Clark's flop choice thread: A similar situation

[skp]

I was thinking about Clark's "flop choice" thread after I had played this hand last night.

I was in middle position and the third limper with 8h7h. 2 weak passive players also limped behind me. The bb - a bit of a kamikaze player - then raised. 6 way action.

Flop: Q84 of various suits.

Checked to me. Despite the Clarkian advice in his thread, I too checked primarily because I knew that the weakies behind me would call with one overcard, top pair, middle pair, bottom pair, pocket underpair or any gutshot. I was fairly certain that the Kamikaze had totally missed or perhaps had a big Ace (with which he would call). There was also a chance that he flopped a set of queens and was playing the bushwhacker role.

The two weak passives also subsequently check which considerably improved my read of their hand.

turn: 6 (puts out a two flush).

Kamikaze bets. Next two fold. I raise. One passive player behind me coldcalls. kamikaze calls.

River: offsuit King making the board Q846k

Checked down and my hand is good.

I don't know if I played this hand right but it seems to me that there may be occasions when my flop play is correct (i.e. not on a results-based perspective but on a "who exactly is sitting to your left" perspective).

Comments?

[elysium]

hi skp
you missed a bet on the flop. you've got to bet the dang thing on the flop. i know. but here's why. you can fold this thing on the flop if you get check-raised.

this simple concept of folding if check-raised because your hand has few outs to improve, and a check-raise means your trailing, is the whole ball of wax on this one skp.

now i threw in my miserable two cents worth on clark's post. and i walked away from it beaten up pretty badly. but i took the position that checking the dang thing was better, and i did a reasonable job of presenting my case. i even threw in a little nuero-logic, but alas my hippopotamus went down in flames. and i now bet it, but didn't really understand why.

then john feeney went ripping and tearing into one of holm's posts. it was the funniest thing. holm had KK over-pair and checked it down on the flop, on the absolute button. i was laughing my ass off, and holm was beautiful. he said he wanted to improve his chances of folding everyone out on the turn by keeping the pot small, and raising. john threw the book at poor holm. i had to break it up.

but john listed.....well john was throwing everything at him, but john listed reason number 15 as why you must bet KK on a JXX r board when checked to on the button by bringing something up from hfap concerning being able to fold a hand that has few outs to improve if it gets check-raised. as soon as i read it, it rang a bell. that's it! i had read it before, but it never sank in.

that concept of betting because you can fold to a check-raise applys heavily in the situation described in your post and in clark's. so you bet in this spot, just like the experts say. why? because your hand has few outs to improve and you can fold to a check-raise when the check-raise indicates your trailing. so, if a loose aggressive check-raises, you can still call, but if a solid check-raises, you can fold. and of course, you still have the benefits of betting.

now skp, here's the thing. if you have something like a baby flush draw, you do have outs but you don't have a betting hand. in this case, you would check-call and not bet. why? because you can call a possible check-raise. that's right. you wouldn't bet because you can call; your hand can improve. it's a little like betting in a no limit tournament because if someone goes over the top, you can easily fold.

so, you should bet the middle pair because it has so few outs, and you should check the baby flush because it has so many outs. one is easy to fold if check-raised, but the other one isn't so easy to fold if check-raised, and so you simply avoid the check-raise by not betting but checking when you don't have a betting hand but do have a lot of outs. it all centers around the concept of betting because you can easily fold if check-raised.

[M.B.E.]

I made a long response to this thread, but the computer somehow chewed it up and spit it into the fire.

First -- flopping middle pair as skp did is not analogous to a pocket pair just below top pair like KK on an ace-high flop. The KK only has two outs to improve, the 87 has five which is a big difference. So if you do bet with the 87 you can't fold to a checkraise in my opinion -- you've got to call one more bet. Especially so since the "kamikaze" preflop raiser could well checkraise with a worse hand than yours (skp: who was it?).

Second -- when skp says that the two guys checking behind him on the flop improved his read of their hands, I assume he means that he now knows they don't have a queen (or better), whereas if he had bet and one or both of them called, he would not be able to rule out a queen. Is that right?

So I guess the plan in checking the flop was to call one bet (from someone behind) but fold to a bet and checkraise? And when it's checked behind on the flop, you can safely raise the turn and push out the driftwood.

Only problem is you're missing a value bet on the flop. If you bet you'd likely get three or four callers, while your probability of winning the hand (based on information known to you then) would be maybe 40-50%. So if all that's correct, the question is whether it's worth it to miss some value on the flop to gain information for the turn.

Thus it really isn't like Clark's flop-choice thread, because there the assumption was that by betting the flop we could push out hands that have six outs (for example) against us. Here, with these players, that's not the case.

[elysium]

hi mbe
that's the trouble i'm having with the 'betting because you can fold to a check-raise' line when there are 5 outs. i would think that when your call closes the action or the check-raise is made by a non-solid tight opponent, you would always be correct to call. then of course, if you're likely going to call the check-raise, then your bet isn't being made because you can easily fold to a check-raise because with 5 outs, you cannot easily fold to a check-raise. if a tight solid check-raised me and my call closed the action, i would call.

mbe, what i think here is that if there is a tight solid in the field positioned early enough to check-raise but there are opponents positioned on your left between you and he who are loose and will likely call your initial bet-out; basically if you think that there will be more than one passive opponent calling your bet before it reaches the solid who may check-raise, then i don't think that you should bet even though you have a betting hand because you can easily fold to a check-raise. here, the EP solid....no wait. no actually you should bet. yeah, you actually should bet because the EP solid might make an uncallable check-raise. ironically, and counter-intuitively, if there wasn't a likely passive caller or two positioned on your left; if they were weak tight say, now if the EP solid check-raises, guess what.....your call will close the action. but guess what.....because your call will close the action, you shouldn't bet! this is so counter intuitive that i screwed up a couple paragraphs ago. why? because you can easily call the check-raise. you actually should bet when tweedle dee and dum are on your left and will likely call your bet-out. i got it wrong the first time around, now i'm getting it right.

listen to this mbe; when you have calling stations/ loose aggressive/ unpredictables on your left who will call your bet, but who also may raise or sandwich you in between a powerful check-raiser, as bizarre as this sounds, you should bet. why? because you can easily and gladly fold if check-raised. but when you have weak tights on your left who will fold to your initial bet, and there is a solid possible check-raiser in the field, usually in EP, even though your bet will fold out the two weak tights, and even though your call of the check-raise will close the action, you should not bet. why? because you can easily call the check-raise.

the issue is very hard to see and even when you see it, it's hard to understand. firstly, you have to ask, 'are there other similar situations in hold em?' and well....yes there are. sometimes in no limit, you bet a hand that you can easily fold if someone goes over the top, and you bet it because you can easily fold. you actually might muck a more favorable hand. that's the first stumbling block, showing where else is this idea even thought of; not grammatically correct, but you get the point.

then, you have to be able to identify it quickly at the table. and basically if you think, 'oh chit.', or just 'chit'....'if i bet, these two on my left won't fold, they'll likely raise and sandwich me in between themselves and that EP bully.' if you think that, you should bet. if you think, 'oh goody! even if i get check-raised my call will close the action. these two weak-tights on my left will never, ever call.'; check, don't bet.

quicker still; opponents on your left good, don't bet. bad, do bet. no solid in the field, always bet. if the solid is LP and checked, always bet.

this is a good example of thinking things through, confronting mistakes and correcting, and devising a method of quickly making a correct analysis so that you can take a correct course of action in situations so complicated that clark can post a thread about it and get responses for weeks on end.

betting because you can easily fold to a check-raise can easily open the door for a myriad of mistakes. we are more likely to get it wrong at the table than get it right.

[andyfox]

"it seems to me that there may be occasions when my flop play is correct (i.e. not on a results-based perspective but on a 'who exactly is sitting to your left' perspective)."

I agree 100%. Which is why I most often play pre-flop so as to maximize the chance of having zero participating players sitting to my left.

[skp]

The kamikaze was Andrew (the balding Oriental).

As for my read of the two guys to my left (Jackson and Sophie - the one with the limp), what you say is eesentially correct. Had I bet, they would have called with a wide range of hands. I would had no clue where they were at. But once they check, I can rule out at least a top pair of Queens and in the case of the player last to act (which was Sophie), probably also middle pair.

[Gabe]

A flop of Q84 is not like A84. With the Q84 most of the hands with overcards to your pair but smaller than the top card have straight draws.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
you missed a bet on the flop. you've got to bet the dang thing on the flop. i know. but here's why. you can fold this thing on the flop if you get check-raised.


[/ QUOTE ]

Folding to a checkraise here is awful, if PFR has AQ or an overpair you have 5 outs to improve and are getting at least 15-1 from the pot.

[nykenny]

well played. checking the flop is a good move. although risk giving free cards to over cards to your pair of 8, the fact an over card has already fallen in this multi-way pot makes your check a more supperior move.

with the check, you will find out whether people behind you has a queen or not (most of the time) simply because rarely people will check top pair here fearing giving free card to BB's likely AK or other people's singleton A or K. And when someone bets here unless the very LAST position, you can be fairly sure that he has Q or better.

if no over cards fall and everyone still check to you on turn, you can then bet the 2nd pair. if BB bets without any over cards falling on turn, you can raise to isolate (as you did, but be sure to fold to a re-raise most of the time) and check behind on the river most of the time (to his possible JJ, QQ, TT, 99, doh, only possible..)

don't know if most people will agree, this would be my strategy in this situation.

Kenny