Question re: Dinner with Dan and Bill

In this August 2005 article, Mason Malmuth states that you shouldn't bet more than necessary in NL Hold 'em, referencing Dan Harrington & Bill Robertie, and gives the example of holding AK and flopping top pair with two suited cards on board. Rather than bet the pot or more, Malmuth states you should bet 1/2 to 2/3 the pot because (a) if the flush-draw calls, then he is still making an error, (b) betting more makes the flush-draw correctly fold without making a mistake and (c) you've risked less if you're in trouble versus trips or another better hand.

I don't understand (a). In a NL game, isn't the flush-draw likely to be CORRECT calling your 1/2 to 2/3 pot bet based on the IMPLIED odds? The only way I think this would not be true is if you were committed to folding if a third suited card came (capping the implied odds). But is that the correct play? Would you always fold top pair against a bettor when a third suited card came? If not, then by betting the full pot, you may be forcing a flush-draw to INCORRECTLY fold given the IMPLIED odds.

I'm new to the forum and apologize if my question is overly basic.

Thank you,
Andy

[cero_z]

Hi Andy,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand (a). In a NL game, isn't the flush-draw likely to be CORRECT calling your 1/2 to 2/3 pot bet based on the IMPLIED odds? The only way I think this would not be true is if you were committed to folding if a third suited card came (capping the implied odds). But is that the correct play? Would you always fold top pair against a bettor when a third suited card came? If not, then by betting the full pot, you may be forcing a flush-draw to INCORRECTLY fold given the IMPLIED odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me like you understand it perfectly, but just think they're wrong. If so, I agree with you. I think the basic problem with this advice is that 2+2 touts the HOH books as learning tools for both tournament and cash game play (I'm not positive if the authors have made this claim, but I know Mason has). While HOH Vol. 2 is in my opinion a great book for learning both tournament and ring game strategies, HOH Vol. 1 contains lots of recommendations that will only work where super-tight (to the point of being incorrect) play is the norm, and this is only seen regularly in tournaments. Often, tournament play will not be tight enough to make these strategies work, either. Of great importance in determining the quality of this advice, of course, are the relevant stack sizes. If they are quite small (<30BBs), their line may make perfect sense. In a tournament, this is true fairly often; in a cash game, it is rarely true.

I also like that you've taken it further by stating that the flush draw may be making a mistake by folding when getting 2:1 on the flop. I agree with that also, though most players in a cash game won't make that mistake.

I'd like to hear from Dan about this, because it seems almost indefensible to claim that someone getting 3:1 on the flop to draw to a flush against top pair would be making a mistake by calling, when both players have plenty of chips left. There is much to say about tactics and counter-tactics in this specific situation, and I'm not going to write my whole take out now. For now, I'll say that while betting 2/3 or 1/2 pot may be right in this spot, it is not right because a flush draw may incorrectly call that bet. When you face this flop situation in NL, you have a difficult hand ahead of you. If you bet too little, your opponent will either have an easy time collecting enough by the river when he hits to justify his flop call, or he will be able to make you fold the best hand too often, depending on how you play it.

Thanks, Cero_Z. That's helpful. I think you're right - that HOH claims only to be about Tournament strategy.

[chezlaw]

I'm just learning NL sitngos and a big fan of HOH but in my experience so far I don't think the implied odds are worth that much. The flush draw is fairly obvious and anyone who makes the flush has to make small bets for fear his opponent will fold.

chez

[cero_z]

Hi chezlaw,

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just learning NL sitngos and a big fan of HOH but in my experience so far I don't think the implied odds are worth that much. The flush draw is fairly obvious and anyone who makes the flush has to make small bets for fear his opponent will fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

So then I can call with any two cards, and win the pot with a decent bet when the flush card hits? What if I have a straight draw, or a pair? Then I have 9 additional outs to draw to, since the top pair will just lay down for me whenever a third suited card falls? Sweet. See? It's just not that simple, though they make it out to be.

However, NL sitngos usually feature VERY small stacks after the first level or two, so implied odds don't mean much in those games. Cash NL and major tournament situations are very different.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi chezlaw,

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just learning NL sitngos and a big fan of HOH but in my experience so far I don't think the implied odds are worth that much. The flush draw is fairly obvious and anyone who makes the flush has to make small bets for fear his opponent will fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

So then I can call with any two cards, and win the pot with a decent bet when the flush card hits? What if I have a straight draw, or a pair? Then I have 9 additional outs to draw to, since the top pair will just lay down for me whenever a third suited card falls? Sweet. See? It's just not that simple, though they make it out to be.

However, NL sitngos usually feature VERY small stacks after the first level or two, so implied odds don't mean much in those games. Cash NL and major tournament situations are very different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its nice to have a good non-flush draw and bluff the flush but how many opponents will come up with that bluff - not many where I play but then I don't play at the levels you describe.

I'll bow out for those who know better.

chez

[GrannyMae]

Question re: Dinner with Dan and Bill

who paid for dinner? why do i think DH had to grab the check??

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/_950/food.gif

[nightlyraver]

You articulate an interesting dilema common to NL hold'em. Although your analysis is correct in several areas, your overall conclusions I believe are incorrect...

First, let me start by saying that I rarely play NL cash games. My usual games are low (<$50) buy-in MTT's online.

I think that your conclusions are wrong based on two factors. First, we cannot use the flush draw's chances of making the flush by the river when faced with the flop decision. TPTK-guy will almost certainly bet again at the turn when a blank hits and this ruins your pot odds. Second, your understanding of implied odds is both correct and incorrect - it's really based on the skill of TPTK-guy. If he is capable of always putting you on a flush draw, he will safely fold and you collect no additional bets. On the flip side, if he will never fold no matter what, then your implied odds equal the lesser of your or his chipstacks. Certainly such extremes are very very rare. Thus, you need to consider the probability that TPTK-guy will commit any more money to the pot if a flush card hits. This is directly correlated to his hand reading skills and the texture of the flop.

Let's illustrate this by example:

Blinds are at 50/100 and there is no ante.
The first three players fold and I'm sitting on t3,800.
I'm staring down at A /images/graemlins/heart.gifK /images/graemlins/club.gif and open the pot for a standard raise of t300.
Everyone folds to you and you're on the button with t3,200.
You decide to flat call with J /images/graemlins/club.gifT /images/graemlins/club.gif and both blinds fold.

The flop comes K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/club.gif2 /images/graemlins/club.gif (pot=t750)
I can bet t400 into this pot and be profitable... Why? Let's play it out!
Getting almost 3:1 on your money, you decide to call.

Situation 1:
The turn come 3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif (pot=t1,550)
I bet t1,000
Here, you must fold. You're 5:1 against making your flush and the pot is offering about 2.5:1. Moreover, you only have t1,500 left if you call. Even if I guarantee to pay you off if the flush card hits (and I do since I'm pot committed), you still only get 4:1 on a 5:1 draw. Therefore, my play is profitable. Additionally, I set this up using the low end of HOH recommendations. I probably play this hand a bit more aggressively unless I am trying to induce a call/raise from a hand like KQ or a draw.

OK, so this really begs the question - what about when the stacks are deeper? Don't we enjoy better implied odds? This is where hand reading skills come in and Situation 2 will answer the question.

Situation 2: (same stacks/factors as above)

The turn comes 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif (pot=t1,550)
There are now 3 clubs on the board. Should I even bet at this? Is this where your implied odds come in? Well, given the action thus far, I'm almost never putting more money into this pot against most players given the texture of the board.

Rationale: The button flat called preflop. Since the raise came from a middle player, the raiser does not necessarily have to have a monster. Thus the button caller can call with a speculative hand. The flat call, which prices in the blinds, makes it very likely that the button has a speculative hand, like a suited connector or a small pair. The call also came from the button, making a speculative hand more likely as such a caller wants to see how the hand develops.

On the flop, the button flat called - this could mean only 3 things: 1) The button has a hand like KQ or KJ and wants to see how the hand develops; 2) The flop missed the button completely and he is calling in order to pull off some elaborate bluff if the flushcard hits; 3) The button has two clubs.

Most of the time, players will want to protect their top pair and find out where they stand - so they raise on the flop. This is not always true, mind you. So, against a weak-passive player I will have to make some small value bets even when the flush card hits, but that will not justify your flop call, especially since I will have to have had to peg you as weak-passive. Thus, option 1 is greatly discounted on most occasions.

Option 2 is extremely rare with a board like this. First, the bluffer will be drawing mostly dead if he gets called and the caller may have a good redraw (like w/ A /images/graemlins/heart.gifK /images/graemlins/club.gif). Second, the bluffer would have to be VERY tricky and pretty damn ballzy. People will be more inclined to look you up if you play that way, but fine, I'll grant you that the bluff will probably work against a player capable of folding TPTK in the face of a raise from an unknown player. However, I almost never see this play at the levels I play at.

From my experience, option 3 is almost always the case. Therefore, I can safely check-fold this turn against most player. I will adjust accordingly based on a read, but seriously, this almost always means flush.

No matter how deep the stacks are, this analysis will not change. Except for the inclination that deep stacks may lead to a desire to make elaborate moves, stack size does not factor into this analysis and the implied odds generally stay very low.

True, the texture of this flop makes my decision easier while it limits your options. However, my argument only stands if TPTK-guy will analyze the situation this way. MANY player will see the 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif, bet, call a raise perhaps and either check-call or check-fold the river. Still others will go to the felt with AK in this spot.

If you pick your oponents, the implied odds make the play profitable, but HU against a thinking player - you must trap him to get his chips. IMO, the best situation with a suited connector is when you flop a flushdraw, but you can semi-bluff raise and represent a hand better than top pair.

[cero_z]

Hi nightlyraver,

Though it's obvious you've put a lot of thought and work into this post, some of your conclusions are wrong. I don't think you quite understand the concept of implied odds, and I think you also missed the point of the excercise, which was not to guard against flush draws, but rather to pursue the best line across the board of your opponent's possible holdings. Your line does a fair job of not paying off flushes, but it makes you vulnerable to many more hands than the total combination of flush draws.

[ QUOTE ]
The flop comes Kc 7c 2d (pot=t750)
I can bet t400 into this pot and be profitable... Why? Let's play it out!
Getting almost 3:1 on your money, you decide to call.

Situation 1:
The turn come 3h (pot=t1,550)
I bet t1,000
Here, you must fold. You're 5:1 against making your flush and the pot is offering about 2.5:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

--Fine. But implied odds have nothing to do with this situation. The fact that you can't profitably call another bet when you miss does not make our flop call bad. We made that flop call getting insufficient immediate pot odds knowing that we'd usually have to fold on the turn if we missed. The question was whether we'd make enough money when we hit to justify making a "bad" call on the flop. You address this situation below:

[ QUOTE ]
Situation 2: (same stacks/factors as above)

The turn comes 3 (pot=t1,550)
There are now 3 clubs on the board. Should I even bet at this? Is this where your implied odds come in? Well, given the action thus far, I'm almost never putting more money into this pot against most players given the texture of the board.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you take this line, I probably can't call you profitably with a flush draw on the flop. But, I can call you with any other piece of the board on the flop, and be correct to do so. For example, let's say I called your raise with 8s7s. The flop was K 7 2 with a couple clubs, and I called your bet. If I hit an 8 or a 7 (not of clubs), You will apparently keep firing (see your read below). If a club falls, you will check/fold to me, reasoning that I could only have had a flush draw to call on the flop. This strategy gives me effectively 13 outs on the flop: I will win if a club falls and I bet, or I'll become a big favorite if an 8 or 7 falls, and will probably win your whole stack. So, I'm actually just under a 3:1 dog to win a nice pot whenever I don't have a flush draw, due to my bluffing outs, or a big pot, when I make 2 pair or better.

You will also always lose your entire stack when I have outflopped you if you play this way, as long as I smooth-call the flop. And, why wouldn't I, if I had 77 or 22? I can't be too concerned about the pre-flop raiser having a flush draw; we're heads up, and your most likely hands (AA, AK, QQ, JJ, AQ, KQ) are drawing slim or dead to a set. You pot-commit yourself on the turn when a blank falls, ensuring that I'll never make a mistake.

The real question here is whether you can check-fold when a club hits. In your example, you put me on:

[ QUOTE ]
On the flop, the button flat called - this could mean only 3 things: 1) The button has a hand like KQ or KJ and wants to see how the hand develops; 2) The flop missed the button completely and he is calling in order to pull off some elaborate bluff if the flushcard hits; 3) The button has two clubs.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how you've disregarded sets here, but on we go. If I had called your raise with KsJs or something like it, there would be little point in raising the flop. You are either way ahead or way behind me at this point, so raising will not make me money; it will only cost me a lot when I "find out where I'm at". So, I would almost always call (or fold occasionally). If you check the turn when a club falls, though, I will know that you either have a monster or a hand that probably can't stand a big bet. I will bet here, of course, since the latter is so much more likely. You will apparently fold.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I almost never see this play (calling on the flop to take the pot away on the turn) at the levels I play at.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also key, IMO. In NL cash games 5-10 and up, you will see this play routinely. In $50 sng's, not so much.

Overall, the problem I have with betting 400 into a 750 pot is that your opponent only has to make more than 800 against you when he hits on the turn-He's a little over a 4:1 dog to hit on the next card, so he needs to win a total of 1800 or so to make a profit. There's 1150 in there after your bet, so he just needs you to call one small bet to make it pay. You say you will not call this bet; if that's true, then you'll give away the pot way too much on the turn.

So, what's the answer? It's very hard to say, but I like usually betting the full pot, sometimes checking better in this case. When you bet 750, Your opponent needs to get 1600 more when he hits the flush to make it work; now we're dealing with a number that most people will be uncomfortable trying to bluff for. One reason is that you look more committed to the hand, having put about a third of your stack in. If they call you and the turn is a club, you will have a tough street to play, but it won't be as muddy as if you'd bet less, and were now facing a smaller bet. Unquestionably, though, these hands are quite tough to play, given how strong they are.

don´t apologize. everyone needs to make their first steps one day.

[burningyen]

cero z,

Are your continuation bets usually pot-sized as well?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
don´t apologize. everyone needs to make their first steps one day.

[/ QUOTE ]

and it is a good question that appeared to other people as well (to me for example).

[Leroy Soesman]

I like your take on this Cero. Recently i've been noticing that I haven't been making the money I should be on the flushdraw when I play it in a straightforward manner. Simply because the flushcard is a big scare card. And i've been thinking of how to counter this problem, especially since i don't always want to raise my flushdraw early in the deal.(I disregard the increased chance of running a bluff when a flush card hits,here; but i hear you).

I do want to add something to your last remark:

[ QUOTE ]
When you face this flop situation in NL, you have a difficult hand ahead of you. If you bet too little, your opponent will either have an easy time collecting enough by the river when he hits to justify his flop call, or he will be able to make you fold the best hand too often, depending on how you play it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not entirely sure, but I understand that the problems you mention are the consequence of betting too little, and make a case for betting the pot.

There is certainly something to be said for making a big bet in order to induce mistakes in your opponents. However it does not necessarily provide protection against the dangers you set out in your post.

Because betting the pot on the flop in certain cases makes it easier for your opponent to represent a hand bigger than top pair (perhaps causing you to lay down the best hand). Also you are setting yourself up to play a big pot with a rather marginal holding (perhaps causing you to pay off the flush). Things you cannot counter unless you have a rather agressive image, and rather good abilities already (and thus this situation is less likely to be a problem for you). Certainly you don't want your pot bet to create a situation where you are beat if you get action.

Please note that although giving your opponent 3 : 1 you might not induce a mistake on his part, it might well prevent you from making a mistake that will be much costlier than letting him have his implied odds. (NOTE: this holds more for a raised pot in which you are shorthanded than for multiway pots).

You have touched upon what I say when you mentioned that the smaller bet works in extremely tight situations. I don't think that it has to be extremely tight. At the lower limits ($100 NL - $200NL), at a reasonably tight table, a big flop bet in a raised pot typically only gets action when top pair is beat. Especially because a lot of 2+2 players have a very tight image (this goes even more for the nut peddlers) they should take heed in reading the advice in this thread.

I do understand that this is not the case in bigger limit games, but as I mentioned before, the people in those games are less likely to have problems with this kind of situation. These people will probably also feel more comfortable playing marginal situations in a big pot.

[Leroy Soesman]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you always fold top pair against a bettor when a third suited card came? If not, then by betting the full pot, you may be forcing a flush-draw to INCORRECTLY fold given the IMPLIED odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point. Very. Of course you have to do more than just NOT fold to a suited card, but also pay off enough to justify a flop call. But a sufficiently skilled player is probably able to pull that off.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Granny:

We charged the dinner to Two Plus Two. That means David and Ray paid for most of it.

Best wishes,
mason