Review Hand 14: KT

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, T.
2 folds, Button calls, 1 fold, MICROPOSTER raises, Button calls.

Flop: (4.33 SB) 6, 8, 9 (2 players)
MICROPOSTER bets, Button calls.

Turn: (3.16 BB) 2 (2 players)
MICROPOSTER checks, Button checks.

River: (3.16 BB) 5 (2 players)
MICROPOSTER bets, Button calls.

Final Pot: 5.16 BB


[/ QUOTE ]

River brings the third flush, and 4 to the straight. I could understand betting the turn, but I don't see any reason to bet the river. Check/call if anything as you may induce a bluff, but probably check/fold. I think even ace high calls here way too often.

Yea, I think that check on the turn was bad play. You are right about the river. In the future put the suit, it's easier to read.

[aces_dad]

I agree the chosen betting sequence reduces the fold equity.

pfr, flop bet, turn check, river bet.

Better fold equity would come from:

pfr, flop bet, turn bet, then I c/c or c/f river UI, leaning towards c/f if villian has made it this far and bets the river.

[LoaferGee12]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree the chosen betting sequence reduces the fold equity.

pfr, flop bet, turn check, river bet.

Better fold equity would come from:

pfr, flop bet, turn bet, then I c/c or c/f river UI, leaning towards c/f if villian has made it this far and bets the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you have to check/fold this on the river unless a read indicates otherwise.

[aces_dad]

Yep, without compelling evidence otherwise it's a c/f on the river after leading the flop and turn.

I can see c/f on the river after leading the turn, but given that he checked on the turn, isn't there some value to betting here? All we need is for the button to fold 25% of the time, which I could see with a pair of sixes or eights, or if he had a drawing hand. After all, it's not like the button's likely to be sitting on a powerhouse after limping pf and checking through the turn.

[detruncate]

Villain has to call with a worse hand or lay down a better one at least 1 time in every 3 here, and I don't think that happens. If he's passive enough to open limp OTB and loose and/or passive enough to call the flop and check through the turn, he probably calls any piece and folds the rest. I check/fold unless I've seen him try to steal a ton of rivers, and even then I'm not sure I'm good against his 'steal' range.

[aces_dad]

We need him to fold a better hand than us, not a worse hand, to make this profitable.

I don't see him folding any 6 or 8 and given hero's turn check, he's probably calling with A high as well.

I'm not so sure we won't get a 6, 8 or Ace to fold here. If you check out xGoreDudex's post "Good" Lay-down? , there is a similar 4 to a straight board out there by the river, and he laid down a pair of Aces Q kicker in a bigger pot to the single river bet. I know there are a lot of differences between the two hands, including limits, number of players, etc. But I think the general principle applies, which is that when there are four to a straight on the board, you can often get marginal hands to fold to a bet on the river. Or at least often enough, given that we're very rarely ahead here.

[aces_dad]

You're risking 1BB to win 3.16BB on this this river bluff. I don't think you fold a better hand often enough (basically 1 in 3) to make this play.

I don't think many people here liked xGoreDudex's laydown on his hand and I don't think typical villians are capable of doing it here either. They are much more likely to call losers than fold winners.

Just to clarify, I didn't like xGoreDudex's laydown either, for the precise reason that there are so many players like me (and Microposter) willing to bet with squadoosh on the river. I was just pointing out that there are players willing to make the laydown. I should also say that I play .5/1 like xGoreDudex though, so maybe there are less players willing to fold at the 3/6 level. But it seems to me that this falls into the mystical category of "read-dependent", where poker debates go to die.

On another note, both you and detruncate use the figure one in three as the amount this bet needs to succeed to be profitable. But to me it seems like the break-even point is one in four. Just for the sake of discussion, if we were to assume that the villain is always ahead here, and there is no rake, it seems to me we are risking one BB for a pot that will total 4.16 BB if villain folds. So if villain were to fold more than 1/4.16 of the time, we would show a profit betting. So is the one in three figure meant to adjust for the rake and the chance that we actually are ahead, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the way I am calculating our odds?

My default line is bet, bet, check/fold.

Everyone like that better?

[aces_dad]

Pot odds are determined by the size of the pot before we add our bet, not after. You can't add your bet before doing the calculations. So in this example, assuming we're behind and the pot is exactly 3BB, then we're trying to win a 3BB bet with 1 bet, or 3:1. Hence we need to win this bet 1/3 times to make it exactly break even getting 3:1.

Mathmatically the Expected value of such a bet would look like:

EV = (pot size) * (win %) = 3 * ( x )

For EV = 0, the required x = 1/3.

Our exact breakeven point here is 1/3; we need to make this 1 bet 3 times, to get the 3 back we invested.

If we only win 1/4, we need to make this bet 4 times, to win 3. Hence if it only works 1/4 we actually lose .25BB every time we make this play.

I'm having trouble describing it but basically, you don't really 'win' the last bet you put in, you just get it back, so it can't be considered part of the pot when you make your calculations.

[LoaferGee12]

[ QUOTE ]
My default line is bet, bet, check/fold.

Everyone like that better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Just curious, why did you change here?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My default line is bet, bet, check/fold.

Everyone like that better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Just curious, why did you change here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I most likely just used that line a hand or two before and didn't want to do it again.