Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?

[Enon]

UB 30/60 6 handed

I have sat for about 10 orbits and don't have stats on villain yet but he hasn't shown down many hands because his hes been pushing hard and getting folds. Every hand that I've shown down, save for one turn bluff raise that got snapped off, have been big hands that I've played aggressively. I'm still playing usual shorthanded aggressive poker but just haven't been out of line except for that one hand.

I open black kings on the button villain in BB calls.

Flop: [Qx7s4s] 2 diamonds, he checkraises I call intending to raise most turns. I mix it up in this spot a lot but lately I'm waiting more for the turn when i used to 3 bet this flop most of the time.

Turn: [Qx7s4s] Qx he bets I call.

River is the deuce of diamonds he bets and i raise intending to make easy fold to a 3 bet.

River raise too thin?

i don't know what the spicy f theorem is, but since the question we're asking isn't "is our hand good here?", but "will he call with just a seven?", i'm not sure i like it at all. i'd be grateful if you enlightened me about this theorem though.

Yea I think that's not a good play. I like to raise the turn and play the kings similar to the way you play them to make sure someone that bets top pair into me all the time after I raise preflop will evenetually be punished but with your bet on the river you really have to anaylize the situation a little bit better. If he is betting a Queen into you, you've already sacrficed the final bet on the river and are conceeding him that at the very least, same situation if he has a set or slowplayed aces.... But if you have him beat here, (pocket tens, ace sevem, and many other hnads) there are only a small percentage of hands that you will have beat that he will call with. So most of the time your raise will be just giving away money. Plus if he decides to get ultra aggro, he may make you muck the best hand..... There is no reason to put any raise in on the river. You need to remember to ask yourself why you raise, it should usually be one of the following critearia either to get a worse hand to pay off your hand, or to try to represnt a strong hand and get an opponent to fold the winning hand... either situation is not likely at all. If you put a read on him and don't think he has a queen or (for whatever reason) you watn to try to get a small queen to fold, you need to raise the turn, at least at that poitn your drawing live, and you can force out some hands you might not want in the pot like (slow played aces) even though i still think raising the turn without an amazing read is just too sloppy. -Andrew

[bakku]

i have no idea what the spicy f theorem is, but there is no way i am raising this river.

I agree what the hell is the spicy f theorem if this is how you play because of it, It sounds like your just giving away money.

[sfer]

I like it. I like 3-betting the flop more though since it's a steal situation, the diamond draw, you might still be able to pop the turn when in position, etc.

[thirddan]

spicyF theorem (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=781406&page=)

All i have to say is LOL!

[bakku]

[ QUOTE ]
i have no idea what the spicy f theorem is, but there is no way i am raising this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg i thought the river completed the flush draw, i change my mind. i like it

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i have no idea what the spicy f theorem is, but there is no way i am raising this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

omg i thought the river completed the flush draw, i change my mind. i like it

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not clear to me whether it does or doesn't. OP indicates spades when showing the cards, but then says 2 diamonds. I'm with you - if the flush draw is completed, I don't like the raise; if it does not complete the draw then I do like it. In either case, you can almost certainly fold to a 3 bet.

[dankhank]

the link to spicyf's post is excellent, but i think it's incorrect application because your delayed raise doesn't save any bets. let me see if i can explain why:

-if you raise on the turn and he has a Q, he is going to 3-bet you. so you'll put in four bets when behind.
-if the river comes non-diamond/straight card and he has a Q, and you delay raise, he is probably going to 3-bet you. so you'll put in four bets when behind.
-if the river completes a draw and he has it, and you raise, he might 3-bet you. so you'll put in four bets when behind.

so the only situation where the delayed raise saves you bets is when a draw completes and doesn't help him, but this is tempered by the real possibility the villain is betting a draw you want to charge him the max on. furthermore the value of this scenario is low because he still might have a hand that beats you.

in other words if you are going to play aggresively after the turn card, it's hard not to get hurt if he has a Q, whatever you do.

so, what if you were planning to only call the river if no draw completes (based on when ahead / when behind reasoning)? would you then be saving bets with a delayed raise plan? yes but you wouldn't be extracting the max from A7, 99, etc., and at its heart spicyf's theorem seemed to be about maximization not just saving bets.

the main thing is how confidently you can put this opponent on a Q (versus a draw or a smaller pair) when he checkraises the flop. after ten orbits some opponents are predictable enough where you can lean one way, in which case you can take the appropriate turn action. barring that, this makes good sense, and your seeing how a third diamond might protect your raise is a nice logical grab, and so is at least in the spirit of the theorem.

[MarkD]

I think you are missing one thing... Hero is going to fold the river if villian 3 bets him. I am almost certain of this and it's why I think the play has merit here.

[dankhank]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are missing one thing... Hero is going to fold the river if villian 3 bets him. I am almost certain of this and it's why I think the play has merit here.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats a key factor to my analysis but yes i forgot about it when writing the 'you put in four bets when behind' parts.

so if villain has Q and enon raises the turn he loses 3-4 bets, if he raises the river he loses three. maybe i did overcomplicate it...

[BigEndian]

I think I would like it if the board didn't pair the top card. I have a hard time understanding what is calling a river CR here that our hero beats.

- Jim

i can't see how those thoughts apply to this hand. if i'm not analyzing the situations way wrong, there's a billion hands worse hands that would pay off in the spicyf example and i don't really think the number is close to a billion in this hand.

[DeathDonkey]

If you don't intend on calling a 3 bet I don't like it. I think you need to see a showdown here you are just good way too often. He can be value betting bottom pair here (and probably correctly) and the draw didn't get there, and you have an overpair shorthanded. Making a big raise and fold to a 3 bet here is just not wise IMO, as he might do something crazy. I don't mind raising and calling a 3 bet, and I don't mind just calling. I think I would have 3 bet the flop though because of the spades.

-DeathDonkey

[flawless_victory]

how could this be thin?
raise and call a threebet easy, but against an aggro player i just keep going on the flop and hope to put in 8ish bets right there...

[phish]

Gotta tell you: this play is so common now and it actually pre-dates Spicy F's post.

Nonetheless, it's not a bad raise. But I don't like the fold to a three-bet you're planning.

[Enon]

Flop was 2 diamonds and the river was a diamond.

Sorry about the confusion.

[Enon]

So the final board is [Qx7d4d][Qx][2d]

When I posted this it had been a while since I read Spicy F's post about waiting until the river to raise to save bets and couldn't remember his example from that post. When the Q on the turn hit, my call was more of a wimp out cause I wasn't looking forward to having to put in 4 bets on the big streets against a relative aggro unknown. Calling also allows him to continue bluffing with his hopeless hands. Maybe turn raise is preferred play here since I want to get full value against a bunch of pair hands I'm beating, but I think others like Flawless make good point that I should simply just reraise this flop and hope to get a lot of action in early.

Main reason I posted this was because when the river hit completing the flush draw I had very strong feeling I was still ahead but since the flush came in, I felt more comfortable in getting in another bet without the risk of making incorrect fold to 3 bet on this board. This line makes it very hard for a Q to reraise the river since I've played my hand consistenly with either a made flush draw, a Q or complete bluff with other hands a lot less likely. I guess delaying a turn raise until the river also prevents him from getting away from other pair hands on turn that he might (unlikely) fold to turn raise.

I guess if I'm willing to raise this river, I should definitely have raised a total blank on river as well but maybe not with intention to fold to 3-bet? Guess better question about this hand would not be whether to raise the river at all but rather what frequency I should be raising the river as opposed to raising the turn.

Opponent called my river raise with 76o and I scooped it.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would like it if the board didn't pair the top card. I have a hard time understanding what is calling a river CR here that our hero beats.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

The river raise looks desperate and I would expect any pair to call near 100% of the time.

[BigEndian]

That definitely turned out to be the case this time. Maybe I'm out of touch with short-handed play though I play a lot as tables cycle at 10-20+. And maybe I'm folding too much short-handed myself.

- Jim

[Enon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I would like it if the board didn't pair the top card. I have a hard time understanding what is calling a river CR here that our hero beats.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

The river raise looks desperate and I would expect any pair to call near 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I agree with this 110% /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[CardSharpCook]

I think the difference btwn this and SpicyF's example is the flush draw vs. the str8 draw. The str8 draw was an unlikely hit, but he could have easily had JT for 2 pair. Such a hand could not 3bet a river, while AT/AJ/J9/T9/etc are all still betting the river. In this example, Enon, you have a flush draw which might explain his betting pattern and he would have to call a turn raise, but might not bet the river with a busted flush. On the other hand, he is much more likely to 3bet the turn with a Q than he would be to 3bet the river with a Q. Hmm, I think this is a good application of the theory, though it is different than the orignal example. The fold to a 3bet on the river is dangerous. Actually, I have a problem with what hands he bets a river here with? Why in the world would he bet a 7 on this river? What hands could he be hoping you'd call with? Does he bet JJ-88 here? Again, I think it is way too risky to bet these hands because I don't see a lot of 2nd best hands calling.

On SpicyF's board, there were a good number of hands that both bet the river and call a raise that are either best or second best. On this board, there are very few 2nd best hands that both bet and call a raise on the river. However, flushes and Qs all bet and most just call a raise, though some flushes and most boats 3bet.

I don't like this play because of the lack of 2nd best hands that would play it this way. I am surprised that he would bet and call 76 here.

[LarsVegas]

Hi CSC,

I think the river bet with a 7 is OK. But the payoff is very thin, but okay I suppose if you only do it about half the time in the long run. If you want to value bet thin on the river (which I think you should want), you can't be seen bet-folding to much at limits where opponents are aware, and you are likely to face the same opponents again some.

I disagree that the fold to a river 3bet here is dangerous. You don't see an opponent betting and calling with 7-6, but you do see someone bet-3betting a worse hand than kings & queens here? Okay it's 30-60, but we are probably not playing Ted Forrest or Phil Ivey here.

I would like to have anyone put in three big bets on the river against me as a stone cold bluff in the long run, anyway. If he does it, he can have it.

lars