Playing like a maniac (or continuing with the semi-bluff)

[King Yao]

4-handed. Caution: I don't recommend playing the way I played this hand on every street.

Yao is UTG with Th7h. Yao raises*.
Only the Big Blind (BB) calls. The BB is an average player.

Flop: 9c 5d 4s

The BB bets. My opinion is that typically when an average player donkbets, it means he has middle or bottom pair or a draw. In this case, I think he has something like 76, 32, or a 4 in his hand. On the other hand, I have absolutely nothing. So I raise. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Seriously, even though I should not have raised pre-Flop (I should have folded), raising on the Flop in the face of the donkbet is a good play. I take control of the pot and don't allow him to win it unless he hits his hand. He is an underdog to hit his hand, so if I am right that he is on a draw, I have positive EV in raising and betting on the Turn and the River. I do know I will fold if I get check-raised on future streets. I'm comfortable he will not check-raise unless he's hit two pair or a straight. Although he may call me down with any pair (thinking I have AK), I think he's more likely to be holding a draw based on his donkbet - otherwise he would have been more likely to check-raise on the Flop with bottom pair.

The BB calls my raise.

Turn: (9c 5d 4s) 8c

Well, if he had 76, I'm in trouble. But I do have 4 pure outs against a straight and 3 other outs to split the hand. If I'm up against a pair, I could have as many as 14 outs now. 8 outs for the straight (6 or J) and 6 outs for a pair of T or 7.

The BB bets again!
And I raise again!

OK, is this too aggressive? Am I playing like a maniac now? Not only did I make a negative EV play by raising pre-Flop, but I raised on both the Flop and the River. Who the hell do I think I am? I sent myself an email on this hand after the hand because I thought this was an interesting decision. Was it correct to raise? Should I have folded? I do have outs, probably many outs. If I get re-raised, I know I'm in trouble, but I still need to call to see if I hit a straight. Looking back, this semi-bluff on the Turn is probably negative EV. I am actually risking 3 bets by raising, even if I don't get re-raised on the Turn. That's because I have now forced myself to bluff on the River due to the large pot that I've created. Compare this to just calling and meekly folding on the River if I miss. I'm risking 3 bets as opposed to 1 bet. Looking back, this raise is neg. EV in shorthanded games. My opponent is too likely to call with any pair.

The BB calls.

River: 3c

The BB checks. I bet.

I have absolutely nothing. The only chance I can win this hand is by betting. I have created a rather large pot by my raises, so it is now worthwhile to bet again. If I get called, I'm going to look like a dumb schmuck. But I may win the hand. This is the clearest play in all of the hand. I think any other part of this hand could be debated except for the River bet. A common problem is semi-bluffing on the Turn, but not hitting on the River. Should you bet on the River again? Should you check? It depends on the opponent and the hand. In this situation, I have absolutely no chance of winning the pot if I don't bet, and I had built the pot to a relatively large one, so a bet is definitely worthwhile.

He folds. I win. Yippee.


* Yes, this raise is not a good idea, and it is negative EV. So why did I raise? Because I do have a weakness of being too loose/aggressive pre-Flop at times. Those times are usually when I am bored. In order to improve my game, I should try to cure myself of pre-Flop raises like this and keep it to a bare minimum. Someone point me to the local Maniac's Anonymous, I should attend a meeting once in a while.

[Alobar]

On this particualr board I disagree with you on the number of times he is holding a draw vs. some shitty pair/A high. Here I think its much more likely hes holding a weak made hand. So when he donks on the turn, on one of the cards that completes one of the few draws he has, or sticks him with a pair on some of the draws he had. Then I don't like the raise for all the reasons you stated. You are commited to 3 bets regardless of what happens (your river bet, or his turn 3 bet). I take the odds I'm given and call, and then meekly fold the turn when I don't hit.

river, I agree is a bet. And all isnt lost if you get called, you'll have a nice image to exploit /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Getting donkbet is the part of my game I struggle with the most, I have the hardest time figuring out when to be aggresive and when to be weak and fold.

[Alyssa]

I like it.

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, even though I should not have raised pre-Flop (I should have folded), raising on the Flop in the face of the donkbet is a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh?? That's a pretty big call to make; there's no flush draw on this board for him to be betting. IMO raising this flop is a pretty average play.

[Victor]

this is sickening. you say yourseld in your own article that you make a few -ev plays. why? dont make those plays and your winrate will improve. this whole bit is drivel. do you actually think you can consistently outplay pp players?

[Willluck]

FPS? Maybe, but your book still kicked ass.

BTW, I don't think you won much "real" money by making this play, but it is fun to mix it up a bit, huh?

[imported_ncray]

[ QUOTE ]
The BB is an average player.

Flop: 9c 5d 4s

The BB bets. My opinion is that typically when an average player donkbets, it means he has middle or bottom pair or a draw. In this case, I think he has something like 76, 32, or a 4 in his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's restrict BB's possible holdings to middle pair, bottom pair, or a draw. We think it's likely he would choose to checkraise with better hands.

Combinations of 5x (any kicker that doesn't make 2 pair or trips): 3 5s * 10 kickers * 4 suits - 6 (because you are holding t7) = 114
Combinations of 4x (" "): 114
Combinations of draws: 87, 86, 76, 73, 63, 62, 32, A3, A2: 132

So given those possible donk-betting hands, he would be betting a draw 132/360 = 36.7% of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
raising on the Flop in the face of the donkbet is a good play. I take control of the pot and don't allow him to win it unless he hits his hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Assume he has made middle or bottom pair already. Against 57, 5t, 47, and 4t (16 combinations), you are drawing to say 1 out for your backdoor straight and 3 pair outs for a total of 4 outs. Against all other hands, you would have about 7 outs on the flop. 16*3 + 212*7 = 1532...1532/228 = average of 6.7 outs when you are behind. (will improve 6.7/45 = 14.9% of the time)

If he is still on a draw...
hand combinations outs
87 12 9
86 16 10
76 12 9
73 12 9
63 16 14
62 16 10
32 16 14
a3 16 10
a2 16 10

average # of outs: 10.7 (will improve 10.7/45 = 23.7% of the time)

Immediate EV of flop raise (doesn't take into account other factors such as getting a free card): 36.7% * 76.3% * 1SB - 73.3% * 85.1% * (-1)SB = -.34SB


[ QUOTE ]

Turn: (9c 5d 4s) 8c

Well, if he had 76, I'm in trouble. But I do have 4 pure outs against a straight and 3 other outs to split the hand. If I'm up against a pair, I could have as many as 14 outs now. 8 outs for the straight (6 or J) and 6 outs for a pair of T or 7.

The BB bets again!
And I raise again!


[/ QUOTE ]

BB is likely to have put you on either overs or some sort of a pocket pair, since you raised UTG. Maybe he thought you were trying for a free card play to draw to your overs with the flop raise. IMO the turn donk could mean a weak pair, since he wants to charge you for drawing, or something stronger, such as a possible made straight, which can beat any overpair you could have.

In any case, you are almost assuredly behind the BB at this point. Your hand currently has no showdown value, so the raise would have to be as a bluff. I don't see BB laying down any hand that you beat at this point, and a 3-bet would make it expensive to draw to your straight. I'm fairly sure this is a moderately -EV turn raise.

On the river, the 3 could not have helped your hand. BB didn't lay his (likely made) hand down to a turn raise, so I don't see him folding to a river bet. I think it would be moderately interesting to see the numbers for the turn and the river though.

[BabyJesus]

I can only think this is decent if you plan to play at this table for a while long with the same 3 players. Showing down crap like this can get you a lot of extra action later. You have to adjust properly after this hand if you have to showdown your hand.

Raising the flop seems ok, sounds like you're behind for sure, not a whole lot of draws out there for him to betting.
Now he donk bets you again on the turn, this means he either picked up some weird double gutter, picked up a flush draw to go with his previous gutshot, or improved his hand some. Raising doesn't sound all that good. If you think he just has a nice draw here, probably better to just call, if you think he's the type of player that will give up on river if he misses and checks to you.
River fills up some random draws he could have, pretty ugly here, but then again he does check to you. You can bet here to try and pick up the pot, but you might be called by like...36 that made a small piece of the board. The only other merits of betting would be for future action.

So given that you decided to play this very aggressive the only part that I think is pretty bad is the turn.

[marand]

How would you describe an "average" opponent? Which game are you playing and how does the "average" opponent play there? I think a lot of this hand depends on how the "average" opponent actually plays, will he ever fold a pair?

Without a more detailed read I will assume that he plays too many hands and takes them too far. He might be slightly too passive also.

I think preflop is pretty bad. I think T9s would be about borderline, but it's probably only slightly -EV.
On the flop I would just give up, if you would have had a gutshot then the raise would be fine. If he would never fould a pair planning to push he off his hand would be a waste of chips. He either has a pair or a draw, but you will only win the pot if he is both on a draw and he doesn't hit anything. Also the pot is really small, investing 3 BB to try to push him off his hand in a 4 SB pot doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

On the turn you are gettng 5-1 odds to call so you are obviously not folding with a like likely 8-11 outs. I don't think there is much chance he will fold so I think a passive call is best.

On the river it depends on if he can ever fold a pair. If he can fold a small pair on the river then I think your bet is correct, but if he never folds a pair I don't think you win often enough for it to be profitable. Since he folded I guess your "average" opponent can fold a pair. The chance that he did not have a pair is rather small here I would guess.

In summary I don't like your play in this hand, but I would be very interested to know which game this was from and how an "average player" plays there.

[King Yao]

Many responses have pointed out how the play in this hand sucked. It shows Fancy Play Syndrome. It shows a leak in my play. I agree with most of these statements. While I don't play like this most of the time, once in a while I find myself playing like this. It is seldom enough that it doesn't cost me much, but it is a weakness and of course it does cost me everytime I play this way. I didn't play it this way for advertising purposes (as some have suggested its the only reason to play this way), so that's not an excuse. Admitting a weakness is the first step to correcting it; thus my confession with this post. I know to play better than this.

[King Yao]

nice post ncray. Is it possible for you to re-do it given that he only donkbets with middle pair 25% of the time?

[imported_ncray]

[ QUOTE ]
nice post ncray. Is it possible for you to re-do it given that he only donkbets with middle pair 25% of the time?

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to calculate the immediate EV of the flop raise? Or, say on the turn? I'm sure that even with a small chance of a free turn card, the flop raise is necessary, especially so if he only donkbets pairs 25% of the time.

Which street(s) did you want the numbers for?

[King Yao]

If you could do it for the Flop, that would be great.

[imported_ncray]

[ QUOTE ]
If you could do it for the Flop, that would be great.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assumptions:
1.He has either a draw (open ended or gutshot) or middle or bottom pair
2.He will call with these hands in the BB (liberal blind defense), so we can assume they are weighted equally
3.When he donkbets, he has middle pair 25% of the time

From before, he will have middle pair 114/360 = 31.7% of the time
Let's come up with some numbers to fit your criterion when he donkbets, he is donkbetting with middle pair 25% of the time

P(donk betting) = P(DB with draw)*36.7% + P(DB with middle pair)*31.7% + P(DB with bottom pair)*31.7%

We see that he has to be donkbetting with middle pair less often if we want the percentage to be 25%. Let's just say that he is more inclined to donkbet draws than he is to donkbet middle pairs than he is to donkbet bottom pair.

Assume he donks draws 100% of the time, middle pair 55% of the time and bottom pair 50% of the time.

36.7 + 17.435 + 15.85 = 69.985
So, the percentage of time that he is donkbetting with middle pair is 17.435/69.985 = 24.91% of the time, approximately 25%

You could tweak the numbers to work out the same by making him donk bottom pair more often than middle pair if you want.

So now, to repeat the EV calculation:
He has a draw 36.7/69.985 = 52.4% of the time he donks
Middle pair 24.91%
Bottom pair 22.65%

Immediate EV of a flop raise: %he has a draw * %you stay ahead * 1SB - %he has a pair * %you stay ahead * 1SB

52.4% * 76.3% * 1SB - 47.6% * 85.1% * 1SB = -.005SB

Wow, neutral EV. If I didn't make an extra assumption about his donkbetting frequencies with different hands, I'd say you already worked out the numbers beforehand.

In sum,
if his donkbet means he has middle pair 25% of the time
if he is more inclined to donkbet a draw (100%) than middle pair (55%) than bottom pair (50%)

Then the immediate EV of a flop raise would be -.005SB. With the possibility of a free card and "taking control of the pot" it's a clear, clear raise. Cheers.

[King Yao]

Thanks for the work. I need to look carefully over your formulas to make sure I agree, but assuming its correct (I have no reason to believe otherwise, but its always useful to make sure for onself), this is an interesting result. I chose 25% because that's what feels like the right number, but I don't have any evidence to say it is. I think its arguable if he would donkbet with made hands more often or less often. Its also arguable if he donkbets with draws or nothing.

But at least now we have a number to work with and we can isolate the argument to that one specific number. 25% is the breakeven point to raising on the Flop (again, pending double-checking the work). If you think he donkbets more than that, then its a bad raise on the Flop.

[imported_ncray]

No problem. Could you let me know if you find any mistakes? I didn't really go over them too carefully. Also, the 25% depends on the tendencies of the bettor, of course.

I'd like to know what your stance is on a numerical approach to poker. It is fairly easy to reduce almost every decision in poker to probabilities (that he has a certain hand or will choose a specific action). However, it's not always easy to estimate what these numbers will be, and we could end up with fairly convoluted equations when isolating variables, especially with multiple people involved in a pot. As it stands, though, maybe such numerical analysis is best used for illustrating broad concepts, such as your book's explanation of the EV of a semi-bluff raise.

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know what your stance is on a numerical approach to poker. It is fairly easy to reduce almost every decision in poker to probabilities (that he has a certain hand or will choose a specific action). However, it's not always easy to estimate what these numbers will be, and we could end up with fairly convoluted equations when isolating variables, especially with multiple people involved in a pot. As it stands, though, maybe such numerical analysis is best used for illustrating broad concepts, such as your book's explanation of the EV of a semi-bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only like to do EV analysis on situations that come up often and I think it is most interesting when the EV can be negative or positive based on the opponent's style of play. Since it is impossible for most (me included) to do EV analysis at the table, it is useful to think about situations that occur over and over while not at the table. A common example of this is using a shortcut method to figure out pot odds at the table.

I think it is most useful to look at EV analysis when the EV of a play differs based on the opponent. Maybe the same play would be positive EV against one type of player while negative EV against another type of player. In shorthanded games, the donkbet situation comes up fairly frequently, so it seems worthwhile to do the EV analysis and think about it. Assuming 25% is the breakeven point, it is possible for us to say that raising against some players is correct, while others it is incorrect. To me, that's what makes the EV analysis interesting - when it can be applied to real game situations that come up often, and when the EV varies from negative to positive based on the opponent.