EricW
10-02-2005, 06:48 AM
Here's the link: http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue8/sklansky0805.html
Since this is the same site, I'm guessing it's ok to just post the whole thing on here:
[ QUOTE ]
A Turn Play in No Limit Hold 'em
Deciding whether or not to bet the turn with top pair can be a tricky decision
By David Sklansky
Barry Greenstein's new book Ace on the River is now out. More than half of it addresses issues not directly related to poker strategy, but there is plenty of strategic and tactical advice as well. A lot of that advice is illustrated by sample hands that he dissects. Only one of these hands, out of dozens, do I have a problem with.
In fact, Barry isn't exactly wrong about that one either, but his conclusion assumes a specific type of opponent that isn't representative of a goodly number of players. I don't have the book in front of me, so I might not have all the details right. But it doesn't matter. The points I will make about this situation are important regardless of whether they were discussed in a book or not.
Playing no limit hold 'em, you raise first in with king-queen. The big blind is the only caller. The flop comes ten-ten-eight. The big blind checks and calls your moderately-sized bet. A king comes off on the turn. The big blind checks. You both have plenty of chips left.
At this point, Barry remarks that while the obvious play is to bet, many thinking players believe that checking is better. The plan is to check the turn and call a reasonably-sized river bet. Or, if your opponent checks the river, bet a moderate amount. Barry points out some of the reasons to make this play.
However, Barry disagrees with the play. He notes that a card like a seven could come off, which, if your opponent happens to have jack-nine, will mean that your turn check will have cost you the pot plus the river bet. Against many players a bet will also prevent an eight from coming off and beating you. Barry thus concludes that the better play is generally to bet the turn (folding if check-raised) and not bet the river.
But I believe this advice is wrong against many, if not most, players. The players I speak of will tend to have some or all of the following characteristics:
1. They check-raise the turn with all of their tens and also occasionally with some hands that you beat.
2. They bluff the river if they miss, but fold if you bet the turn.
3. They fold pairs below kings if you bet the turn because they don't want to face a river bet, but call with those pairs on the river if you check the turn.
Another obvious reason to check the turn is so you won't get check-raised off your hand, missing out on your chance to catch a winning king.
Of course balancing the reasons to check or bet is essentially a logic and math problem, assuming you can deduce your opponent's proclivities. For instance, if your opponent won't check-raise the turn, you need not factor in the downside of losing your chance to catch a king. But if he will check-raise with a ten, as well as once in a while as a bluff, your turn check is much more likely to be right. You must assign probabilities to these things. That's for you to do on the forum.
However, let's look at one aspect together. Suppose you know he has jack-nine. You can get him out with a bet, but if you don't, he will try a river steal, betting half the pot some of the time he misses. How often when he misses must he try a steal to justify your turn check?
Say the pot is $1,000. Now, to be fair, we must stipulate that when he makes his hand you will call. In 44 tries, he will make it 8 times. That costs you $500 × 8 = $4,000. When he bluffs, you make $1,500 (the $1,000 in the pot plus his $500 bet).
Keep in mind that if you took the pot on the turn, you would be ahead $44,000. So catching his bluff must win you $48,000 (the $44,000 you win by betting plus the extra $4,000 you lose when you pay him off). That means he must bluff 24 times out of the 36 times he misses ($1,500 × 24 + $1,000 × 12 = $48,000). Few players are this aggressive.
But that doesn't mean that Barry is right. First, notice that if you could expect a full pot-sized bet ($1,000), his needed bluffing frequency goes down to 16 times out of 36. Plus, you must add in the other factors noted, especially the chance to pick up a value bet on the river. The six percent chance to catch your river king is not negligible either.
Of course, there are some other small factors not mentioned that argue for or against a bet on the turn. But I think I have hit upon the main ones. The details are up to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, after finally getting theory of poker, I'm trying to better calculate which options are best in a scenario by using math.
In the scenario that Sklansky discusses, there are a few variables that make the math a little cloudy because you can't too accurately predict when you'll be check raised so one cannot 100% accurately calculate how much profit or loss were to occur from either betting or checking. My question now is how would one go about calculating the math with each possible option with these unknown factors such as the % of when to be checked raised?
Another main point I'm wondering about is whether or not checking through is that great of an idea because if you know for sure that the guy has a gut shot, wouldn't checking through be -EV because you're giving the opponent infinite odds to draw to his hand?
Help towards the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
Since this is the same site, I'm guessing it's ok to just post the whole thing on here:
[ QUOTE ]
A Turn Play in No Limit Hold 'em
Deciding whether or not to bet the turn with top pair can be a tricky decision
By David Sklansky
Barry Greenstein's new book Ace on the River is now out. More than half of it addresses issues not directly related to poker strategy, but there is plenty of strategic and tactical advice as well. A lot of that advice is illustrated by sample hands that he dissects. Only one of these hands, out of dozens, do I have a problem with.
In fact, Barry isn't exactly wrong about that one either, but his conclusion assumes a specific type of opponent that isn't representative of a goodly number of players. I don't have the book in front of me, so I might not have all the details right. But it doesn't matter. The points I will make about this situation are important regardless of whether they were discussed in a book or not.
Playing no limit hold 'em, you raise first in with king-queen. The big blind is the only caller. The flop comes ten-ten-eight. The big blind checks and calls your moderately-sized bet. A king comes off on the turn. The big blind checks. You both have plenty of chips left.
At this point, Barry remarks that while the obvious play is to bet, many thinking players believe that checking is better. The plan is to check the turn and call a reasonably-sized river bet. Or, if your opponent checks the river, bet a moderate amount. Barry points out some of the reasons to make this play.
However, Barry disagrees with the play. He notes that a card like a seven could come off, which, if your opponent happens to have jack-nine, will mean that your turn check will have cost you the pot plus the river bet. Against many players a bet will also prevent an eight from coming off and beating you. Barry thus concludes that the better play is generally to bet the turn (folding if check-raised) and not bet the river.
But I believe this advice is wrong against many, if not most, players. The players I speak of will tend to have some or all of the following characteristics:
1. They check-raise the turn with all of their tens and also occasionally with some hands that you beat.
2. They bluff the river if they miss, but fold if you bet the turn.
3. They fold pairs below kings if you bet the turn because they don't want to face a river bet, but call with those pairs on the river if you check the turn.
Another obvious reason to check the turn is so you won't get check-raised off your hand, missing out on your chance to catch a winning king.
Of course balancing the reasons to check or bet is essentially a logic and math problem, assuming you can deduce your opponent's proclivities. For instance, if your opponent won't check-raise the turn, you need not factor in the downside of losing your chance to catch a king. But if he will check-raise with a ten, as well as once in a while as a bluff, your turn check is much more likely to be right. You must assign probabilities to these things. That's for you to do on the forum.
However, let's look at one aspect together. Suppose you know he has jack-nine. You can get him out with a bet, but if you don't, he will try a river steal, betting half the pot some of the time he misses. How often when he misses must he try a steal to justify your turn check?
Say the pot is $1,000. Now, to be fair, we must stipulate that when he makes his hand you will call. In 44 tries, he will make it 8 times. That costs you $500 × 8 = $4,000. When he bluffs, you make $1,500 (the $1,000 in the pot plus his $500 bet).
Keep in mind that if you took the pot on the turn, you would be ahead $44,000. So catching his bluff must win you $48,000 (the $44,000 you win by betting plus the extra $4,000 you lose when you pay him off). That means he must bluff 24 times out of the 36 times he misses ($1,500 × 24 + $1,000 × 12 = $48,000). Few players are this aggressive.
But that doesn't mean that Barry is right. First, notice that if you could expect a full pot-sized bet ($1,000), his needed bluffing frequency goes down to 16 times out of 36. Plus, you must add in the other factors noted, especially the chance to pick up a value bet on the river. The six percent chance to catch your river king is not negligible either.
Of course, there are some other small factors not mentioned that argue for or against a bet on the turn. But I think I have hit upon the main ones. The details are up to you.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, after finally getting theory of poker, I'm trying to better calculate which options are best in a scenario by using math.
In the scenario that Sklansky discusses, there are a few variables that make the math a little cloudy because you can't too accurately predict when you'll be check raised so one cannot 100% accurately calculate how much profit or loss were to occur from either betting or checking. My question now is how would one go about calculating the math with each possible option with these unknown factors such as the % of when to be checked raised?
Another main point I'm wondering about is whether or not checking through is that great of an idea because if you know for sure that the guy has a gut shot, wouldn't checking through be -EV because you're giving the opponent infinite odds to draw to his hand?
Help towards the right direction would be greatly appreciated.