Underpair

[sfer]

10 handed Party 15/30

UTG limps, 3 folds and I raise 8c 8h in the hijack, a loose passive 60/1/.3 coldcalls on the button, SB folds, a loose passive 40/5/.5 coldcalls in the BB, UTG calls. 4 players, 9.66 SBs.

Flop is Kd 6c 6h. Checks to me, I bet, button calls, BB calls, UTG folds.

3 players, 6.3 BBs. Turn is 5s. BB checks, I bet, they call.

3 players, 9.3 BBs. River is the 7h. I bet for value.

[soweak.]

I'm playing this hand similarly. There's no reason to not think you have the best hand here.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm playing this hand similarly. There's no reason to not think you have the best hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Nick C]

I take it you're getting called by A7, A5, 44-22 and maybe even ace-high? Someone might've peeled with a backdoor straight who will now call with, say, 75s and 87?

[BottlesOf]

I'd play it this way often. Can you teach me how to play full ring again?

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm playing this hand similarly. There's no reason to not think you have the best hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, this alone is not a reason to bet. We need to actually get called by a worse hand to benefit from a bet (or fold out a better one, but SFer called it a value bet).

[meep_42]

Standard?

Board is drawless, so they have something to show down, but it sure doesn't seem like a K or 6.

If the button bets, you're probably beat and have a tough decision as to overcall a bet. If he doesn't bet, you've probably missed at least 1 bet.

-d

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
10 handed Party 15/30

UTG limps, 3 folds and I raise 8c 8h in the hijack, a loose passive 60/1/.3 coldcalls on the button, SB folds, a loose passive 40/5/.5 coldcalls in the BB, UTG calls. 4 players, 9.66 SBs.

Flop is Kd 6c 6h. Checks to me, I bet, button calls, BB calls, UTG folds.

3 players, 6.3 BBs. Turn is 5s. BB checks, I bet, they call.

3 players, 9.3 BBs. River is the 7h. I bet for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ho hum. Another sfer plays it perfectly hand. NH.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
Board is drawless, so they have something to show down, but it sure doesn't seem like a K or 6.

[/ QUOTE ]

For what it's worth, these aren't the only hands that beat us.

[meep_42]

I understand this.

-d

[W. Deranged]

Ummm.... nice hand (?)

I don't see much else to do here.

River value bet is pretty interesting in my opinion. My thought on this board is that you are going to hear from the majority of hands that beat you. K's likely come to life here relatively early, as do the unlikely 6s. I think players of the profile described will be calling with pretty random stuff like AT and so forth. You may well get a call from a random A hand here if they put you on a bluff. The small pairs are possibilities as well. Someone hitting a random 7 may also give you a call. I think that the range of hands that will call is probably slightly slanted toward hands you are beating, but it's not totally obvious.

So, nice hand. Also, nice table selection. Any table with two players like you described should have the money flowin' nice and good...

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know you do.

This is just one of those hands where, if I were Hero, on the river I'd be thinking, "What the hell have these guys been calling with?"

The river value bet doesn't seem as obvious to me as most of the responses so far are making it out to be.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know you do.

This is just one of those hands where, if I were Hero, on the river I'd be thinking, "What the hell have these guys been calling with?"

The river value bet doesn't seem as obvious to me as most of the responses so far are making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if the key to understanding the river value bet is realizing that bad players with the stats that Sfer describes are going to be calling on the river with stuff we aren't even really considering.

Where do you find players with numbers like that... I can't seem to find them at 3/6 or 5/10 nearly often enough...

[Jeff W]

Post a tough one next time. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[meep_42]

I agree, I have a hard time thinking of non-A-high hands that call that we beat, and I don't think they're both calling with A-high.

But, like I said, you're putting in 1 bet on this river anyway, so you may as well be the one to bet it because it's almost not possible that you're getting raised by a worse hand. There was a sfer post last week that basically said, "if you get a bet behind you, you're probably beat, if he checks behind, you miss bets." So, you're losing the same when ahead/behind, but gaining a fraction of a bet when you're ahead.

-d

[sfer]

They both called. Button had unimproved AT, BB had 75 for 3-pair no g00t and MHIG.

I cheated a bit. A lot of the bet is for value but almost as important is that when the button bets into both of us it's almost always with a better hand, while when he calls my river be it will often be a worse hand and sometimes be a better hand.

[Rico Suave]

W. Deranged:

[ QUOTE ]
My thought on this board is that you are going to hear from the majority of hands that beat you. K's likely come to life here relatively early

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to be nitpicky, but I doubt loose passives, as described here, are going to do much more than call with just a K after a preflop raise.

I think the river is interesting. If I were OOP against both, no question..you simply have to bet. Sandwiched between the two (as in this case), I think a bet is still best. If I had position on both, I would likely check behind.

--Rico

[flair1239]

The Pre-flop raise...

I assume with really loose players on the button and BB, that this raise had more to do with value, and taking the initiative, than any hopes of isolating UTG?

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
The Pre-flop raise...

I assume with really loose players on the button and BB, that this raise had more to do with value, and taking the initiative, than any hopes of isolating UTG?

[/ QUOTE ]

I will raise preflop almost regardless of game conditions and other players in that spot.

Someone please break this down for me, play by play. I play live 4/8 and therefore have no "Stats" to tell me if I am too loose or passive, but I would've played this much more passive. Please go over the thought process at each step.

[ QUOTE ]
10 handed Party 15/30

UTG limps, 3 folds and I raise 8c 8h in the hijack, WHAT IS THE THOUGHT HERE ON RAISING INSTEAD OF LIMPING?, WHY IS RAISING BETTER THAN LIMPING? a loose passive 60/1/.3 coldcalls on the button, SB folds, a loose passive 40/5/.5 coldcalls in the BB, UTG calls. 4 players, 9.66 SBs.

Flop is Kd 6c 6h. Checks to me, I bet WHAT THOUGHT IS GOING ON HERE, DO YOU THINK YOU ARE BEST OR ARE YOU LOOKING FOR INFO?, button calls, BB calls, UTG folds.

3 players, 6.3 BBs. Turn is 5s. BB checks, I bet DO YOU STILL THINK THAT YOU ARE GOOD? WHAT DO YOU PUT THEM ON, WHAT DO YOU DO IF THEY RAISE , they call.

3 players, 9.3 BBs. River is the 7h. I bet for value SO YOU STILL FEEL YOU ARE PROBABLY GOOD, WHAT DO YOU PUT THEM ON THEN? .

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the caps but I want to clearly show my questions.


LLL

[meep_42]

PF: Raising is better than limping because it isolated a limper (88 fares well against a PF UTG limp range), it can buy you the button, and it can force out the blinds. Limping cuts down significantly on your chance to win unimproved or with a flop bet.

Flop: Value bet, sfer likely thinks he's ahead here a large portion of the time, he will re-evaluate against further aggression because this board is pretty drawless.

Turn: The 5 doesn't help anyone that wasn't already ahead, so he bets to fold out hands that have outs against him (overcards, gutshots) or cause them to make a FToP mistake by calling. If he is raised here, he re-evaluates where he's at.

River: The 7 doesn't improve anything except raggy 2-pairs and 34/89 to a hand that beats him. A bet here is for value because the times he checks and Button bets, he almost always loses. The times he bets he is unlikely to get raised by a worse hand and he can collect bets from hands that will call (like AT and 75) but not bet.

-d

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

I play mostly live (predominantly 10-20) and I think I play this the same way our hero did. Sfer can certainly add his comments, but these would be some of my thoughts.

[ QUOTE ]
UTG limps, 3 folds and I raise 8c 8h in the hijack, WHAT IS THE THOUGHT HERE ON RAISING INSTEAD OF LIMPING?, WHY IS RAISING BETTER THAN LIMPING? a loose passive 60/1/.3 coldcalls on the button, SB folds, a loose passive 40/5/.5 coldcalls in the BB, UTG calls. 4 players, 9.66 SBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an unraised pot with one limper. If there were a couple of more limpers, I would probably limp as well and play for set value. As the first to enter here, I would always raise -- you are very likely to have the best hand and you can often take down the pot without making your set. Here there is one limper, but unless you see the old limp-reraise, you can't put him on a real premium hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Flop is Kd 6c 6h. Checks to me, I bet WHAT THOUGHT IS GOING ON HERE, DO YOU THINK YOU ARE BEST OR ARE YOU LOOKING FOR INFO?, button calls, BB calls, UTG folds.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are really only five cards in the deck that hurt you -- the two 6s and the three Ks. The first two players have checked to you and your hand is likely good. If you are check-raised you can reevaluate. Also, you led pre-flop which means that representing the K should get some respect.

[ QUOTE ]
3 players, 6.3 BBs. Turn is 5s. BB checks, I bet DO YOU STILL THINK THAT YOU ARE GOOD? WHAT DO YOU PUT THEM ON, WHAT DO YOU DO IF THEY RAISE , they call.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think you are good before the turn why would this card change your mind? If the opponents are truly passive and never tricky(I am not good at reading online stats), I would consider a fold to the raise -- but if they were not tricky, they would probably have raised the flop. A raise seems unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]
3 players, 9.3 BBs. River is the 7h. I bet for value SO YOU STILL FEEL YOU ARE PROBABLY GOOD, WHAT DO YOU PUT THEM ON THEN? .

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think you are good before the river why would this card change your mind? Is someone going to hit their unbelievable backdoor, gutshot straight? The only hand that might beat you here is a suited K with a weak kicker.

[thejameser]

nice opponents. nh.

[chief444]

Both opponents are loose and passive. He'll get calls from worse hands here. He won't get raised by better hands. And if he checks he can't really fold. So anything but betting this river is bad IMO.

[istewart]

Do you mean he won't get raised by better hands or won't get raised by worse hands?

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
I cheated a bit. A lot of the bet is for value but almost as important is that when the button bets into both of us it's almost always with a better hand, while when he calls my river be it will often be a worse hand and sometimes be a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep.

Dave...tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement (at least for heads up situations):

Out of position against a loose/passive opponent who is very unlikely to bluff it is almost never correct to check/call.

Yes?

Chief

[chief444]

Yeah...I meant worse. Thanks.

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah...I meant worse. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's unlikely he gets raised at all, though.

-d

[chief444]

Agreed. But if he does, he's beat and has an easy fold.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah...I meant worse. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, thought so. Just clearing it up.

[sfer]

Yes.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Out of position against a loose/passive opponent who is very unlikely to bluff it is almost never correct to check/call.


[/ QUOTE ]

While I tend to bet into loose-passives on the river as you suggest, you can come up with plenty of examples where check-calling is correct.

I am pretty sure King Yao has quite a few examples in his book. If so I will reference to them when I get home and check the book. If not I will try to come up with examples later.

The thing to remember is that many loose-passives will check through the better hand on the river if you check. Thus checking and calling may be bettter when you think your hand is only good a relatively small percentage of time on the river, say less than 25% but the pot odds dictate that you call a bet. If he wil often check-through the better hand then you may be better off than betting since he will never fold the better hand those 75+% of the times. If he will occasionally bluff the pot with the worse hands then so much the better for check-calling.

Ok, so I won't be totally lazy. Here's a quick example. Assume a 6BB pot, HU on the river with you OOP against loose-passive (LP).

You figure that your hand is good about 25% of the time. Assume now that LP will always call a bet, but will only bet his winners when checked to. (And assume he will never raise or you can safely fold to a raise 100% of the time.)So:

EV of betting = (.25 x 7) + (.75 x -1) = 1
EV of check-calling = (.26 x 6) + (.75 x -1) = .75

So there betting is better clearly.

Now assume that LP will check through his good hands 50% of the time rather than always betting them (not a totally unfair assumption). For simplicity let's say he never bluffs and chacks through his losers.

EV of betting = 1 (that has not changed from above).
EV of check-calling = (.25 x 6) + (.75 x .5 x 0) + (.75 x .5 x -1) = 1.125

So there you are better check-calling. If he sometimes bluffs hands that he could not call with then it is better still. Of course really knowing your opponent well is critical in making these types of decisions. But I have seen loose-passives who are fearful of betting the river even with decent made hands and sometimes against those types check-calling is, in fact, better. But I do tend to bet against most such opponents in the situation described.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
EV of betting = 1 (that has not changed from above).
EV of check-calling = (.25 x 6) + (.75 x .5 x 0) + (.75 x .5 x -1) = 1.125

So there you are better check-calling. If he sometimes bluffs hands that he could not call with then it is better still. Of course really knowing your opponent well is critical in making these types of decisions. But I have seen loose-passives who are fearful of betting the river even with decent made hands and sometimes against those types check-calling is, in fact, better. But I do tend to bet against most such opponents in the situation described.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this scenario, check-calling is better than bet-folding. But check-folding is better still. I think that's what Chief is getting at.

If Villain will bluff sometimes, though, that could change things (depending on how often he'll bluff).

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
EV of betting = 1 (that has not changed from above).
EV of check-calling = (.25 x 6) + (.75 x .5 x 0) + (.75 x .5 x -1) = 1.125

So there you are better check-calling. If he sometimes bluffs hands that he could not call with then it is better still. Of course really knowing your opponent well is critical in making these types of decisions. But I have seen loose-passives who are fearful of betting the river even with decent made hands and sometimes against those types check-calling is, in fact, better. But I do tend to bet against most such opponents in the situation described.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this scenario, check-calling is better than bet-folding. But check-folding is better still. I think that's what Chief is getting at.

If Villain will bluff sometimes, though, that could change things (depending on how often he'll bluff).

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right. I oversimpfied my example here. Against an opponent who will NEVER bluff (or mistakenly value bet a worse hand) then you are always better off check-folding than check-calling by definition. You need to account for a probability of bluffing or betting with the worse hand for your opponent. But this can be done with some tweaking that does not involve completely unrealistic scenarios. Again, I am pretty sure King Yao has such examples and I will check later.

[PokerBob]

nh

[ QUOTE ]
PF: Raising is better than limping because it isolated a limper (88 fares well against a PF UTG limp range), it can buy you the button, and it can force out the blinds. Limping cuts down significantly on your chance to win unimproved or with a flop bet.

Flop: Value bet, sfer likely thinks he's ahead here a large portion of the time, he will re-evaluate against further aggression because this board is pretty drawless.

Turn: The 5 doesn't help anyone that wasn't already ahead, so he bets to fold out hands that have outs against him (overcards, gutshots) or cause them to make a FToP mistake by calling. If he is raised here, he re-evaluates where he's at.

River: The 7 doesn't improve anything except raggy 2-pairs and 34/89 to a hand that beats him. A bet here is for value because the times he checks and Button bets, he almost always loses. The times he bets he is unlikely to get raised by a worse hand and he can collect bets from hands that will call (like AT and 75) but not bet.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice responses. I have not really looked at isolation yet as a concept, because the 3/6 and 4/8 live games I play live will have 3-4 people call even in a raised pot. I can see why He would do that tho'. I look to SSHE who would recommend limping so I was confused to see people feel raising was appropriate, I understand if 2 limped in front of me, I should limp too. Will attempting to isolate an EP player work in 3/6 or 4/8 live games generally?

Second, I can see the flop bet. He thinks that he PROBABLY is ahead. But after 2 calls, isn't it correct to think that someone has a had worth calling (i.e. a K or a 6)? If not, what are they calling with?

If the BB had Kx suited wouldn't he of played the same way?

Thank You for the responses.

LLL

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
That's right. I oversimpfied my example here. Against an opponent who will NEVER bluff (or mistakenly value bet a worse hand) then you are always better off check-folding than check-calling by definition. You need to account for a probability of bluffing or betting with the worse hand for your opponent. But this can be done with some tweaking that does not involve completely unrealistic scenarios. Again, I am pretty sure King Yao has such examples and I will check later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you included what I put in bold.

During some hands, when I'm facing a really bad player, trying to figure out if he's accidentally bluffing is one of the bigger challenges.

[meep_42]

Good questions, i'll break them up a little to offer what insight and understanding I can.

[ QUOTE ]
Very nice responses. I have not really looked at isolation yet as a concept, because the 3/6 and 4/8 live games I play live will have 3-4 people call even in a raised pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even then (though there's only half the table behind you), they're cold-calling with hands you have a big edge against, sometimes (22-77, single overcard hands like A4s, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
I can see why He would do that tho'. I look to SSHE who would recommend limping so I was confused to see people feel raising was appropriate, I understand if 2 limped in front of me, I should limp too. Will attempting to isolate an EP player work in 3/6 or 4/8 live games generally?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't ever think about isolating until 2/4 or 3/6 online -- it's just not necessary at micro levels or casino 2/4. That's not to say that it doesn't work some of the time and isn't the best play a lot of the time, though. It's just a 2nd-tier poker experience concept as opposed to basic chart-reading pre-flop strategy. As for low limits live, I still raise this and hope for the best most of the time, there are a lot of good things that can come of raising, and not many that can come from limping. All limping in this situation seems to do is encourage weak-tight play.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, I can see the flop bet. He thinks that he PROBABLY is ahead. But after 2 calls, isn't it correct to think that someone has a had worth calling (i.e. a K or a 6)? If not, what are they calling with?

If the BB had Kx suited wouldn't he of played the same way?


[/ QUOTE ]

In these same games you play, what are they cold-calling pre-flop with? What are they calling to the river with? Often times nothing at all (like AT and 57 /images/graemlins/wink.gif ). Yes, a weak K may be inclined to play this way, but a lot of other hands are also and you need to extract bets from them.

Keep reading here, it gets even better. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

-d

[chief444]

Interestingly enough, I just received his book yesterday. I bought only because of what you just mentioned. So, maybe after I read it I'll be convinced otherwise. But loose/passives don't bluff nearly often enough so for now I'll continue either betting or check/folding.

[chief444]

Also Colgin the problem I have with this analysis/logic is not the checking suggestiong. Because certainly it's beneficial if someone does not bet a better hand and of course that happens often. The problem I have is with the calling. I don't always bet. But I never check/call.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Also Colgin the problem I have with this analysis/logic is not the checking suggestiong. Because certainly it's beneficial if someone does not bet a better hand and of course that happens often. The problem I have is with the calling. I don't always bet. But I never check/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, in King Yao's book, the default play against a loose-passive player when you are out of position and expect your hand to be good 25% of the time or less is to check-call. (See pp. 214-218 of Yao's "Weighing the Odds in Hold 'Em Poker"). His analysis is similar to the one I gave above but, of course, more thorough and better written. He shows similar EV equations showing that checking is better than betting, but I think he assumes that because of the pot odds you need to call (i.e., even a loose passive might bluff or bet for value a worse hand enought o justify a call) and if you are going to put in a bet then check-calling is better than betting unde these assumptions. However, he does expressly note that if you knew your opponent would bet only the times he has you beat then you would fold. Well, of course. I think implicit in his recommendation is that you are not that sure.

Now if you really do have such control over your lose-passiv eopponent then fold away. But if there were, again for example, 6 BBs going into the river and you estimate your hand is good about 25% of the time based on the action and the board, can you really confidently fold getting 7:1 after LP bets. Maybe yes. If he will only bet the goods then you should fold. But you have to be pretty certain given your evaluation of how often you were good before he bet in light of the pot odds you are now getting.

Anyway, it's a really great book that has helped me think through these types of problems in ways that I was unable to do before.