker. It is simple enough, but it took me a long time to really grasp what it meant. Basically, it boils down to saying the only times you really win anything in poker are those when your opponent makes a mistake. If everyone plays correctly, then luck will make you a winner some of the time and your opponent some of the time and in the end everyone will break even minus the rake. To be a winner you have to win more money than you're entitled to by the cards and one of the primary ways of doing that is by having your opponent make bad calls (while avoiding them yourself).

So in your A4s against the A7 situation, if he had folded to your bet, you would have won the hand, but you actually won *more on average* when he made a bad call than if he had folded. It comes down to that EV equation again. /images/graemlins/smile.gif 100% of $10 is less than 80% of $15. But you lose 20% of the time and that is frustrating. Still, you'd rather have him make a bad call than fold correctly in the long run. I think this is easier to deal with when playing cash games as opposed to tournaments though it still applies to tournament play.

Pound this idea into your head - it's okay for him to call as long as he's making a mistake when he does it. You'll frequently hear poor players say things like "he was going to call anyway" as an excuse for not betting their made hands. Well if your bet would have given him improper odds to call, you're the one making the mistake! Of course you'll frequently want to bet even if he does have the proper odds to chase, but that's another matter.

You'll hear people around here talk about Sklansky Bucks and this is what they're referring to. Making a play that is worth a theoretical amount of money equals that many Sklansky Bucks regardless of whether it won or lost this particular time. After enough repeats your actual earnings will closely match your Sklansky Bucks. If you're confident your play was a good one, then you should be able to shrug off the negative aspects of knowing he caught you this time. You're in it for the long run and if he continues to make those types of plays, you'll eventually take all his money. It is only a matter of time.

[amoeba]

I think I fold to the turn bet.

I don't like the raise for $60 more as you won't fold any hands that beat you and you won't get hands that you beat to call.

if he calls, you'll be very hardpressed to fold to even a small valuebet on the river but that small value bet on the river pretty much pot commits you.

[beekeeper]

You make a great point--one that I'm trying to trust more and more in my play. I'm reading The Theory of Poker right now--could ear-mark every page. I'm trying to put the lessons into practice in my play.

I know you're right about the A7 : A4 play, and 40% of me did want him to call--the other 60% was sure he would suck out.

Many of the books will note that their recommended strategy considers "tough" players. I think the calliber of player that I find in B&M local games is not up to par. I find another Sklansky concept hard to capitalize on in these games, which is, to paraphrase: to try to lose the least amount when you lose a pot and maximize your winnings when you win a pot.

Thanks again for your great insight.

[beekeeper]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I fold to the turn bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

I questioned this myself, but I was still steaming a little from an earlier play where this player made a mistake and sucked out on me. When he bet on the turn I thought he might be betting a straight draw (since this is the way he plays his draws). I didn't take the time to replay his betting from the beginning of the hand till he moved all in.

[amoeba]

I think if he was semibluffing on the flop then your raise caught him and he would try to get to river cheaply.

his turn bet is fairly significant to the size of the pot and he is really charging himself.

granted the 6 is a scarecard for what you are representing which is a big overpair so he might try to capitolize on that but generally this is rare.

I think I would need a good read that villain was tricky before calling or raising the turn.