Question On PLNLP Hand Example

[IggyWH]

On p.79 of Pot-Limit & No-Limit Poker, there's a hand example that I have a question about. For background, you're supposed to assume the blinds are $15/$25 NL, everyone has a couple grand and the table is 9-handed. The example reads like this :

[ QUOTE ]
(8) You Hold A/images/graemlins/heart.gif - 10/images/graemlins/heart.gif. The flop comes up 10/images/graemlins/diamond.gif - 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif - 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif. Three of you stayed for the flop in an unraised pot, so there is about one hundred dollars in the pot. The first player bets $100, the second player folds and you call. On fourth street comes the 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif, which makes you a four-flush. Your opponent bets $250. You call, making $800 now in the pot. The last card is the pleasant J/images/graemlins/heart.gif, giving you the nut flush. Your opponent checks. How much do you bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer--- $1000(10) $800(8) $500(5)

[/ QUOTE ]

For those of you who haven't read the book, he assigns point values to his answers. (10) means that's the correct play you should make, (8) seems to mean a great alternative but not what the author would do and (5) seems to be about and average play to make.

[ QUOTE ]
Explanation --- I think in these situations the best thing to do is overbet the pot. An even grand looks like a good figure. When a backdoor flush gets completed on the last card, and you either have the flush, or have nothing and wish to bluff, the right thing to do is overbet the pot. This makes it crystal clear that you are representing a flush, and it shouldn't make any difference to the opponent whether he has one pair, two pair a set or even a straight. Either you have him beaten by holding a flush or you busted out and are bluffing. At least there is no misunderstanding about what you are representing

[/ QUOTE ]

==========================================

This to me makes absolutely no sense at all. The only time I could see making a 1.25x pot bet in this situation is if you're going to be playing with this person for a very long time, you know they're a good player and will remember this play and in turn use that to your advantage if you have a hand like this in the future and don't hit the backdoor nut flush. All of which I see this scenario a very rare circumstance and just completely not worth it.

You called the guys pot bet after the flop and then called another about pot-size bet on the turn, getting 2:1 odds on both calls. Unless he pegs you for a fish, he's got to believe you have something and weren't chasing down a flush. To me, a big bet here is just making his fold a lot easier to make.

When I read this, I thought of a bet around $300. I figured it was a good enough bet that would make you hitting the nut flush worthy and sweeten your win but also not too big for him to call as he's getting around 3.5:1 to call. When I saw the "answers" though, I was shocked.

Is my thinking wrong here? Should I be looking at this another way?

[Dan Rutter]

So there is $800 on the river. In case 1 lets assume you made the flush. We will assume that a $300 bet by you will be called by your opponent 50 percent of the time. This could be higher or lower, I do not know. So you will win $300 on the river half the time you bet. So after ten times you will have an extra $1500, plus the $8,000 since you have the winning hand when he folds, or calls. So a total of $9,500 after ten times.

When you bet $1,000 we will assume your opponent will call 20 percent of the time. So you will win an extra $1,000 20 percent of the time. So after ten times you will win an extra $2,000 from betting on the river. This plus the pot is $10,000, so you gain $500 over ten trials by betting $1,000 rather then $300 with these numbers. So, $50 a hand.

Now lets go onto when you do not have a flush and only have a pair of Tens with an Ace kicker. A third flush card hit the board as a backdoor flush, and your opponent checks it too you. We will assume your hand is not good, and your only way of winning is to bluff and get your opponent to fold.

When you bet $300 you opponent will call 50 percent of the time again. So, in ten trials you will lose $300 five times, and win the $800 five times, for a gain of $2,500.

When you bet $1,000 your opponent will call 20 percent of the time. So, in ten trials you lose $1000 two times, and win $800 8 times for a gain of $4,400.

Betting $1,000 as a bluff rather then $300 gains you $1,900 over ten hands. So betting the $1,000 whether you made your hand, or are bluffing has more value with these percentages. If someone wants to suggest more realistic percentages for the opponent calling, suggest them. I do not play NLHE for those stakes so I do not know the chances of a typical opponent calling in a similar situation. Those are my rough guesses Also if what I said was completely off let me know. I think that betting the larger amount is best whether you made your hand or are bluffing though.

[IggyWH]

Thanks for the reply Dan. I appreciate the long, detailed breakdown as I was never really looking at the results that in depth.

I do have a couple problems with what you said though :

1)I know you meant to keep things constant thoughout the problem to simplify the answer. To me though, the $300 bet would only be made when I had the winning hand. There's no way I'd attempt a bluff giving my opponent 3.5+:1 pot odds to call. My whole reason for making such a small bet was to get a call.

2)Given that they were the aggressor in the hand, I'm inclined to think that I could get a call betting $300 into the pot more than 50% of the time when I have the winning hand. This is more on a case-by-case basis depending on my opponent but I think most people will find that bet just way too small and too good of pot odds to not give at least a crying call even if they think they're beat.

3)I also think such a small bet could be seen as a weak attempt to buy the pot, causing the other player to fight back with a raise. Might not happen often, but it will from time to time making the small bet even more profitable when they come back over the top.

4)The check at the end is a weak play, but that doesn't mean they think their hand is weak. I play a lot lower limits than this problem, but I do often see a guy first to act try and check-raise on the river, even when they were the aggressor in the hand. Hell, I even fall victum to it sometimes too. You think there's a big pot out there so plenty of oppertunity to bluff, this guy has called you down, you're confident in your hand but also think they'll make a stab at the pot.

Maybe this hand example just isn't good for me because I see so many weak players everyday on the tables, whereas if you're playing those kind of limits as the hand example, you're probably at least an average player. Please feel free to correct anything I said that you feel is wrong.

[Dan Rutter]

[ QUOTE ]


1)I know you meant to keep things constant thoughout the problem to simplify the answer. To me though, the $300 bet would only be made when I had the winning hand. There's no way I'd attempt a bluff giving my opponent 3.5+:1 pot odds to call. My whole reason for making such a small bet was to get a call.



[/ QUOTE ]

How much would you bet at this pot if you decided to bluff? If you would bet a higher amount of money when you decide to bluff, then you would when you make your hand, you will be giving away information to your opponent. This will have a negative effect if your opponent is someone who pays attention, and processes the information correctly. So, say you bet $300 when you make your hand to get a call on river. If you then bet say $800 when you are bluffing, your opponent will eventually know to fold to a small bet, and call your larger bet.

I agree that with weak opponents a $300 bet would likely call the $300 bet more the 50% of the time. This being the case a weak player may call a $1,000 bet more then 20% of the time. This will have implications in both betting with the flush, and as a bluff. Maybe work in some different estimated percentages of some opponents you may typically face, and try to learn which bet sizes may result in the highest payoff. I really do not know what percentages a player will call at the limit the book is describing, but hopefully one day I will.

Your mentioning of a check-raise on the river by your opponent is another thing to consider.

Another thing to consider is your opponent may be a player who is more scared of smaller bets then big ones. He assumes a small bet is a big hand wanting a call, and a large bet is an obvious bluff. This could produce a whole different type of call percentages for an opponent.

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
How much would you bet at this pot if you decided to bluff? If you would bet a higher amount of money when you decide to bluff, then you would when you make your hand, you will be giving away information to your opponent. This will have a negative effect if your opponent is someone who pays attention, and processes the information correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this might be why I'm not agreeing with the suggested play on this hand. I have really yet to matchup against an opponent I really considered smart enough to :

1)Understand what I did was a tell

2)Remember it

3)Use it against me in the future

At the limits I play at (50NL & 100NL), this is something I'm not concerned about.