HU 4 flush w/ K in the hole, 4 small bets in pot on the flop; action?

Is this one of those tiny edges I am supposed to work with or can I let this go every time because the pot is small?

First scenario:

Lets say I am holding K8s in the BB in a LHE $1/$2 game. Two limpers are in, SB folds and I check to see the flop. The flop comes with two of my suit, highest card is a Jack. The board is otherwise relatively uncoordinated. Lets also say that this is a fairly tight table, 30% seeing the flop.

So with 2 limpers and the blinds we have $3.50 in the pot, but we have to consider the rake.

The first player to act bets, limper #2 folds.

Now, we can say "it depends" on whether this player is LAG, TAG, but we are talking about a tight table (I would still have to ask this question if the bettor was a LAG, but it would be a much easier decision if that were the case)

So, now the pot has $4.50 in it. Is this an auto call? Seems borderline to me, which is why I am asking. Does having one overcard make the difference between a call and a fold?

When I consider the fact that I might not improve on the turn, if he bets, the pot will then be only $7.50, and after the rake, my pot odds have dropped even more, so I would want to fold the turn unimproved, yes? And, if that's the case, should I not be calling the flop in the first place?

Second scenario:

If we add one more limper preflop, it brings up odds to call a single heads up bet on both the flop and the turn unimproved, right? But, is it the right move? I would call this, but should I?

Third scenario:

This time the third card on the board is an ace, not in my suit, so I no longer have an overcard.

Thoughts?

[cold_cash]

How much will you win if you catch?

Folding a legitimate flush draw on the flop is very rarely correct.

[ QUOTE ]
How much will you win if you catch?

Folding a legitimate flush draw on the flop is very rarely correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I am asking. You are suggesting I should be looking at implied odds, but we are talking about a fairly tight table. If I make my flush on the turn, he may check-fold if I bet. If I am lucky, he bets the turn when I improve, and I can then call or raise, but I doubt he would call a raise, so better still, call the turn then bet/raise the river.

But is a tight player likely to pay me off often enough to make this +EV ? It sounds like you are saying he will...

PS: There's a little green man in my head

If the table is that tight, where he is betting out only with very strong hands, and will check fold when any scare cards hit, then go ahead and fold.

However, I don't think these types of games exist and I would always call.

Call or checkraise depending on your read.

None of these are even close to a fold, in fact i would bet them all out.

[numeri]

I don't get it. Just because we call the flop, doesn't mean we have to call the turn as well. We're getting good enough odds in all three cases to call the flop at the least.

Also, I think you meant that the first person to act after you bets, then limper #2 folds, then you have your decision to make.

[ QUOTE ]
None of these are even close to a fold, in fact i would bet them all out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok this is where I am confused... Finished reading TOP but have only just started reading SSHE and I don't yet understand why raising is a good idea here. If he has already bet into me, I have no FE, right? Although, it might buy me a free card on the river, or I could semi-bluff him if he checks to me on the turn... But lets say he re-raises me? Do I cap it? Why is it mathematically correct to raise here, since I am pretty sure I have no FE.

I hope SSHE clears up this kind of stuff for me...

Picked up Zen In The Art Of Archery as it was recommended by Howard Lederer, but I think I will read SSHE first! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I think you meant that the first person to act after you bets, then limper #2 folds, then you have your decision to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes, I forgot that I stated I was the BB. When I was laying out the scenarios, for some reason I was thinking I was in late position, because at a tight table with only two limpers (or the BB and one limper) I wouldn't be inclined to VP$IP with K8s even in late pos. But, I guess if we change that to me with KTs in this same scenario but in late position, it is an autocall...

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it. Just because we call the flop, doesn't mean we have to call the turn as well. We're getting good enough odds in all three cases to call the flop at the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that was why it was more than one question. If the flop call is right, is it because we are basing it solely on the odds of making the flush on the turn? And if that is the case, why does raising it make sense, unless we are just adding to the pot, while hoping to get a free card on the turn, or being able to semi-bluff if our villain checks the turn?

[ QUOTE ]
None of these are even close to a fold, in fact i would bet them all out.

[/ QUOTE ]

#3 - The A falling is the only close decision. You're still getting 4.22:1 to make your flush on the turn = +.14BB to peel.

I have been calling these but haven't played enough hands at this $1/$2 level to know if I was doing the right thing. In other words, I haven't won enough of them to show a profit. Actually, I am showing a short term loss. But, I know poker is about the long run, so I am ok with short term losses, as long as I am not making a mistake calling in this situation.

Still, I am looking to understand why anyone would raise in this position, and only one person has said anything about a raise here, instead of a call. If I had a pair with my flush draw, even bottom pair, I could see raising it, but not with just a flush draw. If I am wrong, tell me why?

[ QUOTE ]
If the table is that tight, where he is betting out only with very strong hands, and will check fold when any scare cards hit, then go ahead and fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I said it was tight, but I did also say he limped in, so I am not afraid of a monster hand, and, he has "two cards", but I was more concerned about the math involved. I want to make the correct play.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I don't think these types of games exist and I would always call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever played at a Prima site? Some of the $1/$2 games are 29% to the flop and less... I guess the better idea then would be to not get involved in those games in the first place...

I only went there to collect my bonus, but now I can see how it can be a waste of time if the games are tight. I walked out of there with a $30 profit, after collecting $100 in bonus this month - pretty sad for two days work. It was, however, due to terrible players sucking out on me on way too many hands, both days. I just mean that statistically, I wasn't running bad - they were running good. They chased gutshot after gutshot and kept winning, against all odds. At least I made it back with solid play, but I was down $130 after a day of playing those tables. Thankfully I was also playing at Titan and made $100 there in a looser game.

I am holding JT or QJ suited, the flop comes x2J rainbow, I bet, this guy raises me. The turn card is smaller than my J, I bet, the same guy raises me - I think we may even have capped either the flop or the turn. In any case, the river is a K, and I don't remember if I check-called or bet, but the guy shows down K2 offsuit for two pair.

He won a couple of hands like that, then left the table. I know those are the kind of players you want at the table. It is just painful when they leave after getting lucky like that. Anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into a bad beat post, because it isn't. I am just saying that the two days at that site playing those tight tables just to make the bonus almost made me walk out with a loss. So, the lesson here is that loose games really are better (we knew that because Mr. Sklansky told us in his book, but it didn't really sink in until now!), and playing tight games to try to collect a bonus can be suicide, especially if only one or two very loose players sit(s) down, because the chances of actually being able to get involved in a hand against those players is there, but it is very slim.

[JacksonTens]

Tight Table. 1 opponent. Perfect Semi-bluff scenario.

Bet Flop. Bet turn. I may be inclined to bet river depending on opponent...

JT /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Tight Table. 1 opponent. Perfect Semi-bluff scenario.

Bet Flop. Bet turn. I may be inclined to bet river depending on opponent...

JT /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, HU against a tight player it makes sense. So I should raise on the flop and watch him check-fold the turn when I bet into him.

But, if he doesn't fold to my raise, it comes back to the mathematics of it. Lets say he did pair a jack on the flop, and if he doesn't fold to my raise on the flop, and I don't make the flush on the turn, I am putting extra money in the pot if I raise him on the turn and miss on the river. Because of this, I don't understand how this can still be a mathematically sound principle. This is where the math gets confusing for me. I assume that you are recommending this because the FE adds to my odds, but if he didn't fold the flop, he may or may not fold the river, which comes back to the "it depends" on my read.

I was basing the entire original question on odds, but only the odds the pot was giving me, not including FE, or against the chance he might be bluffing.

I guess I can't just base it on pot odds, which is why the question must remain partly unanswered.

I have done this (raised, etc) on several occasions, and I sometimes win, sometimes lose. However, I have no hard evidence to back up a success or failure rate either way.