Betting Strategy & Stack Sizes

[GrunchCan]

Live 5/5 NL, $200 Max buyin.

Hero is on CO with A/images/graemlins/spade.gifT/images/graemlins/club.gif.

All fold around to Hero, who opens for 15. All fold to BB, who calls the $10.

Flop comes: T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2/images/graemlins/club.gif Pot is now $35.


Opponent makes a reasonable bet, say $25. Pot is now $60.

What does hero do in the following scenarios? I'll post my thoughts in white.

Scenario 1 : Hero has $100 remaining, Opponent has $1k

<font color=" white">Rasie all-in.</font>


Scenario 2 : Hero has $1k remaining, Opponent has $100

<font color=" white">Rasie another $25-35, pot-committing opponent</font>

Scenario 3 : Hero has $100 remaining, Opponent has $100

<font color=" white">Rasie all-in.</font>


Scenario 4 : Hero has $1k remaining, Opponent has $1k

<font color=" white">Make pot-sized raise, around $110 to go.</font>

[swolfe]

push, push, push, call

by the way, since you're heads up scenarios 1-3 are essentially the same thing. the only consideration may be the capped rebuy, but losing $100 from $1K shouldn't deter you from making the play.

EDIT: nevermind, scenario 2 is a little different. i think i'd call in that case. the turn pot will be big enough that villain will either push his stack in or, if he checks, i'll push.

[GrunchCan]

Why just call in the 4th scenario? I'm inclined to give a flush draw bad odds. Is that wrong?

[bizaff]

Scenarios 1-3 are basically the same. Stacks are small, you hit TPTK. Push.

Scenario 4: I raise to about $100. Funny how this looks a lot like 1-3.

[bizaff]

Why is 2 a little different? He's committed and you're not?

Hmm, I guess if you interpret this to be stack sizes AFTER Opponent's bet, it may be slightly different. Is this what you're referring to?

[amoeba]

because the odds you give flush draw is so bad that flushdraw will never call which is what you want them to do, while you lose a lot more to a set or 2 pair.

[bizaff]

But if your choices are between letting the flush draw draw nearly correctly or folding out the flush draw and winning what's there, don't you choose winning what's there? If you just call the flop and he bets the turn and river 2/3 pot, do you call?

My line is raise to $100, then pretty much shut down unimproved, calling a reasonable river. This no g00t?

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
because the odds you give flush draw is so bad that flushdraw will never call

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. Why do I want to give a flush draw proper odds to draw to the flush? Don't I want them to either fold thier flush or make a mistake by calling?

[amoeba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because the odds you give flush draw is so bad that flushdraw will never call

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. Why do I want to give a flush draw proper odds to draw to the flush? Don't I want them to either fold thier flush or make a mistake by calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want them to make a mistake by calling. I don't want them to do the correct thing by folding. both can't be correct.

I'll put it this way.

if he always folds the flush draw but calls with a set, your push is a colossal mistake.

it is -EV to the max.

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why just call in the 4th scenario? I'm inclined to give a flush draw bad odds. Is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Morton's Fork

this guy is leading into the preflop raiser, you're either ahead of a single draw or TP-lower kciker, slightly behind a good combo-draw, or far behind a set/overpair. he's already given himself bad odds for any single draw and i don't like raising with the worst of it.

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is 2 a little different? He's committed and you're not?

Hmm, I guess if you interpret this to be stack sizes AFTER Opponent's bet, it may be slightly different. Is this what you're referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]
in cases 1-3 we have slightly less than a pot-szied raise in our stack. in scenario 2, a pot sized raise would leave villain with $15...pushing wouldn't be too big of an overbet, but could let hands i'm beating get away..in which case i'd rather call and see the turn.

[amoeba]

[ QUOTE ]
But if your choices are between letting the flush draw draw nearly correctly or folding out the flush draw and winning what's there, don't you choose winning what's there? If you just call the flop and he bets the turn and river 2/3 pot, do you call?

My line is raise to $100, then pretty much shut down unimproved, calling a reasonable river. This no g00t?

[/ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by shutdown?

I typically call here because I have position and while I might be giving him some odds to call with flush draw, I also won't be paying off that much.


the problem is the exponential growth of potsize.

lets say I raise to 100 in case 4. he calls. pot on turn is 250.

he bets 100, I can't fold can I? can I forseeably see a flush draw play this way trying for cheap river? sure...Do I raise again? if I raise to 300, and he calls.

by river pot size is 800 and he value bets for 250....now what?

lets say I call his 100 turn bet, by river, potsize is 450.

he leads out for 200, call again? fold?

notice how despite all bets being small relative to potsize, they are actually quite sizable.

whereas if I had just called his 25 flop bet, potsize on turn is 85. if he checks, I can bet 50 and still give bad odds for flush draw. if he bets 30 looking for cheap river, I can raise to 85 without being potcommitted on river. I have more options.

The only problem with my way is if you are playing somebody who'll push the river with huge overbets on bluffs as well as nuts.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because the odds you give flush draw is so bad that flushdraw will never call

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the point. Why do I want to give a flush draw proper odds to draw to the flush? Don't I want them to either fold thier flush or make a mistake by calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want them to make a mistake by calling. I don't want them to do the correct thing by folding. both can't be correct.

I'll put it this way.

if he always folds the flush draw but calls with a set, your push is a colossal mistake.

it is -EV to the max.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't push in #4 - I made a pot-sized raise.

This gives the opponent about 2:1 odds on a call. In this case, the opponent is getting 110:170, slightly worse than 2:1, and just bad enough to make calling with the nut FD wrong.

If I'm against a set, it will make itself known at some point down the line and I'll either be able to get away or be given correct odds to continue.

So here's the situation so far. If they have a FD and call, I'm fine with that becasue it's Sklansky bucks. If the have a FD and fold that's fine, b/c I just won the pot. If they have a hand I beat and call that's fine, b/c I'll usually win the SD. If they have a set or 2 pr and continue, that's the worst situation for me but also the least common, and I've already lost all I'm going to lose.

[amoeba]

you must count the implicit odds for 2 streets rather than the actual odds.

just because you call his flop bet, doesn't mean you have to check the turn when he checks to you.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
he bets 100, I can't fold can I? can I forseeably see a flush draw play this way trying for cheap river? sure...

[/ QUOTE ]

(Emphasis mine)

Ok, I guess this is the crux of it. When I was reading your post, I was thinking that most of the opponents I have been playing recently would not play this way. But if I was playing against a tougher opponent - one who I knew would play a FD this way - I would have that read going in to the pot, and I'd play just the way you describe: just call the flop.

Interesting.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
push, push, push, call

[/ QUOTE ]
This is correct. If you think you should 3-bet the 4th hand, it's because you play limit and not no limit. Also, don't play in stupid games with 40BBs. Blah.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think you should 3-bet the 4th hand, it's because you play limit and not no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unhelpful. It's pretty likely that you know that I'm a limit player. I know you're smart, and by my post I'm sure you can deduce that I'm trying to learn NL. I have already commented on why I made the play I made. If you think that's wrong, then tell me why it's wrong. Not just that it is.

Also, I didn't '3-bet'. I made a pot-sized raise.

[amoeba]

notice in this hand you have the great benefit of position.

notice how tough this hand would be to play out of position.

you bet the flop for $25, he raises himself to $100, you both have $1k left.

now what?

top pair type hands while deep stacked and out of position against an aggressive opponent is the hardest situation in NL Holdem.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
you bet the flop for $25, he raises himself to $100, you both have $1k left.

now what?


[/ QUOTE ]

(I'm guessing that you are hypothesizing that I'm UTG and the villan is on the button here)

Good question, I'm glad you asked it.

For me, this becomes very player-dependant. If my read on the opponent is that his raise is very likely to be a semi-bluff, I would be very inclined to punish him for it. I might triple his bet, or move in if triple would cripple me. If my read is that he's conservative and would only make this move on a made hand, then I would be inclined to get away and look for a better situation. It just seems like I'm risking a lot to win only a little. If the player is totally unknown to me, I'd usually take the safer route and get away. I don't see myself ever just calling down.

I could be making nothing but mistakes here, though.

[amoeba]

well thats the point of the excercise. There are no good answers here. IMO, it is the hardest situation in NL holdem.

the problem is if you 3 bet for 3x, if he is good, then villain will semibluff 1/4 of the time and the other 3/4s he'll have something that beats top pair.

if you are going to 3 bet, I would suggest you 3 bet with nothing hands as well assuming it is headsup to the flop. the bluff reraise.

another option is if its headsup to the flop, sometimes I'll check the flop there with top pair despite the obvious flush draw as the chances of him having the corresponding draw is not that high and if I can induce a bluff later, it would be good. I also avoid a street of betting and thus control potsize.

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
If my read on the opponent is that his raise is very likely to be a semi-bluff, I would be very inclined to punish him for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is your read, a stop-n-go on a blank turn would be a better play. it controls pot size and charges th draw to see the river. also, if you're raised here you can reassess since it's less likely that a draw would raise both the flop and turn.

[amoeba]

yes thats another good option I've forgotten about.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I didn't '3-bet'. I made a pot-sized raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

cap

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is if you 3 bet for 3x, if he is good, then villain will semibluff 1/4 of the time and the other 3/4s he'll have something that beats top pair.

if you are going to 3 bet, I would suggest you 3 bet with nothing hands as well assuming it is headsup to the flop. the bluff reraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just increased the complexity of NLHE more than anything else I've read in I don't know how long. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Now the question is how often do I need to bluff-reraise in order to make my triple bet +EV?

[GrunchCan]

How much on the 'go'? Offer the opponent worse than 4:1?

[swolfe]

my philosophy on 3-betting (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=ssplnlpoker&amp;Number=2773090 &amp;Forum=,,,,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=2&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main=2773 090&amp;Search=true&amp;where=bodysub&amp;Name=21637&amp;daterange =1&amp;newerval=1&amp;newertype=w&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bod yprev=#Post2773090)

[swolfe]

[ QUOTE ]
How much on the 'go'? Offer the opponent worse than 4:1?

[/ QUOTE ]

half-pot to 75% is my usual turn bet. on a stop-n-go, i'll err towards the higher side to make extra sure that i'm not going to get bluff raised off of a hand.

[bizaff]

Ok, I can dig it. Pot control is your primary concern with a TPTK hand. He gave himself bad odds if he's drawing with a single draw, and your call controls the size of pot. If he draws out, so be it, you'll give up the ghost.

[ QUOTE ]
what do you mean by shutdown?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd fold to a turn bet, and either check behind or call a not big river bet. When I compare this to your pot control line, I like it better than the raise on the flop.

Your goal with this type of hand is to not pot commit yourself. Thanks for the insights.

[ QUOTE ]
whereas if I had just called his 25 flop bet, potsize on turn is 85. if he checks, I can bet 50 and still give bad odds for flush draw. if he bets 30 looking for cheap river, I can raise to 85 without being potcommitted on river. I have more options.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he fires a bigger bet, you can safely fold, assuming he's got you beat, not that he detected weakness by your call rather than raise?

[GrunchCan]

Good post, thanks for the link. I see now that when NL people say 3-bet, it refers to a HU re-raise. Never heard the term used in this context before.

[amoeba]

what do you mean by bigger bet?

like pot sized?

or like huge overbet?

[bizaff]

I was thinking pot sized. I suppose that's a little weak. I'd fold to an overbet.

I guess that falls back to reads. Against a really aggressive player, call down. Against a rock, probably fold.

[puzzlemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
well thats the point of the excercise. There are no good answers here. IMO, it is the hardest situation in NL holdem.

the problem is if you 3 bet for 3x, if he is good, then villain will semibluff 1/4 of the time and the other 3/4s he'll have something that beats top pair.

if you are going to 3 bet, I would suggest you 3 bet with nothing hands as well assuming it is headsup to the flop. the bluff reraise.

another option is if its headsup to the flop, sometimes I'll check the flop there with top pair despite the obvious flush draw as the chances of him having the corresponding draw is not that high and if I can induce a bluff later, it would be good. I also avoid a street of betting and thus control potsize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, my brain just exploded a little bit.

Are you doing this so that he knows that you'll 3-bet with absolutely nothing, as well as with hands that beat him, so that he'll call the 1/4 of the time you have him beat?

Doesn't that leave you even more pot-committed and equally unsure of what your opponent has?

Please explain... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[amoeba]

its not something I recommend often. Usually I like the call the flop raise, lead the blank turn line.

My point is. lets say you raised preflop, he calls.

you bet whether you've actually paired or notto continuation bet, he raises.

you know he can make this move on the flop with either draw semibluff or a monster like a set.

you also know if you 3 bet, he'll fold the draw, and of course call or push with the set.

In this case, I would recommend that you 3bet even if you don't have a pair.

here is the reason.

on the flop, he is semibluff raising. He figures, you will probably fold something like missed AK and you will allow him to see free card with overpair.

If you know he'll fold his draw to a 3bet, then you must make the 3bet with more than just when you pair.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think you should 3-bet the 4th hand, it's because you play limit and not no limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unhelpful. It's pretty likely that you know that I'm a limit player. I know you're smart, and by my post I'm sure you can deduce that I'm trying to learn NL. I have already commented on why I made the play I made. If you think that's wrong, then tell me why it's wrong. Not just that it is.

Also, I didn't '3-bet'. I made a pot-sized raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
It wasn't meant to be unhelpful, it was meant to point out that this is a fundamental difference between limit and no limit and since you're trying to learn no limit, it would be good for you to think about why I'm saying that.

[GrunchCan]

This thread has been far more helpful than I expected it to be so far. One of the big things I'm getting from it so far is that controlling the size of the pot is a major consideration with moderate hands. I never really thought of it as being so important, but i can see why it is. In limit, its very much a secondary consideration becasue your losses in limit are, well... limited.

[TheWorstPlayer]

That is quite correct. In limit, you can make plays like raising the flop for a 'free' card because the bets are only half the size as on the turn. And if you get 3-bet, you can cap for a 'free' card. In no limit, raising for a free card is not really possible very much at all. If you're raising a draw, it is a semi-bluff, hoping that they will fold. If they call, you might take your free card, but your main goal is to get them to fold. In limit, your main goal is to slow them down so that they check the turn through. If they fold the flop, great, but it's not really anticipated. And in limit, if your free card play doesn't work, you will at worst have cost yourself one BB since you'll have to pay 3 on the flop instead of the initial 1. In no limit, however, if you get re-raised on the flop, they can raise so much that it will be incorrect for you to draw and you will have to fold a hand that may have otherwise been playable (taking implied odds into account).

Similar concepts apply to marginal hands like TPTK. You can 3-bet the flop if someone raises because they may be raising a draw. But in no limit, if you 3-bet and they are not raising a draw, it is an incredibly expensive mistake. So you should only re-raise if you are fairly certain that they have a draw and not a better made hand. The same fundamental poker concepts apply to no limit as to limit, of course, but due to the fact that there is no difference in betting on different streets (except for pot equity and size of pot) there are some plays which don't really work as well. Raising the flop with a draw is certainly one of them. Whereas it is standard practice in limit, in no limit it is a rarity (particularly multi-way, which is again opposite of limit) and therefore re-raising with marginal made hands is also rarely correct in no limit, whereas it is standard practice in limit. Good luck, and definitely post some more hands.

[puzzlemoney]

[ QUOTE ]
its not something I recommend often. Usually I like the call the flop raise, lead the blank turn line.

My point is. lets say you raised preflop, he calls.

you bet whether you've actually paired or notto continuation bet, he raises.

you know he can make this move on the flop with either draw semibluff or a monster like a set.

you also know if you 3 bet, he'll fold the draw, and of course call or push with the set.

In this case, I would recommend that you 3bet even if you don't have a pair.

here is the reason.

on the flop, he is semibluff raising. He figures, you will probably fold something like missed AK and you will allow him to see free card with overpair.

If you know he'll fold his draw to a 3bet, then you must make the 3bet with more than just when you pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. Sounds good. But, our theoretical skilled opponent semibluffs or bluffs at a "correct" frequency of 25% bluffs to 75% betting his big hands, so that when we 3-bet him for 3x the pot, giving him 1:3 pot odds, it works out even for him, right (and for us)?

So even if we 3-bet every time, it'd come out even for both of us, wouldn't it? Or are we addressing simply the fact that his 25% bluff rate works massively in his favor if we just call?

My question was just about how raising with nothing (as opposed to raising with a hand, not as opposed to calling/folding) ever work in your favor vs. a perfect bluff rate, which I assume it can't. And if his bluff rate is 25%, we'd be correct to raise 3x the pot every time.

Right?

[crosse91]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising the flop with a draw is certainly one of them. Whereas it is standard practice in limit, in no limit it is a rarity (particularly multi-way, which is again opposite of limit) and therefore re-raising with marginal made hands is also rarely correct in no limit, whereas it is standard practice in limit. Good luck, and definitely post some more hands.

[/ QUOTE ]


i habitually will bet/raise weak bets with my flush draws and occasionally with straight draws (never reraise a strong bet)

is this then incorrect?

also, i raise more often with stronger draws obviously (top pair plus flush draws, etc...)

here's a hand from earlier today where i think made the correct call mathmatically-i just don't like making it..

I need to get much better at the math part of this game.....

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

CO ($87.25)
Button ($93.2)
SB ($100.65)
BB ($62.9)
UTG ($49)
Hero ($95.5)
MP1 ($98.5)
MP2 ($98.9)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif. SB posts a blind of $0.5.
UTG calls $1, Hero calls $1, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, BB checks.

Flop: ($3.50) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets $3</font>, UTG folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $10</font>, BB calls $58.90 (All-In), Hero calls $51.90.

Turn: ($127.30) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

River: ($127.30) Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players, 1 all-in)</font>

Final Pot: $127.30

[TheWorstPlayer]

Even if the call is correct, is the raise correct? You have a monster and you are certainly ahead of one pair. But does he lead out like that into multiple opponents with one pair hands frequently? Perhaps it is fairly likely that in this limped pot, he has hit a set or a straight here, in which case you are not ahead, he is not folding, and there is no point in raising?