Raising with a Flush on the End

[centja1]

Here is a hand I played on AP the other day. No particular reads on villain at the time since this was on my first orbit at the table.

I worked out some quick and dirty math and I'm pretty confident that raising with the second nut flush on the end is a positive EV play. I simply called his check raise on the turn because I wanted Villain to bet again on the river if he was bluffing.

My question is where is the dividing EV line between calling and raising on the end with a flush and could anyone who is well versed in EV math post how you come up with this answer? I figured that raising with the queen high flush if he always called was positive EV, but wasn't quite sure how to take into a account the times he is bluffing or will re-raise, which i figure is a disaster for a queen high flush and even a large percentage of the time for the king high flush.

Anyway, I'm very interested if anyone has some insight to share.


Absolute Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB : Villain checks.

Flop: (5.50 SB) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
Villain checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, CO checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Villain calls, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, CO folds.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Villain checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Villain raises</font>, Hero calls.

River: (7.25 BB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Villain bets</font>, Hero ???.

[Entity]

1) .5/1 goes in micros.
2) 3-bet the turn. Call a cap.

Rob

[Clarkmeister]

3-bet the turn. Failing that, raise the river.

[centja1]

Is there no merit to calling the turn and allowing villain to bluff one more big bet on the river and then raise?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there no merit to calling the turn and allowing villain to bluff one more big bet on the river and then raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because usually he's not bluffing. If he's bluffing it's a great line, but usually he has 2pr or a smaller flush and you're missing bets against those hands in general. Also, when a /images/graemlins/heart.gif falls, you're killing the action you'll get unless he has the A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, at which point you've gotten less money into the pot when ahead and more in when behind.

Rob

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there no merit to calling the turn and allowing villain to bluff one more big bet on the river and then raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, there's merit to that.

[Clarkmeister]

It's not as bad as you make it out. But I aree that raising the turn is superior.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not as bad as you make it out. But I aree that raising the turn is superior.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was terrible, I just think that in general you'll be faced with people who have worse hands willing to go extra bets on the turn more often than people who are trying to bluff-checkraise you.

Rob

[RatFink]

If you 3-bet and call a cap, he still bets on the river which you can call.

If you 3-bet and he calls, you bet the river when he checks.

If you call the turn raise and he bets the river and you raise, what do you do when he 3-bets because you showed weakness on the turn.

3-betting the turn makes it easier to play for me.

[W. Deranged]

You have to basically weigh the following two probabilities:

Prob. A: Villain is bluffing, will bluff the river, and fold to a turn raise.

Prob. B: Villain has a solid but not spectacular hand, which he would call down with but may not lead the river.

Prob. C: Villain is drawing to a big heart (the A), in which case he will call a turn raise but not lead the river and not call a river bet.

In case A, you gain a bet by calling the turn and raising the river. In cases B and C, you gain a bet by raising the turn immediately.

In the other clear cases, the two will have similar outcomes; if your opponent does have a flush, he will likely lead the river and call a river raise if you call the turn, or call down a turn raise and a river bet if you raise the turn. So that's a push. There are other situations to consider but I think the two above are clearly the drivers.

So, the decision comes down to which you think is more likely: your opponent bluffing all the way down or your opponent checking the river if you call the turn.

This is pretty read dependent. Against a really laggy opponent, maybe you could argue that it's more likely he's bluffing than raising a marginal hand he'll check on the river. Against standard opponents, it's unrealistic to expect the check-raise, lead bluff sequence all that often. It will generally be much more likely your opponent is raising a decent low flush or non-flush hand or getting overly aggressive with the nut draw.

[centja1]

I can see that re-raising the turn is the best line for the majority of cases when getting check-raised.

For the second part of the question, though, what is the line to take if you've re-raised the turn and no fourth flush card falls on the river? If your opponent calls your river bet, then I think your winning chances are probably good, but how about when you get check-raised again? How often is your king high flush good in this case and is it good often enough to "call for the size of the pot"?

Essentially, does a bet on the end have positive EV taking into account all of these situations?

[Frogic]

I think it sounds like you lost to the nut flush and are being results oriented. You have the second nut hand, and he could easily have a lower flush or this being low limit could have something really dumb. I don't think the question is if calling is + or -ev but if you should consider putting in the third bet.

Frogic

[Roland19]

I say raise the turn and river until your hands fall off, and if he has the nuts, go kick a puppy.

[W. Deranged]

Letting up here on a non-threatening river would be playing much too weak-tight. Three-bet the turn, raise the river even if he caps-leads, and consider slowing down only if you get three-bet on the river. Remember... people like flushes, and would cap-lead with hands a lot worse than the second nuts.

[centja1]

In the actual hand, I raised his river bet and he three bet. I went to four bets because I showed weakness on the turn to induce a bluff.

In this one particular situation, it appears that the results justified my playing the hand this way because he in fact folded for the four-bet. I suppose he decided to run a bluff at me on the turn and got emboldened when i simply called his raise instead of three-betting. I'm going to lose my faith in people if he didn't have the ace of hearts in his hand and kept betting because he knew i couldn't have the nuts.

However, I agree with everyone saying continue to raise until my hands fall off (turn included). I had assumed this guy was standard (and not completely donkish as it turns out) and i really felt queasy making it four bets on the river with the second nuts when the betting war didn't break out until the third flush card came.

Thanks for all of the replies, everyone.