Big draw OOP against a possible steal

[TheMainEvent]

Just sat down

OK so I played passively on the flop, now I'm heads up with a villian who could be quite weak. I feel like I need to make a play for this pot, what is my plan for the turn?

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (9 max, 9 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Hero checks.

Flop: (5.50 SB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
Hero checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, MP3 checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, Hero calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">

[Redd]

I don't think we can make a play at the pot here without a read.

edit: I'd usually lead the flop here, but I don't mind checking and planning to raise with enough callers.

[Greg J]

I usually just lead this flop. If it's HU on the turn after that I lead into him again, unless he raised the flop. In that case I check fold and either check fold or check raise the river depending on whether I hit one of my draws.

[shant]

I usually bet this flop.

lead flop
lead turn

I don't lead this flop.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't lead this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

5 players and a fd+bdsd. why not?

[MrWookie47]

I lead the flop, and I'll c/c the turn w/o a read. People just don't fold all that much. If you want to try and fold him, I think a c/r is your best bet. You're not sad about getting a free card.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't lead this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

5 players and a fd+bdsd. why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a 5.5SB pot, what, in all seriousness, does a bet into 4 opponents acheive?

[shant]

You have fold equity. You can clean up Jack outs. It'd be nice to fold JTo instead of letting it check through. Also, you're getting value when they call. You're also making it correct to call your draw on later streets if you pick up some loose calls here on the flop.

I'm not sure if any of this is coming out right, but I'm pretty sure betting is much better than checking.

[ QUOTE ]
You have fold equity. You can clean up Jack outs. It'd be nice to fold JTo instead of letting it check through. Also, you're getting value when they call. You're also making it correct to call your draw on later streets if you pick up some loose calls here on the flop.

I'm not sure if any of this is coming out right, but I'm pretty sure betting is much better than checking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there's a quite a few very good players in this thread advocating leading this flop but I'm willing to go out on a limb and buck the trend.


Here's my reasoning.

Is it going to fold everyone on the flop....not likely.
Fold equity is about zero donking into four opponents.

Is the bet for value? Well you're hoping for two calls.
If you're going to get two calls, you could have c/r for value and have cost yourself money.

I think when you get callers in a pot this small, your J outs are going to be dead a good amount of the time.

I also think that you would be very lucky to get just two CALLS.
ie. In an unraised small pot you are much more likely to be up against Qx, Jx etc. If you are going to get two callers, one of those callers has to be MP1, MP2, MP3. Getting only 6.5:1 on a flop call, it's likely that the first caller is likely to have Qx more than any other holding. Now, what do YOU do with Qx on this flop when the SB donks into you....you punish the poor fool and try to get it HU...and if he doesn't play back, you own him.

I think if you are serious about putting any aggression into this flop, and generating any real fold equity, I'd put some serious consideration into c/ring ANY number of callers.

For me, the preferred line is to c/r &gt;2 callers for value, c/c the turn.

Depending on villian, I'd c/r a LP bettor and semi bluff donk the turn.

I don't like leaving all my eggs in villian's basket, which is what donking this flop does.
By checking you get all the information you need to determine the best play. And if the worst thing that happens is this flop gets checked through, I'm a happy Hero.

*grunch*
check-raise turn, lead the river. If "weak" means he won't bet the turn again as a bluff or with a rather weak holding, I'd b/c. You have 15 outs here for your draws and your J could even be good. I don't know if that lifts you up over 50% equity but the 4 makes a quite connected board so I think it is the right time to semi-bluff a weak player.

Call.

[TheMainEvent]

I bet the turn, Villian called, River was a blank and went check-check, Villian had A/images/graemlins/club.gif 4/images/graemlins/club.gif

I agree with leading the flop, and I think it actually does have a shot at taking down the pot since the flop may have missed the other players (2 small cards, 1 big card)

On the turn I think my best play is the c/r...My equity on average is probably above 40% since my pair outs will often be good, so I don't lose much by having an extra BB go in but I potentially gain a lot by winning it right there.

[midwestkc]

*grunching*

I check/call this turn. Had you been more aggressive on the flop, then I think you could bet out, but playing it that passively I feel induces you to keep playing passively. If you hit your flush on the river, and the CO had bet the turn, I may even go for the cr, since betting that out will scream "I finally hit my hand, WOOOHHOOOOO!" where a cr says the same thing, but you'll probably get a second bet out of him.

[McGahee]

If you think your J outs are dead, C/R'ing a LP bettor is about the worst thing you can do. It's not a hand you want to isolate with. We want callers - and the PFR is on our right - so bet the flop.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think your J outs are dead, C/R'ing a LP bettor is about the worst thing you can do. It's not a hand you want to isolate with. We want callers - and the PFR is on our right - so bet the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

There was no PFR

[McGahee]

I read bad. Still, bet the flop.

I don't know where this idea that a typical 1/2 player in MP is going to raise the flop with QJ came from either. Putting a limper on a hand w/out a read is pretty much useless.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
I read bad. Still, bet the flop.

I don't know where this idea that a typical 1/2 player in MP is going to raise the flop with QJ came from either. Putting a limper on a hand w/out a read is pretty much useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think my J outs are usually dead though? I think they are live more often than they are dead. All villian did was limp and then bet acting last on the flop, his range is very wide hre.

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think my J outs are usually dead though?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say 'dead' but they're not clean enough to weigh very much. The parlay of CO having nothing, none of the other passive donks having a Q or J, or no overcards like an A or K falling on the river to outdraw you when you do hit a J - all of these things don't make your J outs good "more often than not". It doesn't really matter though - either way a flop C/R is worst than C/C, which is worse than B/C.
You're playing this hand for the flush.

[ QUOTE ]
I read bad. Still, bet the flop.

I don't know where this idea that a typical 1/2 player in MP is going to raise the flop with QJ came from either. Putting a limper on a hand w/out a read is pretty much useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if there was a preflop raiser, I bet this all day everyday.

I'm pretty sure that HE4AP mentions something about the increased likelyhood of Qx, Jx top pairs in an unraised pot.

All I'm saying is this:

If you get one caller - your bet has no value. Are you going to now follow up on the turn?

If you get two or more callers - you should have c\r for value.

So the only value a bet on this flop has, is if there is a descent chance at picking up the pot.

I admit that this board is very condusive to picking up the pot (two little, one big) but expecting to pick up a pot with a single donk bet into 4 players is very, very rarely a wise play.

By making this play, I'm expecting to get snapped a lot. When this happens, the times when I have a good shot at picking up the pot on a semi bluff, I'm more likely to get called.

Aggression and semi bluffing are great (necessary) strategies. I think there are better places for them than this spot.


BTW. All I was saying with the c\r&gt;flop donk is:
If you wanted to seriously take this pot down without seeing the river - that would be the best way.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think my J outs are usually dead though?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say 'dead' but they're not clean enough to weigh very much. The parlay of CO having nothing, none of the other passive donks having a Q or J, or no overcards like an A or K falling on the river to outdraw you when you do hit a J - all of these things don't make your J outs good "more often than not". It doesn't really matter though - either way a flop C/R is worst than C/C, which is worse than B/C.
You're playing this hand for the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you in regards to the flop play. However, once the pot goes from 5-way to heads up I think I need to reevaluate.

[shant]

Why are we putting a bunch of limpers on a Qx hand on a Qxx flop? Why would someone with Jx call you on this flop with no draw and no pair and an overcard out?

If the flop gets checked through, you shouldn't be too happy because you're putting yourself into a close decision on the turn where you might be only getting 3-1 to call a turn bet.

Also, why do you underestimate that people will fold in an unraised pot with a pretty drawless board?

I think checkraising is a bad plan since you can't count on anyone to bet. Also, checkraising and then check-calling the turn allows your opponent to play their hand perfectly.

[jrz1972]

I bet this flop too, and to be honest I don't really care much what happens after I lead off.

If I get called by 2+ players, my bet was for value and I'm happy.

If I get called by only one player, I am leading any turn card and I fully expect to pick up this pot often enough to make this +EV.

If I get called by zero players, it's all good.

If I get raised, I can either call (most likely on this board) or reraise if I think I can get callers.

The only bad scenario for me is if the guy to my immediate left raises and drives everybody else out. Admittedly, that sucks, but every other possible scenario is good for me.

This hand is actually a good illustration of why I don't like checking these hands OOP. On a ragged board like this against passives, it's very predictable that it gets checked around to the bozo on the button who takes a stab at the pot, and now what can I do? I can't raise for value without driving everyone else out, and I have no fold equity. The only slim advantage here is the possibility of check-raising if I hit my draw, but I've already forfeited some value bets to get myself into this position.

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you in regards to the flop play. However, once the pot goes from 5-way to heads up I think I need to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - so check the turn. There's no rule that says you can't do that after betting the flop.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get two or more callers - you should have c\r for value.

[/ QUOTE ]
someone has to bet for this to happen. just because they call does not mean they will bet. however, if you bet, you'll likely get those callers.

there have been some threads lately where i've suggested checking a flopped flush draw or oesd. i remember specifically in the TJ on a KQx flop thread, i said if i were to act first in a 5-way field, i would bet that hand.

well here we are, 5-way, first to act with a draw of similar strength. in this hand there is even less chance of being raised on the flop, so betting looks even better.

you can't only bet made hands...

[McGahee]

[ QUOTE ]
If you get one caller - your bet has no value. Are you going to now follow up on the turn?

If you get two or more callers - you should have c\r for value.

So the only value a bet on this flop has, is if there is a descent chance at picking up the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not as easy as: "I got 2 callers by betting, so I should've C/R'd and gotten 2 callers". You don't know where the bet is going to come from, or if anybody will bet. If the bet comes from your right and you C/R, you're just making it more likely to get it H/U on the turn than if you had just bet yourself.

[TheMainEvent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you in regards to the flop play. However, once the pot goes from 5-way to heads up I think I need to reevaluate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree - so check the turn. There's no rule that says you can't do that after betting the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the intention of calling or raising? The issue I'm getting at is this: I know where I'm at on the turn, but my opponent very likely doesn't know where he is at. I know I'm behind, and I know it very likely isn't by that much (in terms of equity). Isn't it worth it to risk a small mistake (putting in multiple bets on the turn as a slight underdog) to potentially induce a big mistake on my opponent's part? If I didn't pick up the OESD I would say that my equity is so low that I lose too much by putting in 2 (or possibly 3) bets on the turn, but I think the FE makes it worthwhile for me to try a c/r in this case.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are we putting a bunch of limpers on a Qx hand on a Qxx flop? Why would someone with Jx call you on this flop with no draw and no pair and an overcard out?

[/ QUOTE ]

By saying this, are you agreeing with me that any callers have Hero in bad shape?

[ QUOTE ]

If the flop gets checked through, you shouldn't be too happy because you're putting yourself into a close decision on the turn where you might be only getting 3-1 to call a turn bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to be very happy. I don't know why you wouldn't be.

The only situation that would make me unhappy, is if had Hero bet, he gets 3 callers, followed by a LP raise, Hero 3bets and everyone calls.

EV of bet\3betting =
(.35*12) - 3 = 1.2

EV of being granted equity for free =
(.19*5.5) - 0 = 1.045

Even if this bet\3bet occurred - you may have missed an opportunity to c\r\cap.

I'm definitely not making a -EV bet on the flop to make calling the turn correct. If I don't have the odds to call...I'm not calling.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, why do you underestimate that people will fold in an unraised pot with a pretty drawless board?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the biggest sticking point for me. I must be severely underestimating the chance that everyone folds.

[ QUOTE ]

I think checkraising is a bad plan since you can't count on anyone to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again, I'm not unhappy if nobody does.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, checkraising and then check-calling the turn allows your opponent to play their hand perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only advocate this line with &gt;2 villians. In which case, Hero plays his hand perfectly. It's one of the villians who is losing money (unless one has a higher flush draw).


I don't know if my EV calculations are correct, but they're on the right track (I'm still waiting for Yao's book).

If anyone can do the full EV calculations I think we'd all benefit. I also think that someone is going to be very surprised at the frequency we require all opponents to fold for this bet to be +EV.

You get two callers and you're getting 2-1 on your money.

You get 1 caller, a bet on Turn may win pot.

You get no callers, you take home the bacon.

Is seems like every person advocating a bet is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Is this a semi- bluff or a value bet?

Make up your mind.

I don't see this as a semi bluff. There needs to be a reasonable chance that everyone folds for this to be correct.
I've already admitted that I could be severely underestimating this frequency. But for me, a general rule of not trying to semibluff 4 villians has done me well.

If it's a value bet, you expect two callers.

What is someone calling this flop with?
This is what I don't understand....
You've already said that this is a good flop to bet because of the lack of legitimate calling hands.

Does middle pair call your bet, but not bet it?
Does top pair only call this bet and not raise?
Does bottom pair call your bet, but not someone elses?


I think the most likely outcomes after betting this flop, leave your bet with no or less value.
ie. one caller, one raiser or 2 villians you could have c\r anyway.

After checking, the most likely outcomes
checking through, c\r opportunity, or the situation that occurs in the OP.

I prefer the checking options.

<font color="blue">
It may seem after some of my recent posts on the subject that I never advocate betting a draw. This would be a mistake to assume.

1. If there was one (preferably two) less villians in this case - I bet. (semi-bluff)
2. If there was a PFR is late position - I bet.(value)
3. If the board was more connected - I bet. (value)

I think you have to make a clear distinction between which you are trying to achieve. </font>

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
By saying this, are you agreeing with me that any callers have Hero in bad shape?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm not agreeing. You will be called by middle pairs, any pair on this flop, straight draws that don't include a J, etc. You will not be in terrible shape if called here, you'll probably have 12 outs.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be very happy. I don't know why you wouldn't be.

The only situation that would make me unhappy, is if had Hero bet, he gets 3 callers, followed by a LP raise, Hero 3bets and everyone calls.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play micro-limits, so I may be wrong here, but this seems like a fantasy flop action. On this board, what hands are calling 2-bets cold after all that raising? The check-raise cap oppurtunity seems completely ridiculous.

I don't quite understand why you're so happy if the flop gets checked through. Could you explain?

[ QUOTE ]

you can't only bet made hands...

[/ QUOTE ]

See above in blue.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be very happy. I don't know why you wouldn't be.

The only situation that would make me unhappy, is if had Hero bet, he gets 3 callers, followed by a LP raise, Hero 3bets and everyone calls.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't play micro-limits, so I may be wrong here, but this seems like a fantasy flop action. On this board, what hands are calling 2-bets cold after all that raising? The check-raise cap oppurtunity seems completely ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, this is a fantasy situation. I was trying unsuccessfully to make a point.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't quite understand why you're so happy if the flop gets checked through. Could you explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

It goes back the EV equation from before.

The pot is 5.5sb. Hero is definitely behind at this point but Hero has ~35% (flop to river) equity, without a made hand.

If checked through, Hero is granted (by the current leading hand) his chance to make the best hand for free.

Hero will make his hand 19% by the turn.

19% of 5.5sb granted for free = .19*5.5 = 1.045sb.

Having this checked through is marvellous.

Now outside of callers and bettors the only other options are checking through or everyone folding to your bet.

Everyone folding to you bet wins 5.5sb.
Getting checked through wins 1.045sb.
So everyone needs to fold ~20% to have equal value.
I think in a field of 4 villians this is not likely.

Then, IMO, your betting and calling options are in favour of checking aswell.

Here's an excersize for everyone. I may be biased, so I'll leave it up to you.

List in order of %frequency of occurence, what you think happens after a bet and a check.

EG.

After a bet.
60% one caller.
15% one raiser
15% two callers
5% three callers
5% all folds

EDIT to say: I think it's the distribution of these percentages that makes the difference between betting and checking. These percentages will change between levels aswell but an interesting excersize nonetheless....
MAYBE EVEN WORTHY OF ITS OWN THREAD

[ QUOTE ]

Everyone folding to you bet wins 5.5sb.
Getting checked through wins 1.045sb.
So everyone needs to fold ~20% to have equal value.
I think in a field of 4 villians this is not likely.



[/ QUOTE ]
This should actually read: ~31% to have equal value.

Hero is investing .65sb to win 5.5sb. Fold equity needs to be only ~11% but to have neutral EV, it needs to make another whole sb clear of neutral EV to have equal value.

BTW. if you estimate that there is a roughly 20% chance that everyone folds this flop. You should be making this play with ANY TWO CARDS. In fact, you should be more inclined to do it with any two cards than on draws because having the flop check through has no value for you.

[shant]

Thank you for taking the time to do that analysis. You've made a convincing argument. I'm starting a thread on this in SS because you've made me doubt how standard a bet is and I'd like to hear more analysis on it.

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you for taking the time to do that analysis. You've made a convincing argument. I'm starting a thread on this in SS because you've made me doubt how standard a bet is and I'd like to hear more analysis on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankyou. I appreciate a quality discussion. Always.

[MrWookie47]

This is a very good post. Hopefully it has challenged most of the board to think critically. It took me a while to think about it in order to come up with a good response. You have neglected one thing, however, and that's you're assuming there are always no bettors.

See, our EV from betting out is not just the chance that we fold everyone. We have our fold equity PLUS our current equity in the pot. In this case, the pot is 5.5 SB. If it gets checked through, our EV (to showdown, with no furhter betting) is 35% of 5.5 SB, or 1.925 SB. If we bet out, our EV is, instead:

P(no callers) * (5.5 SB) + P(1 caller)*(0.35*(7.5 SB)-1) + P(2 callers)*(0.35*(8.5 SB)-1) + ... + P(HU raised pot)*(0.35*(9.5 SB)-2) + P(3 way raised pot)*(0.35*(11.5 SB)-2) + ... + P(3-way, 3-bet pot)*(0.35*(14.5 SB)-3) + ...

A similarly more rigorous calculation of our EV for checking would be:

P(0 bettors)*0.35*(5.5 SB) + P(1 bettor HU)*(0.35*(7.5 SB)-1) + P(1 bettor, 3-way)*(0.35*(8.5 SB)-1) + ... + P(3 way raised)*(0.35*(11.5 SB)-2) + ...

Now, working further from this is difficult, and it's going to require some approximations. Let's assume that this is a loose, passive game, and all the players are the same. This implies that, for any given player P(call) &gt; P(bet) &gt; P(raise). This is a little disjoint. I might use it later, but I typed it out, and I'm going to leave it here in case I do. I see now that it's not all particularly relevant to what I'm going to say next.

Thus, P(no callers) &lt; P(no bettors). However, P(no callers) needn't be greater than or equal to 0.35 (0.19 in your example) for checking to come out ahead when comparing these two terms in the sum. Instead P(no callers) must be greater than or equal to 0.35*P(no bettors). In my estimation, I think that this condition is pretty much a wash, or perhaps slightly in favor of betting out. In a 5 way pot, usually someone will have caught a piece they like enough to bet out, or else as a late position bluff.

Now, the discussion may still be interesting when we estimate the relative sizes of the other terms. For example, it's safe to say, that P(3-way raised pot) if we check will typically be greater than P(3-way raised pot) if we bet out. OTOH, P(3-way, 3-bet) pot is greater if we bet than if we check. We also get to set the least desirable outcome, P(HU raised pot), to zero if we check, whereas it's non-zero if we bet. And yet we get to have P(fold the one remaining player on the turn) be greater if we bet than if we check. I'm undecided of yet.

Holey crapola Wookie.

Awesome effort.

I think there's too many factors to make a feasible EV calculation possible. Which is what makes poker so great.

I also understand the points you make about the comparisons I make in my equations. If I could have come up with the rest, I would have tried.

FWIW. Shant has started his thread in Small Stakes and it's already produced this beautiful thread from the Qtip archives.
<a href="http://
<a href="http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=287846 2&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=2878462&amp;Words=%26quot%3Bsick%2 6quot%3B+QTip&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post2878462" target="_blank">
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=287846 2&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=2878462&amp;Words=%26quot%3Bsick%2 6quot%3B+QTip&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post2878462 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=287846 2&amp;Searchpage=1&amp;Main=2878462&amp;Words=%26quot%3Bsick%2 6quot%3B+QTip&amp;topic=&amp;Search=true#Post2878462</a>)[/url]

[McGahee]

Though I'm not one who frequently uses the "1/2 players are idiots" rationale - you are severely overestimating your opponents IMO. People will call on a Q75 flop with any pair, gutshots, overcards, backdoor straight draws, lots of things.
If you have a LAG read on somebody to your left, then I can see checking. Without any reads, your estimation that you will get EXACTLY 1 caller 60% of the time on a bet is just absurd.

[ QUOTE ]

Does middle pair call your bet, but not bet it?
Does top pair only call this bet and not raise?
Does bottom pair call your bet, but not someone elses?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quoting these questions not to short-change your POV, but because - correct me if I'm wrong - it is the main crux of your argument.
My answers would be:
Yes, especially if middle pair is in early position.
Yes, you should know this if you've played 1,000 hands or more of microlimit poker.
They'll probably call either, but not for 2 cold - and it will be 2 cold if you decide to C/R a LP bet.

[ QUOTE ]
your estimation that you will get EXACTLY 1 caller 60% of the time on a bet is just absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was an example, not my estimation.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Does middle pair call your bet, but not bet it?
Does top pair only call this bet and not raise?
Does bottom pair call your bet, but not someone elses?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm quoting these questions not to short-change your POV, but because - correct me if I'm wrong - it is the main crux of your argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the crux of my argument.

The crux of my argument was:

A bet here is a poor semibluff.
There are better ways to get value from this flop than betting out.


I've said all I can say and there are better poker players than me, who put forward both sides of the argument in the above Qtip link.

Enjoy.

[shant]

There is a post by The Daver in my thread in SS which sums up nicely why I was for a bet, without doing the math or EV calcs-side of it. Not that the math isn't important, but he makes some good points.

[SlantNGo]

[ QUOTE ]
Is seems like every person advocating a bet is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Is this a semi- bluff or a value bet?

Make up your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The reason I bet this flop is because every outcome of it is at least neutral EV except when the player to my left raises.

If I take down the pot, great.
If I get 1 caller, I set myself up to take down the pot on the turn. He could be just taking one off on the flop, have a draw, or have a made hand. A read would determine my turn play, but it is probably a bet. Great.
If I get 2 callers, I consider this about neutral EV.
If I get 3 callers, it was a good value bet. Great.

You may be right in that a bet here is not correct, but miles makes a great point that your thinking of "If everybody calls, we just lost value because we could have gotten more with a C/R" requires not only that someone bets the flop, but that the player on your left bets the flop. I don't see that happening. If anyone bets the flop, it's likely to be the last to act, which is exactly what you don't want. A lot of junk will call here for 1 but not 2 bets.

[sean c]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a post by The Daver in my thread in SS which sums up nicely why I was for a bet, without doing the math or EV calcs-side of it. Not that the math isn't important, but he makes some good points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought Dave's reply to your thread in ss was one of the better replies i have read in awhile.

[SlantNGo]

Shillx's post nailed it... http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=2881730

I think this one is close depending on how aggressive the players are and what range of hands they would call with.

[ QUOTE ]
There is a post by The Daver in my thread in SS which sums up nicely why I was for a bet, without doing the math or EV calcs-side of it. Not that the math isn't important, but he makes some good points.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that the one about betting is fun?

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a post by The Daver in my thread in SS which sums up nicely why I was for a bet, without doing the math or EV calcs-side of it. Not that the math isn't important, but he makes some good points.

[/ QUOTE ]

His response is great, but make sure you read Entity's posts in that Qtip thread. I think I'm going to be checking these more often, which surprises me. This thread transformed from a realatively simple one about a turn donk vs. c/r vs. c/c into a classic. Nh, all who've posted here.

[shant]

Yeah, I think Entity's and Shillx's posts about flop coordination are important to this topic.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is seems like every person advocating a bet is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Is this a semi- bluff or a value bet?

Make up your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The reason I bet this flop is because every outcome of it is at least neutral EV except when the player to my left raises.


[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong. For the last time, I'm not saying never bet a flush draw OOP.
In this situation, on this flop, I'm never betting.

[ QUOTE ]

If I take down the pot, great.


[/ QUOTE ]

Super. IMO you pulled off a miracle semibluff into 4 opponents. If every on of these guys folds, I'd start donking more flops like this with any two cards at all.

[ QUOTE ]

If I get 1 caller, I set myself up to take down the pot on the turn. He could be just taking one off on the flop, have a draw, or have a made hand. A read would determine my turn play, but it is probably a bet. Great.


[/ QUOTE ]

IMO you are just as likely to have 1 raiser, as 1 caller.
With one caller, your flop bet was negative EV.
As for the turn, you are now making another neutral to negative EV bet to 'try' to take down this pot. I know people make loose flop calls, but what do you expect villian to call the flop with?

[ QUOTE ]

If I get 2 callers, I consider this about neutral EV.


[/ QUOTE ]
OK.

[ QUOTE ]

If I get 3 callers, it was a good value bet. Great.


[/ QUOTE ]
But could you have got more value?

[ QUOTE ]

You may be right in that a bet here is not correct, but miles makes a great point that your thinking of "If everybody calls, we just lost value because we could have gotten more with a C/R" requires not only that someone bets the flop, but that the player on your left bets the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things.
1. When OOP, there is no other place from which a bet can come, other than on your left.
2. I don't care where the freakin' bet comes from, as long as it has one or more callers before it gets back to me.

None of these questions/answers require any response, I'm just presenting my side of the coin and I appreciate the dialogue.


All I wanted to say with any of my posts is:

In this particular situation, on this particular flop, with this many villians, completely OOP, with a less than nut flush, with no overcards to the flop, in an unraised pot - I don't bet out.

[ajm36]

[ QUOTE ]
i said if i were to act first in a 5-way field

[/ QUOTE ]

At what point do you think it is not profitable to lead this flop? Would you lead in a 4-way field with a 4 SB pot?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
The pot is 5.5sb. Hero is definitely behind at this point but Hero has ~35% (flop to river) equity, without a made hand.

If checked through, Hero is granted (by the current leading hand) his chance to make the best hand for free.

Hero will make his hand 19% by the turn.

19% of 5.5sb granted for free = .19*5.5 = 1.045sb.

Having this checked through is marvellous.

Now outside of callers and bettors the only other options are checking through or everyone folding to your bet.

Everyone folding to you bet wins 5.5sb.
Getting checked through wins 1.045sb.
So everyone needs to fold ~20% to have equal value.
I think in a field of 4 villians this is not likely.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think Wookie already has pointed it out, but this reasoning is flawed. Even if we bet we're having 19% equity. We don't lose our share of the pot by betting. What should be examined is whether or not a bet would be for value. Will we get 2 callers enough? What's the risk of getting raised ending up HU? How often will somebody else bet the flop for me?

I haven't considered a bet in this situation as a must. I consider both options when I'm in this situation, taking into account how loose my opponents are, my relative position to aggressive players and so forth. I think I'm probably more likely to bet this hand in a micro game. Against 4 players not having act yet I don't think our folding equity is huge. I think this bet should be made because we'll often get 2+ callers and that's more likely on a loose/passive micro table. But again, it's more about my reads than what limit I play.

[mvoss]

I think an important point of Entity's posts in the excellent Qtip thread is that we WANT bets to go in on the flop here. If the board texture makes it more likely that someone will bet or raise we should be more reluctant to bet out than if the board texture makes it less likely that someone will bet out.

Since we want bets to go in reads are (as always) also important. If the table is passive we should be more willing to bet out than if the table is aggressive.

At least this is my understanding of Entity's post and if I'm wrong please correct me. I just thought that one point should be clarified; we do NOT want this flop to get checked through.

[ QUOTE ]
I think an important point of Entity's posts in the excellent Qtip thread is that we WANT bets to go in on the flop here. If the board texture makes it more likely that someone will bet or raise we should be more reluctant to bet out than if the board texture makes it less likely that someone will bet out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything

[ QUOTE ]

Since we don't hate money reads are (as always) essential.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.
If there is one thing I took from Entity's post is that individual reads and relative position based on those reads are most important playing this sort of hand.


[ QUOTE ]

I just thought that one point should be clarified; we do NOT want this flop to get checked through.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet and get all 4 villians to call.

You make (.35*4sb)-1 = .4sb

If the flop gets checked through you get
(.19*5.5)- 0 = 1.045sb

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif getting this flop checked through.



Since I'm the only one arguing for the 'I don't bet this' side. This thread is becoming tiresome.

If it's done nothing but made you and me read the Qtip thread, my time was worth it but I think I can let it die now.

[jaxUp]

After reading through the other threads and thinking about them for the last hour or so, I am in the checking camp. Against all my innate aggressive tendencies, I am in the check camp. However, I have a problem with this:

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet and get all 4 villians to call.

You make (.35*4sb)-1 = .4sb

If the flop gets checked through you get
(.19*5.5)- 0 = 1.045sb

I /images/graemlins/heart.gif getting this flop checked through.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is flawed. When we bet and all 4 villains call, we win

(.35*4SB) - (.65*1SB) + (.19*5.5SB)

now, I subtractes .65*1SB because we don't lose our SB every time we bet the flop...only when we miss our flush. Also, this may be flawed as the first two terms are dealing with flop-river, and the third deals with flop-turn. Basically, what I intend to show here is that when we bet the flop, we win money IN ADDITION to the money that we would win when it gets checked through. Of course, this is if we know there will be 4 callers.

[mvoss]

Sorry for prolonging this tiresome discussion. I'm not trying to annoy you, I just want to learn.

First of all I think your EV calculation is wrong as JaxUp already stated. You're comparing the EV of your bet to the EV of the entire hand up until now in the case you check. If I'm wrong here I would appreciate to be corrected.

It's only -EV to have bets going in if it's HU at the turn.

If we follow Entity's advise it boils down to this. Do you think someone else (preferably in EP) will bet this flop if you check? Do you think someone will raise you with no callers between the 2 of you if you bet? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then you should check, otherwise you should bet. This is probably an overly simplistic interpretation of Entity's advise but it's the way I understand it. Please explain to me where I'm wrong.

By the way, how can you agree that we want bets to go in and at the same time be happy to see this get checked through?

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]

If we follow Entity's advise it boils down to this. Do you think someone else (preferably in EP) will bet this flop if you check? Do you think someone will raise you with no callers between the 2 of you if you bet? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then you should check, otherwise you should bet. This is probably an overly simplistic interpretation of Entity's advise but it's the way I understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a *bit* simplistic, but basically right on. We want bets going in, but we don't want to isolate. The general idea is that this flop is likely to have hit somebody (if not several people) enough that they will bet it. I would expect someone to bet here very often, and if that bet comes from EP, then we c/r. You were basically right, I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[mvoss]

Thank you for your explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
...I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I weren't trying to advocate a flop bet. I should have been more clear about this.

[SlantNGo]

First of all, let's get on the same page as to what the typical 1/2 9-max player is calling with here. He would call with IMO:

Any 7, Any 5, Any Q with J or lower kicker, Any Ace, Any gutshot, Any obvious stuff I excluded (like the flush draw)

He is raising with:

Any Q with K or higher kicker, 2-pair or higher

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you are just as likely to have 1 raiser, as 1 caller.
With one caller, your flop bet was negative EV.
As for the turn, you are now making another neutral to negative EV bet to 'try' to take down this pot. I know people make loose flop calls, but what do you expect villian to call the flop with?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in this case it becomes a semi-bluff. It also depends where the call comes from. If it goes Bet, Call, 3 folds, then maybe firing again on the turn isn't the best idea. If it goes Bet, 2 or 3 folds, a loose opponent holding Ace high here is more likely to call here then fold the turn UI


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I get 3 callers, it was a good value bet. Great.


[/ QUOTE ]
But could you have got more value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's going to bet the flop for us? If anyone, it's someone from late position, but with loose-passive opponents, this gets checked through a lot of the time when you could have gotten 3 callers.

[ QUOTE ]
1. When OOP, there is no other place from which a bet can come, other than on your left.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bet comes from LP, I consider it on my right, because I can't raise for value without risking to knock others out.

[ QUOTE ]
2. I don't care where the freakin' bet comes from, as long as it has one or more callers before it gets back to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bet comes from LP, why would it have callers before it gets to you? That's only the case if the bet is from EP, which is unlikely unless I have a read that an EP player is aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]

All I wanted to say with any of my posts is:

In this particular situation, on this particular flop, with this many villians, completely OOP, with a less than nut flush, with no overcards to the flop, in an unraised pot - I don't bet out.


[/ QUOTE ]

With loose opponents I believe this is a mistake. A read that they're not as loose as typical 1/2 9-max opponents or that any one of them is aggressive could very well change my answer. Your fear of this flop being raised is unjustified IMO. I think it gets raised &lt;5% here vs. typical opponents.

[SlantNGo]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make the Queen an Ace and I agree. Here, I don't see how someone in EP will bet the flop. If anything, it will be an LP bet.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make the Queen an Ace and I agree. Here, I don't see how someone in EP will bet the flop. If anything, it will be an LP bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's the scenarios with the probability I think they happen in brackets

1. we bet and get 1-2 callers (75%)
2. we bet and win right out (5%)
3. we bet and get isolated(5%)
4. we bet and get 3 callers(15%)

so, when we bet we make
1. (.75*1.5SB*.35) + (.75*-1SB*.65) + (.75*5.5SB*.35) =
2. (.05*5.5SB)
3. (.05*2SB*.35) + (.05*-2SB*.65) + (.05*5.5SB*.35)
4. (.15*3SB*.35) + (.15*-1SB*.65) + (.15*5.5SB*.35)

1+2+3+4 = 1.86 SB

5. we check and it gets checked through (25%)
6. we check and EP bets (10%)
7. we check and LP bets (65%)

so, if we check:

5. (.65*5.5SB*.35)
6. (.1*2.75SB*.35) + (.1*-1.3SB*.65) + (.1*5.5SB*.35)
7. (.65*2.5SB*.35) + (.65*-1SB*.65) + (.65*5.5SB*.35)
* for 6 I used 2.75 SB, because I figure it will go bet,call,call abit more than 1/3 of the time there's an EP bet, allowing us to c/r. This was also why I use -1.3SB in the second term.

5+6+7 = 2.09 SB

So, we see that checking yields a higher EV.

potential shortcomings:
1)assumed percentages incorrect
2)future betting not considered
3)we may win the pot on the turn if it's HU
4)I think 35% is too high for our equity. That's how often we hit the flush, but not how often we win. (I think that this balances 3 pretty well).

I encourage others to add some more math to the problem if they see fit.

[jaxUp]

bumped because this (and linked) threads just might blow your mind.

[shant]

Link to my thread in SS (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4007636&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post 4007636)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make the Queen an Ace and I agree. Here, I don't see how someone in EP will bet the flop. If anything, it will be an LP bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's the scenarios with the probability I think they happen in brackets

1. we bet and get 1-2 callers (75%)
2. we bet and win right out (5%)
3. we bet and get isolated(5%)
4. we bet and get 3 callers(15%)

so, when we bet we make
1. (.75*1.5SB*.35) + (.75*-1SB*.65) + (.75*5.5SB*.35) =
2. (.05*5.5SB)
3. (.05*2SB*.35) + (.05*-2SB*.65) + (.05*5.5SB*.35)
4. (.15*3SB*.35) + (.15*-1SB*.65) + (.15*5.5SB*.35)

1+2+3+4 = 1.86 SB

5. we check and it gets checked through (25%)
6. we check and EP bets (10%)
7. we check and LP bets (65%)

so, if we check:

5. (.65*5.5SB*.35)
6. (.1*2.75SB*.35) + (.1*-1.3SB*.65) + (.1*5.5SB*.35)
7. (.65*2.5SB*.35) + (.65*-1SB*.65) + (.65*5.5SB*.35)
* for 6 I used 2.75 SB, because I figure it will go bet,call,call abit more than 1/3 of the time there's an EP bet, allowing us to c/r. This was also why I use -1.3SB in the second term.

5+6+7 = 2.09 SB

So, we see that checking yields a higher EV.

potential shortcomings:
1)assumed percentages incorrect
2)future betting not considered
3)we may win the pot on the turn if it's HU
4)I think 35% is too high for our equity. That's how often we hit the flush, but not how often we win. (I think that this balances 3 pretty well).

I encourage others to add some more math to the problem if they see fit.

[/ QUOTE ]


AWESOME!!!!!!!

If I had the knowhow, this is what I would have done.

What this arguement boils down to is the percentages that you apply to each of the possibilities. And then the likely holdings of the villians in each case.


I admit a lot of my arguments were flawed (Wookie, Nick Royale, Jaxup and SlantnGo were all correct in saying so)but were all in a vain attempt to express what Jaxup has just done for us all here.

I'm still of the opinion that checking is the higher EV option in the longrun IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION.

Thanks JAXUP.

[mvoss]

I think you've made a mistake in your EV calculations. If I copy paste your calculations I end up with.

EV of betting: 2.04 SB
EV of checking: 2.08 SB

I will do some more math and get back to this.

[mvoss]

Ok, so I did some more math. Maybe this is a waste of time but I'd like to make the numbers a bit more comprehensible. I calculated the value of a bet/check in a number of different situations under the assumption that we have 35% pot equity. Value = 0.35*(number of SB opponents put in)-0.65*(number of bets we put in). Some of the situations below are obviously very unlikely, they are just there to add a little bit of completeness. A lot of situations are left out to make this doable.

BET:
1. 0 callers: 5.5 SB In this case the formula above is obviously not applicable.
2. 1 caller: -0.3 SB
3. 2 callers: 0.05 SB
4. 3 callers: 0.4 SB
5. 4 callers: 0.75 SB
6. We get isolation raised: -0.6 SB

CHECK:
7. Noone bets: 0 SB
8. Hero checks and is the only caller: -0.3 SB
9. Hero checks and there is one more caller: 0.05 SB
10. Hero checks and there are two more callers: 0.4 SB
11. Hero checks and there are three more caller: 0.75 SB
12. CR 2 players: 0.1 SB
13. CR 3 players: 0.8 SB
14. CR 4 players: 1.5 SB

The EV of the entire hand, not counting actions on the turn and river, can be estimated from the numbers above and the assumption that our share of the pot is 35% of the 5.5 SB already in the pot i.e. 1.925 SB.

EV = Probability(1)*5.5 SB+P(2)*(-0.3+1.925) SB+………+P(14)*(1.5+1.925) SB

To get back to your assumptions I think that estimating that we will have only one caller 37.5% of the time we bet is too much. I know we don’t have any reads but 5 out of 9 players saw the flop, that isn’t exactly indicative of a tight table. I think this is a really close situation but to me this is what this situation boils down to. At a loose passive table I’d bet and at a more aggressive table I'd check.