W. Deranged
10-11-2005, 05:55 PM
All right,
So I love poker theory (and most forms of things that have theoretical underpinnings, except literary theory, which I despise), and I figured I'd make a "theory" type post in the Small Stakes board because, well, I like this board and the "Poker Theory" board doesn't get as much action, and because I think my thoughts have a particular bearing upon playing small and middle limit hold'em.
[Disclaimer: I make no claim that any of this is new or ground-breaking or that it isn't repeated almost word for word in some book which I may have read or have yet to read.]
I was reading and replying to a post by Dagger78 earlier today about playing KQ in a heads-up pot, where the hero three-bet the flop with overcards and a gutshot and (in my opinion correctly) took a free card on the turn. It got me thinking about playing what I would consider medium to strong draws (6 clean outs or better) on the turn, in position, in heads-up pots. In many situations, particularly if you are the aggressor and have bet/raised the turn, it is correct to check in position to take the free card, get to see a possible hand-making river card for free, and avoid getting raised and paying excessively for your draw. In general, it is almost certainly correct to take the free card whenever the following are true:
1. Villain is very likely to have a better hand and is very unlikely to fold. (Fold equity is maybe the single most important consideration; I remember hearing a comment from a respected Mid-High poster who commented that he rarely uses the free card play, because after having raised the flop with a draw he generally preferred to encourage his opponent to fold on the turn.)
2. Villain is particularly likely to check-raise and force you to pay for your draw.
3. You have only a reasonble number of outs (a standard straight, flush, or overcard+gutshot type of draw, where you have 10 outs or fewer).
I began to consider, though, that there is another very important thing to consider in thinking about whether it is correct to bet the turn, in addition to these factors (fold equity, likelihood of getting raised, and strength of draw).
That factor is your hand's showdown value. (Obviously, many of you might be saying).
But I began to consider a question I realize I haven't considered much before: How does your hand's showdown value on the river affect the decision to bet or check the turn after you've raised the flop with a draw?
After sitting through two boring sections today, I came up with this thought. PLEASE let me know if this exact situation is discussed in a major poker book so I can feel like a loser for posting this.
If you have raised the flop in a heads-up pot with a draw and you do not complete your draw on the turn, it is correct to follow through with a bet if the following are true:
-Villain is unlikely to check-raise the turn.
-Your hand has enough showdown value that, if you checked behind the turn, you would plan to call a river bet unimproved.
-Villain is likely to bet the river with many hands if you check behind the turn.
Here's an example:
You open-raise in late position with A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif. You are called only by the BB, who is too loose and generally passive, though occassionally erratic (so, a standard small stakes player).
Flop: (4+ SB) Q /images/graemlins/club.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif
BB bets, you raise, BB calls.
Turn (4 BB): 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
BB checks... you should bet.
The basic idea, which I'll expand on later after some discussion (hopefully there will be some), is that if you are unlikely to be raised, and you are planning on putting one big bet in either the turn or the river because you have enough showdown value to do so, it is much better to put that bet in on the turn rather than the river, when your equity is higher.
Pretty simple stuff, I guess, but I really enjoyed thinking this problem through today and I thought I'd share it with you.
So I love poker theory (and most forms of things that have theoretical underpinnings, except literary theory, which I despise), and I figured I'd make a "theory" type post in the Small Stakes board because, well, I like this board and the "Poker Theory" board doesn't get as much action, and because I think my thoughts have a particular bearing upon playing small and middle limit hold'em.
[Disclaimer: I make no claim that any of this is new or ground-breaking or that it isn't repeated almost word for word in some book which I may have read or have yet to read.]
I was reading and replying to a post by Dagger78 earlier today about playing KQ in a heads-up pot, where the hero three-bet the flop with overcards and a gutshot and (in my opinion correctly) took a free card on the turn. It got me thinking about playing what I would consider medium to strong draws (6 clean outs or better) on the turn, in position, in heads-up pots. In many situations, particularly if you are the aggressor and have bet/raised the turn, it is correct to check in position to take the free card, get to see a possible hand-making river card for free, and avoid getting raised and paying excessively for your draw. In general, it is almost certainly correct to take the free card whenever the following are true:
1. Villain is very likely to have a better hand and is very unlikely to fold. (Fold equity is maybe the single most important consideration; I remember hearing a comment from a respected Mid-High poster who commented that he rarely uses the free card play, because after having raised the flop with a draw he generally preferred to encourage his opponent to fold on the turn.)
2. Villain is particularly likely to check-raise and force you to pay for your draw.
3. You have only a reasonble number of outs (a standard straight, flush, or overcard+gutshot type of draw, where you have 10 outs or fewer).
I began to consider, though, that there is another very important thing to consider in thinking about whether it is correct to bet the turn, in addition to these factors (fold equity, likelihood of getting raised, and strength of draw).
That factor is your hand's showdown value. (Obviously, many of you might be saying).
But I began to consider a question I realize I haven't considered much before: How does your hand's showdown value on the river affect the decision to bet or check the turn after you've raised the flop with a draw?
After sitting through two boring sections today, I came up with this thought. PLEASE let me know if this exact situation is discussed in a major poker book so I can feel like a loser for posting this.
If you have raised the flop in a heads-up pot with a draw and you do not complete your draw on the turn, it is correct to follow through with a bet if the following are true:
-Villain is unlikely to check-raise the turn.
-Your hand has enough showdown value that, if you checked behind the turn, you would plan to call a river bet unimproved.
-Villain is likely to bet the river with many hands if you check behind the turn.
Here's an example:
You open-raise in late position with A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif. You are called only by the BB, who is too loose and generally passive, though occassionally erratic (so, a standard small stakes player).
Flop: (4+ SB) Q /images/graemlins/club.gif T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif
BB bets, you raise, BB calls.
Turn (4 BB): 5 /images/graemlins/heart.gif
BB checks... you should bet.
The basic idea, which I'll expand on later after some discussion (hopefully there will be some), is that if you are unlikely to be raised, and you are planning on putting one big bet in either the turn or the river because you have enough showdown value to do so, it is much better to put that bet in on the turn rather than the river, when your equity is higher.
Pretty simple stuff, I guess, but I really enjoyed thinking this problem through today and I thought I'd share it with you.