Results not important, please critique flop and turn play

[Phishy McFish]

I raise a lot (loose/maniac/smart LAG....whatever). So I know the first responses will be "Keep playing this way pre flop, but let me know when and where." So feel free....but if I can get some suggestions on how I should have played this after the flop differently, I'd appreciate it. I actually get top set with Js 2 hands later against the same guy and pot the flop at him again, though this time he folds. My thinking then and now is the major value of being so aggressive/loose is that people won't respect my bets as much and I can bet made hands. Is this wrong?

Paradise Poker Pot-Limit Omaha High, $1 BB (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

MP3 ($84.75)
CO ($427.25)
Hero ($610.50)
SB ($166.50)
BB ($315.00)
UTG ($278.75)
UTG+1 ($205.50)
MP1 ($137.25)
MP2 ($134.25)

Preflop: Hero is Button with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. SB posts a blind of $1. UTG+1 posts a blind of $3.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 (poster) checks, MP1 calls $2, MP2 calls $2, MP3 calls $2, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises to $7.5</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, BB calls $5.50, UTG+1 folds, MP1 calls $5.50, MP2 calls $5.50, MP3 calls $5.50.

Flop: ($41.50) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
BB checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, MP3 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets $41.5</font>, BB folds, MP1 calls $41.50, MP2 folds, MP3 folds.

Turn: ($124.50) 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">MP1 bets $88.25</font>, Hero calls $88.25.

(I am pretty damn sure he made a straight here, but feel I need to call at this point)

River: ($301) 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

Final Pot: $301

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
MP1 has 8s 3s 5d 7d (straight, seven high).

Outcome: Hero wins $301. </font>

[Tilt]

Really only the preflop play is worth discussing here. With position I like reraising with more than AA if you are pretty sure the first raise isnt coming from AA and there aren't a binch of short stacks around to foil your plans.

Flop is standard. On the turn you are getting just under the 3:1 that you need to call, so if there really is any chance he doesn't have the straight its an easy call.

[Phishy McFish]

OK. Thanks.

So I shouldn't have tried to milk it more on the flop to get more callers?

[ QUOTE ]
So I shouldn't have tried to milk it more on the flop to get more callers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever you do, you have to be consistent with your bets when you do and don't have actual hands. If you are potting lots of flops with air and making weaker bets with made hands, observant opponents will take notice and adjust their play accordingly.

With regards to this specfic board, I don't think a weaker flop bet would have helped much. Your pre-flop action helped narrow down the hand range preflop, such that most people here hold a bunch of high cards. Given the rainbow flop, the only opponents that you are getting action from are those that called with a small-middle runs hoping to snap off aces. (This is assuming that you aren't betting so weak as to give someone odds to hit their two-outers on you.)

Additionally, if your opponents have marked you with A-A-x-x ot K-K-x-x, you can get a lot of action from even bottom two here. Considering this, and the fact that MP1 bet the turn with his case chips, the turn call is a no brainer (as Tilt already mentioned).

[Phishy McFish]

[ QUOTE ]


Additionally, if your opponents have marked you with A-A-x-x ot K-K-x-x, you can get a lot of action from even bottom two here. Considering this, and the fact that MP1 bet the turn with his case chips, the turn call is a no brainer (as Tilt already mentioned).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I potted it because my thinking is I represented KKxx or AAxx and I could get action from someone thinking I am over playing them post flop. Unfortunately this is because I sometimes may do this on a board of this type (which I see as being almost as safe as possible for AAxx and KKxx)

[DRKEVDC]

Would someone mind explaining to me how the turn is an automatic call, I think that I am screwing up the math. OP has 10 outs, 3 3's, 4's 6's or the 1 jack. He knows what 10 cards are, the 4 he holds the 4 on the board and the 2 cards he is pretty sure the villian has. Given this he has 10 outs out of 42. How does getting 3:1 justify the auto call?

[Phishy McFish]

I'm guessing the chance that the villian could have been playing a lower set or 2 pair combined with the pot odds to call even if they have exactly what I suspected they had (the made str8) is the answer. But I posed the original question so I'll let those more qualified give the reliable reply to this.

[ QUOTE ]
Would someone mind explaining to me how the turn is an automatic call, I think that I am screwing up the math. OP has 10 outs, 3 3's, 4's 6's or the 1 jack. He knows what 10 cards are, the 4 he holds the 4 on the board and the 2 cards he is pretty sure the villian has. Given this he has 10 outs out of 42. How does getting 3:1 justify the auto call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you are screwing up the math. If you could only see 2 of the your opponents hole cards and they indicated a made straight on the turn, the long term +EV decision would be to fold here. You have a ~24% chance of winning the pot and are putting in ~29% of the chips in order to do so with little in implied odds. (Your opponent is likely to check/fold any board pair, assuming he had more money for a river bet.)

However, if you open up your opponents hand range here to include two pair or a lower set, you only need him to have such hands a relatively small percentage of the time to turn this slightly -EV situation into a slighly +EV situation overall.

Also, the fact that you can't make any more "bad" decisions on the river, where the equity extremes are obviously the greatest also makes this an easier play, IMO.

[jhall23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Additionally, if your opponents have marked you with A-A-x-x ot K-K-x-x, you can get a lot of action from even bottom two here. Considering this, and the fact that MP1 bet the turn with his case chips, the turn call is a no brainer (as Tilt already mentioned).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why I potted it because my thinking is I represented KKxx or AAxx and I could get action from someone thinking I am over playing them post flop. Unfortunately this is because I sometimes may do this on a board of this type (which I see as being almost as safe as possible for AAxx and KKxx)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your fine with this. Since everybody checked and you have the button you should bet as they probably expect you too after a pre-flop raise and safe board. With so many to the flop it really up's your chances of someone thinking they are going to be trapping you with an underset you can get heads up with. The pot bet should narrow down the field the help achieve this.

I think this is in general a safe board for AA/KK and will bet it, but often not into a field of 4. Usually only if there are only 1 or 2 others in unless I have great reads they fold alot. With a field this large if the turn comes a K or an A it could turn out good for you if someone wiffed a c/r on the flop. Plus if it get's checked around 2 you a second time on a blank it's very unlikely they have anything and a bet there will win it.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the fact that you can't make any more "bad" decisions on the river, where the equity extremes are obviously the greatest also makes this an easier play, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although this is an advantage when you are allin before the river and can't be bluffed out or forced to make a bad call when a scare card comes on the river, this isn't the case here because the bad card already came.

The fact is it is too easy to justify making bad money odds calls with reasoning like he might have only had two pair and is now representing the straight, when the more often case is that he is simply protecting his hand he just made (LAGs can be an exception). This is especially the case because most players with even bottom 2 would have checkraised the flop versus a preflop raiser. The action in the hand gives you the best reads ususally.

So all that being the case, even if the villain himself called the flop with inadequate odds to make a draw, once he has made it, are you always going to make a bigger mistake by calling with so few outs? In this case the hero supplied the implied odds to the villain, but the villain has nothing left to supply implied odds to hero for improving his hand. Thus the call can only be correct if hero could have such a good read that the majority of the time the villain would not have a straight. I don't believe this will be true though for the reasons I gave above.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus the call can only be correct if hero could have such a good read that the majority of the time the villain would not have a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is way wrong.

Hero has to call $88 into a $301 pot.

When the Villain has the straight Hero's EV is $301*10/42 = $72

When the Villain doesn't have the straight, let's say 50% of the time he semibluffing and has on average 8 outs to a straight, and 50% of the time he's either drawing dead (or drawing to one card, the extremely unlikely, given the action, lower set)

So when villain doesn't have the straight, Hero's EV is $301*0.5 + 301*(34/42)*0.5 = $272

72*(1-x) + 272*x = 88 -----&gt; x = .08.

So he has to have the straight greater than 92% of the time to make the call incorrect.

(Even if Villain has an average of ten outs (i.e. he *only* makes this bet with big straight draws and *never* with two pair or as a bluff), he still would have to have the straight about 90% of the time to make a call incorrect.)

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero has to call $88 into a $301 pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Learning from TV can be hazardous to your poker career. The pot was only $301 after hero called villain's bet on the turn and villain was allin.

[ QUOTE ]
The pot was only $301 after hero called villain's bet on the turn and villain was allin.

[/ QUOTE ]
The way he did the math, this is taken into account. he showed that the call is worth more than $88 as long as the opponent doesn't have the straight 8% of the time or more.

[BluffTHIS!]

That is not true. Hero is being offerred odds of $213 for calling a bet of $88 on the turn. His call does NOT count in the EV calculations. He can either win $213 or lose $88 for making that $88 bet.

There are 5 cases:

1) Villain has the straight and hero does not draw out;
2) Villain has the straight and hero draws out;
3) Villain does not have the straight but does have a straight draw and draws out;
4) Villain does not have a straight but does have a draw but does not draw out;
5) Villain does not have a straight and is bluffing or drawing dead or only to 1 card.

Calculate the probability of each case that is possible with the river board, determine each case's payoff/loss (expectation), multiply the probabilities of each case by its expectation, and add them up for an overall EV.

With the other assumptions that poster made as to percentages of time villain has a draw or is drawing dead when not having the straight on the turn, you will find that the villain has to not have the straight on the turn &gt;73% of the time for hero's call to be +EV. However this would change if you gave a substantially greater probability to villain playing a lower set/overpair in a funny manner with no straight draws to go with it.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
That is not true. Hero is being offerred odds of $213 for calling a bet of $88 on the turn. His call does NOT count in the EV calculations. He can either win $213 or lose $88 for making that $88 bet.

There are 5 cases:

1) Villain has the straight and hero does not draw out;
2) Villain has the straight and hero draws out;
3) Villain does not have the straight but does have a straight draw and draws out;
4) Villain does not have a straight but does have a draw but does not draw out;
5) Villain does not have a straight and is bluffing or drawing dead or only to 1 card.

Calculate the probability of each case that is possible with the river board, determine each case's payoff/loss (expectation), multiply the probabilities of each case by its expectation, and add them up for an overall EV.

With the other assumptions that poster made as to percentages of time villain has a draw or is drawing dead when not having the straight on the turn, you will find that the villain has to not have the straight on the turn &gt;73% of the time for hero's call to be +EV. However this would change if you gave a substantially greater probability to villain playing a lower set/overpair in a funny manner with no straight draws to go with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. If he calls and wins he gets $301 dollars, including his $88 back.

The question is how often he has to be ahead on the turn for his equity in the $301 pot to be $88. If his equity is $88 the call is neutral EV. If his equity is &gt; $88 the call is + EV. His equity is what I calculated. The algebraic expression in my first post gave his equity as a function of x, the probability he Villain did not have the straight. I set that expression equal to $88 to solve for the value of x that gives neutral EV.

Calling the pot 213 and thinking of the bet as -88 instead of 301 and 0 is fine, but all this will do is reduce the left side by 88. You have to set that expression equal to 0 before solving for x though, because the expression has become an EV function instead of an equity function. The value of x will be the same.

OK, in summary about TV's post:

- math is correct
- use of "EV" is wrong

Based on EV:

Pot = 213

cost of call = -88

% to win if villain has straight = 10/42
% to win if villain has lower set = 41/42
% to win if villain has AA45 = 27/40

AA45 (or AA35) is the best draw that doesn't have a straight already.

If villain has set or worse:
EV = -88/42 + 213*41/42 = +206

draw:
EV = -88*13/40 + 213*27/40 = +115

straight:
EV = -88*32/42 + 213*10/42 = -16

50/50 split between draw and underset yields:

x(115+206)/2 + (1-x)*-16 &gt;= 0
x &gt;= 0.09 (9% "bluffing")

if all bluffs are draw the maximum draw ...
x(115) + (1-x)*-16 &gt;= 0
x &gt;= 0.12 (12% "bluffing")
This is the worst case scenario.

Finally, if we change the draw to 8 outs and assume a 50/50 split as TV did, x &gt;= 8%.

So TV was correct.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, in summary about TV's post:

- math is correct
- use of "EV" is wrong


[/ QUOTE ]

Good post Acorns. I only count ten outs for AA45/AA35 though (two A, 8 straight making cards). I don't think any hand has more though. I think open-ended is the best he can be without a made staight. I could be wrong there though.

In my first post, using the phrase "Hero's EV" was misleading. I should have said Hero's equity. But the difference is a semantic one - these two sentences:

The expected value of Hero's stake in the pot is $88 if Villain has the straight 92% of the time.

and

The expected value of the $88 call is $0 if Villain has the straight 92% of the time.

are both appropriate. When one speaks of +EV and -EV decisions, the context is that of the second case (evaluating a wager), but expected value is still a meaningful term in the first case (evaluating an expected stake, or equity). In poker discussion, the convention is that people usually mean the second case.

Either way, a significant source of error (in poker and many other areas) is people making off-the-cuff statements like "has to not have the straight a majority of the time" that seem reasonable without thinking them through. Clearly we are nowhere close to needing a majority.

[BluffTHIS!]

I asked 2+2's resident probability expert Bruce Z to review this thread and give his response below. Note that when he says you/your he is referring to my (Bluff's) method. (Thank you Bruce for your time on this.)

[ QUOTE ]
LearnedfromTV is correct. You have described the correct method of computing the expected value of the amount won, where you consider the two possible outcomes +213 and -88, and you compare this EV to zero to determine whether or not to call. His method is a valid alternative which computes the expected value of the final amount of chips in hand, where the two possible values are +301 and 0, and he compares this final amount to +88 instead of zero, since this is how many chips he would retain if he folds.


Your method:

EV = P(win)*213 + [1-P(win)]*(-88) &gt; 0


His method:

P(win)*(213+88) + [1-P(win)]*0 &gt; +88


As you can see, these methods are equivalent, as your method simply subtracts P(win)*88 from the first term, and then adds [1-P(win)]*(-88), which has the net effect of adding -88 to the left side, and so your right side is 0 instead of +88. His method has the advantage of only having to do 1 multiply, since the probability of losing is multiplied by zero. Both methods give the same answer.


His method:

$301*10/42 = $72

$301*0.5 + 301*(34/42)*0.5 = $272

72*(1-x) + 272*x = 88 -----&gt; x = .08.


Your method:

$213*10/42 = $50.71

-$88*(1 - 10/42) = -$67.05

$213*0.5 + 213*(34/42)*0.5 = $192.71

-$88*(1 - 0.5 - 34/42*0.5) = - $8.38

($50.71 - $67.05)*(1-x) + (192.71 - 8.38)*x = 0 -----&gt; x = .08.


I would simply compute the odds of winning, and then compare this to pot odds.


My method:

x is the probability that your opponent does not have a straight, so (1-x) is the probability that he does have it:

P(win) = (1-x)*(10/42) + x*(0.5 + 0.5*34/42) &gt; 88/(213+88)


As you can see multiplying both sides by 213+88=301 gives his method. When you compute the pot odds, you do not include your own bet, but then you compare the pot odds 213:88 to the odds against winning. An alternative is to include your own bet, and then compare the fraction 88/(213+88) to the probability of winning rather than the odds, as I have shown above.

-Bruce

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if we have shown anything, it is that calling this a no-brainer was probably a bit of a misnomer! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

This last method mentioned by Bruce is the one that I most frequently use during a hand, mostly because I find it easier to estimate the probability of winning and compare that to the ratio of my bet to total pot on the fly.

So, basically it comes down to whether or not you think there is a ~10% chance that villian has less than a straight in this case. I agree with Bluff in that most opponents would have check/raised with two pair on the flop. However, I have seen Villians line equal a naked 1 pair or 1 pair + weak draw on the flop and 2 pair on the turn enough for me to justify making the call against most opponents (facing a 2/3 pot all-in turn bet).

[Tilt]

I still think that call is a no brainer. There is almost always a 10% chance that an opponent in this position will be bluffing the straight.

You don't need to do the heavy math on the fly. Just ask yourself, when your set appears busted and you have to make a call, am I getting 3:1 on my money? If not, is it real close, like within 10% of 3:1? If so I would almost always make the call. Even if it turns out for that particular player that there was no chance he was bluffing, your lost EV has metagame benefits. If you get bluffed off big pots at the river often you will lose a lot of money at this game.

[ QUOTE ]
Good post Acorns. I only count ten outs for AA45/AA35 though (two A, 8 straight making cards).

[/ QUOTE ]
Oops. In my dreary eyed attempt to find the best draw I was including the 5s as outs. Of course they're not in this case. 10 outs is the max here.

It doesn't change the numbers too much though. Worst case scenario (all bluffs are max draws) drops to a little over 11%.

"My thinking then and now is the major value of being so aggressive/loose is that people won't respect my bets as much and I can bet made hands. Is this wrong?"

no thats a fine way to play if your smart about it, it can be very profitable, just will have a lot of swings

Im not sure why u felt the need to call if u were sure he made his straight, thats what i dont agree with. You made a crying call and sucked out, but nice pot

[Phishy McFish]

I don't think I made a crying call. Was I happy with the turn card and that bet.....no. Did I feel as though it was worth a call of that much to win a pot of that much based on what he could have.......yes.