TO ALL WHO READ MY PREVIOUS THREADS

First off, I posted this in a new thread because I assume that many who already read my other 2 threads won’t go re-check them. Sorry for cluttering the forum. Second off, thanks for the myriad of well thought out replies.

The two hands I posted are examples from Hold ‘em Poker for Advanced Players (21st Century Edition) pp. 170-171. I was rereading it on the train on my way home from work and thought, “if I post these hands, the forums will say these plays are insane” (in fact, on p. 170 it reads “this may sound insane but…” So, I did a little experiment.

By the way, the hands are from the “Loose Games” section, which addresses good games (i.e., games with bad players), not games where opponents play loose preflop but well postflop.

Anyway, the point being illustrated was exactly what I said in my posts: wait until the turn to raise in huge pots because you can’t fold people out for one or two small bets, but you probably can for two big bets. The pot is big and you have to try to win it, not get more bets.

However, I have to admit that I agree with the replies on this forum more than what is in the book. Giving a free or cheap card in these situations can actually cause you to lose a good portion of these pots (like with Bodhi’s 22 example or those given by W. Deranged). Also, I think the book underestimates the amount of people that will fold when faced with 2 cold on a flop that they missed (as in the AK example).

What does everyone think now that they’ve gone back and checked HPFAP, as well as read the arguments given by this forum’s lovely posters? Reading the “Loose Games” section hurt my brain because it seems to be inconsistent with SSHE (I’ll let others elaborate, or be less lazy later). Again, to stress, the game they are taking about in the two books is the same: “weak loose” “no fold ‘em” games.

(By the way, I post on this site under another name, but thanks for the welcomes! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

[W. Deranged]

This was a pretty cool idea.

In Big Daddy David Sklansky's defense, here, I think, is the point:

Sklansky is saying in the AK hand that we will not be able to fold somewhat legitimate drawing hands (basically hands like T9 or 54, that have 5 outs with maybe some redraws) for two on the flop. So we wait to try to fold them on the turn.

I think that the implicit assumption is that we don't have to worry too much about hands that have even fewer outs, like pocket pairs, which are probably correct to fold. Basically, Sklansky is probably assuming that in better, mid-high limit games, most opponents will fold 2-3 out hands which are neutral or don't quite have the odds to continue.

In small stakes games we can't assume they'll fold! Also, we should realize that some players calling may encourage others to, and in fact give others better odds to call!

So we raise now to encourage the total trash to fold, which might actually be worth playing for our loose opponents if the hand turns into a total spastic call-fest.

Even in high stakes games where opponents may realize that certain combo straight/flush hands have odds to call I'll be raising anyway just to not take chances in a big pot.

Oh, yeah. I'd be very interested if the OP would be willing to PM me and offer his/her "real name." I like this idea.

[TightIsRight]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, yeah. I'd be very interested if the OP would be willing to PM me and offer his/her "real name." I like this idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm the OP. I guess there was no good reason to make up a new name to do this thing, although you have to admit that "By the Book" is a little humorous in hindsight. Sorry to disappoint, but I’m not really a regular poster (esp. not in this forum).

Anyway, it’d be cool to get some more responses. Especially from the guy who said faux educated fish like me are the reason that poker will continue to be profitable.

[private joker]

I disagree with the AA hand because I think the games we play in now are a bit different from the games Sklansky writes about. But I agree with the AK hand -- in fact, that is totally standard wait-for-the-turn-when-your-equity-changes-dramatically because of the size of the pot. I'm astounded so many posters argued against it.

[TightIsRight]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the AA hand because I think the games we play in now are a bit different from the games Sklansky writes about. But I agree with the AK hand -- in fact, that is totally standard wait-for-the-turn-when-your-equity-changes-dramatically because of the size of the pot. I'm astounded so many posters argued against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major weak sauce that only one of the original contributors has responded.

As for Joker’s comment, this section was added recently (to the 21st Century Edition). If you go through the chapter and read it, it appears to be about the types of games in which we play. Sklansky and Malmuth are talking about playing in games with players who are “‘weak loose.’ That is, they are playing way too many hands, they are not doing very much bluffing, they are easy to read, and they are going too far with their hands” (156). Also, “these games, usually at the lower limits, are referred to as ‘no-fold ‘em hold ‘em games.’”

I think these are generally the games we play. I stressed this earlier because I didn’t want people to defend the advice by saying that it doesn’t really apply to our games, but rather I wanted people to address the strategy. But, I’m not saying that you didn’t address strategy, Joker.

[W. Deranged]

Private Joker,

I'm very confused by this.

The AK hand features a totally drawless flop. Basically no card that could come on the turn (maybe a /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, though an A or K don't do much if we are already ahead) will obviously define our equity much more than it already is.

It's not like on an A94 rainbow flop there's much we're afraid of, like an obvious flush or straight completing card.

Raising now seems to be quite clear as a way to encourage 2 and 3 out hands to fold instead of making correct or close-to-correct calls.

I think this hand is not standard at all and in fact a rather clear misapplication of the waiting until the turn idea.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with the AA hand because I think the games we play in now are a bit different from the games Sklansky writes about. But I agree with the AK hand -- in fact, that is totally standard wait-for-the-turn-when-your-equity-changes-dramatically because of the size of the pot. I'm astounded so many posters argued against it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Major weak sauce that only one of the original contributors has responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, all right. I do think that, in the AKs hand, there are potential advantages to waiting until the turn, if everything goes as planned.

The guy with 96s will now be getting something like 8:1 on his turn call (after getting about 25:1 on a flop call), for instance, instead of something like 13:1 on a flop call and then something like 13:1 again on a turn call.

The guy with 77 gets the odds for his flop call but then is making a huge mistake if he chooses to call two cold unimproved on the the turn, getting about 8:1.

There isn't much in the way of draws available on the flop, though. If we don't raise now, someone holding JTo could make a loose (and not especially bad) flop call and pick up a decent draw on the turn.

If we just call the flop and the turn action once again gets checked to the CO and he bets, then our raise will have a better chance of driving out some holdings (so long as they didn't improve in the meantime). Partly this is the result of the greater intimidation factor a turn raise has (versus a flop raise). And in a pot this big, what we're really looking for is folds from anything with much of a chance, so maybe we should make use of the intimidation we gain by waiting until the turn. But -- I don't know. In my B&M experience, things don't go so neatly all the time. There isn't such a great tendency to check to the one person who bet the flop in a 7-way pot, and the flop bettor doesn't always bet again after getting called in numerous places. And at some tables the flop is just like an intermission or something and people with hands just wait until the turn for the real action to begin.

Anyway, in the posted hand, I'm pretty sure I would have raised the flop. And I think there are some decent arguments for doing so. At the same time, Sklansky and Malmuth are much better poker players than I am, so I'm not going to tell you that something recommended by HEFAP is wrong.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


It's not like on an A94 rainbow flop there's much we're afraid of, like an obvious flush or straight completing card.

Raising now seems to be quite clear as a way to encourage 2 and 3 out hands to fold instead of making correct or close-to-correct calls.


[/ QUOTE ]

Raising the flop will still give 3- and 4-outers correct odds to call. Raising the turn won't. You can't protect your hand in a pot this size with a raise, so you just hope their draw comes on the river, not the turn, where you can force them to call unprofitably to even see the river.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


It's not like on an A94 rainbow flop there's much we're afraid of, like an obvious flush or straight completing card.

Raising now seems to be quite clear as a way to encourage 2 and 3 out hands to fold instead of making correct or close-to-correct calls.


[/ QUOTE ]

Raising the flop will still give 3- and 4-outers correct odds to call. Raising the turn won't. You can't protect your hand in a pot this size with a raise, so you just hope their draw comes on the river, not the turn, where you can force them to call unprofitably to even see the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're worried about 3- and 4-outers, I guess the hands our turn raise is directed at are A7o and 52s.

And I'll admit, at this table, those hands are probably out there. Will someone fold the A7o for two more bets on the turn? I don't know. But I'll admit that we're at least charging him more to draw, if everything goes according to plan. Even if the A7o donks the turn and then CO calls and then we raise, we're still charging him more.

I would like to face pocket pairs with two cold now. But, like I said in my original response, I don't suppose 88 is folding on the flop anyway.

Another possibility is this: We call the flop bet, the guy with A7o becomes emboldened by the PFR's show of weakness and checkraises, and then we can decide whether we want to continue waiting or go ahead and 3-bet now (so long as CO doesn't 3-bet before we get the chance, that is).

In any event, I do think the idea behind waiting has more to do with hand protection than increased equity on the turn. In most cases, we're not really going to know whether the turn card was good for us or not, at this table.

[Bodhi]

Yes, I think many of us have read those sections of HFAP you speak of. However, I think the conditions under which these fancy plays are correct are very exotic and rare. Thanx for keeping us on our toes. I've sometimes wondered how the forums would react to some examples that are "by the book."

[Bodhi]

[ QUOTE ]
Major weak sauce that only one of the original contributors has responded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

[Bodhi]

How is our equity going to change dramatically with TPTK? If we had an overpair like QQ, then yes, our equity could change dramatically. With a pair of aces someone will have to hit the board twice to beat us, and so we'd be forgoing a lot of expectation if we didn't raise the flop. I also don't like waiting for the turn to raise because there's no guarantee the CO will bet a second time.

[oreogod]

Here is a thread where I asked the same thing in the Mid/High forum awhile back.

thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=3008240&page=&view=&sb=5& o=&vc=1)

[oreogod]

So your flop raise does what for your hand? ppl would be getting 12:1 or 13:1 to call. And they call (correctly), because well, most will, and when they do call your flop raise (correctly) they will still be getting the correct odds when u bet the turn.

The point is, they are not making a mistake whether they just call one bet on the flop or two. But they are making a mistake calling a turn raise.

So while they can make two pair on the turn, u stop them from drawing out on the river. If u raise the flop, u are essentially letting them go to the river profitably. The only worry is that CO will not bet the turn after so many callers. But it is certainly worth the chance (same could be said when u flop a vurnable top pair hand in a pot with many limpers in who would be correct to call your early position flop bet, so u take the chance of CRing the flop to protect your hand). Again, they are not making a mistake calling your flop raise and as such u are letting them take a stab at drawing out on two cards instead of one profitably.