A demonstration of the supremacy of big bet Poker

[Riverman]

This hand came up in a pot limit game at the borgata this weekend. I have a stack of about 2200, and my opponent in this hand has me covered, blinds are 10-15.

One limper to me in MP, I call with A9s (suit unimportant). One more caller, both blinds come along, 5 to the flop and $75 in the pot. Flop comes 9 8 6 with two spades. Checked to me and I pot it for 75. All fold except small blind, who is the toughest player at the table. He is aggressive, tricky, and fearless. He likes to put people to the test when he senses weakness, nut he has told me in the past that he respects my game and doesn;t bluff me often. Anyway, he calls. Turn comes an Ace of clubs. He checks, I bet 200. He thinks for about 30 seconds and raises me 600 more. What is my move and why? Know that this player will make a huge bet on the river if I just call no matter what card comes. All comments welcome.

[drudman]

I would really have to think of a good reason to fold this, you have top two here, it's very possible he has AK, AQ, etc. Unless you think he flopped a set or straight, you gotta tap I think.

But it sure would be hard for me to decide there at the table.

[crockpot]

i've never played for these sorts of stakes, but why would you reraise all-in here? it seems to me that if he is bluffing or betting a hand like AK he will likely lay it down, but he will call with anything that beats you.

it seems very remote that he has a straight draw, although a very tricky player might make this move with a flush draw.

i'm not the most experienced big-bet hold 'em player, so i could easily be wrong here, just wondering.

[Ignatius]

First off, I think folding is out of the question here. You had position on the flop and it was checked to you, so you would bet with a lot of hands and the SB knows that. His check-raise on turn probaly means a big spade (or maybe a 7), otherwise he wouldn't risk a free card. While he might have the flush (a str8 is unlikely as he probably would have check-raised the flop), most of the time you should be ahead here. I'd put him on an ace w/ a spade kicker or A7 or a good draw (like KsT). If you are sure that he will bet the river for you, I'd flat call and call the river unless a 4th spade comes.

[Mike Gallo]

Hey Riverman,

Did you play in the game Friday night? If so, I might have seen you there I sweated the game for a bit. I watched Huck Seed play in the 8 seat.

[Ray Zee]

if you just call his raise he will put you on about trips. so if he bets on the end you can toss it without the nuts.
you are getting close to pot odds to draw out even if beat so a call is in order, with the added benefit you may have the best hand. if you like your situation here you dont understand pot limit against a good player. next time you will check it on fourth street.

[Zag]

I haven't read on, but one point I think is critical is whether or not the 9 on the flop was one of the spades. I think it is very possible that he has Ax of spades, where the x matched the non-space on the flop. If that card was the 9, then he could be freerolling you.

On the other hand, if he had flopped top pair and nut flush draw, he probably would have check-raised the flop.

I put him on the nut flush draw, and he now thinks maybe his ace is good, and he has spades for outs if it is not. If you are 100% sure that he will bet out on any river, then you should call, planning to fold if the flush gets there, and call anything else.

[limon]

am i reading someting wrong here. the board is Ac6s9s8 on the turn. your opponent will call with almost anything in the sb pre flop so the range of hands he could have is staggering. considering his check call on the flop how can you now check behind him on the turn and let him draw for free? many big bet players love this play of call the flop bet to see if your opponent can fire 2 barrels. i say FIRE! call the raise and fold the river if he can fire again.

[DanZ]

This is of course a very exploitable strategy, and we are playing a non-fool. In fact, we may be the "relative fool".

There's no reason to think there's a value bet to be made on the turn, and even if there is, there may be more value in snapping off a bluff on the river.


1 of the 2 players has represented more strength on the flop than the other. Which one is it?

Dan Z.

[limon]

the flop call is scary...but you cant be scared everytime you get called in big bet. i dont beleive the turn bet is for value necessarily, i beleive giving a free card with that board on the turn is a bad play. if this guy is tricky/aggressive he will call with a huge range of hands on the flop just to see if you can fire again. many players who think they are superior post flop players are leaky sand fleas who need to be brushed off before you make them into monsters.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

any time you have a good hand, but not a hand that's so good you would welcome a raise, you should consider the option of checking. If you're ahead, it's true sometimes you might give a free card that will beat you if you check. But if you bet and get raised or check-raised, you may fold the best hand, which is much worse, because now you also lose your bet too. If you gave a free card that beat you, you could fold to a big bet without having lost much. But if you get check-raised, and you don't have a good enough hand to welcome that raise, yet you really don't want to fold either, you're in a conundrum that you could have avoided if you had just checked. There is a discussion of this type of situation in TPFAP, tho the hand is somewhat different.

al

[tewall]

You said the player is going to make a "huge" bet no matter what on the river. Since there's not that much left to bet, he's putting you all in no matter what on the river. Each of you have 2200 (in effect). If you call the 600, he will bet the remainding 1300 on the river. So we can think of this situation as if he's betting 1900.

Best uninformed bluffing strategy would be for him to bluff 1900/4400 = about 43% of the time in this situation. (1900 is your amount to call and 4400 what's in the pot after your call)

Best uninformed calling strategy would be for you to call 400/2300 = about 17% of the time in order to prevent him from profiting against you by bluffing. (400 is what's in the pot before his bet, and 2300 what's after -- notice I'm treating his 1900 bet as one bet, even though it's over 2 rounds, because you've said he'd bet no matter what).

Since you've described this player as not bluffing against you very often, it seems likely he has less than a 43% chance to be bluffing against you now. In this case you should fold, since you have few outs to catch up if you're behind. You only have to call 17% of the time in this situaton to "keep him honest".

It all comes down to how likely you think he's bluffing. If you think more than 43%, then call. If less, fold. If unsure randomize and call 1 out of 6 times.

Again, this is assuming he will ALWAYS bet the river, no matter what. Is this really true? It doesn't seem to me that a tough, tricky player would be that predictable. If he won't always bet, the problem becomes much more difficult.

[tewall]

"if you just call his raise he will put you on about trips. so if he bets on the end you can toss it without the nuts."

This makes sense in real life, but not given the actual description. The actual description (which may not be correct) is that the player would bet the river no matter what. If this is true, then it makes no sense to call the turn unless you're prepared to call the river as well.

[Riverman]

This is a tough one. This opponent will often call me on the flop because he knows I will take a shot at the pot with a wide range of hands (including nothing) in position, trying to pick up small pots. Often, this leads to a turn check (as I usually do not fire two shells on a bluff) followed by a river fold or call, depending on my read. Anyway, on the turn I just didnt want to give him a free card. If I check on the turn, I am obligated to call almost any river bet (regardless of what comes). What I failed to consider is that this opponent will almost never just call the 200- he will fold or raise, and my hand is not quite big enough (in my opinion) to withstand the type of raise that he made. I think against this type of player, a turn check is best. Against a weaker player, the bet on the turn is fine. I was put to the test this time, but there are not many players in my game who would make this raise without having my hand beaten (my opponent could and would). Regardless, I think this hand is a good illustration of why pot limit is the ultimate form of poker- you actually have to play hands postflop (unlike no limit), and because of the escalating bets, the toughest decisions are the most important. This game really separates the men from the boys, IMO.

[Riverman]

I can not, of course, be sure that he will put me in on the river. Given my considerable playing experience with this player, however, it is highly likely in this situation. I would estimate that he checks the river about 10 % of the time, if I call on the turn. I acknowledge that the distinction makes a difference- it was a careless mistake in my original post.

[tewall]

How would the play of this hand differed if it were no limit? T.J. Cloutier says that no limit is far more skillful than pot limit because you can decide how much to bet. (This is his opinion, not mine).

[limon]

this advice assumes you're on a draw and more importantly the nut draw. in this case your playing very weak assuming your drawing with top two against a player whos known to fool around with flop calls. he thinks our hero is weak and he can manipulate him on later streets. you cant live your whole life fearing being raised, worry about the raise when it happens. mr. aggressive *knows* you dont have a straight but he came out of the blind and he views you as weak. i've played against scared players who check behind you every time you call them on the flop, then i bet them out on the river just like you said this guy does. hes an aggressive player, you have to fight fire with fire, you just cant keep checking and folding. a bet here is good, a call of the raise is good. he wont bet the river without a big hand. he views you as weak he feels your gonna call all the way.

would you check a set on the turn as well?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

A set has ten outs and is much more likely to be the best hand. Therefore I would probably not check it. I might not always check the two pair, but with only four outs, I might, depending on the exact situation. If I knew for sure he would be the river no matter what he had, I might just check the turn then call him on the river.

al

[limon]

so where do you draw the line between not wanting to get raised and giving free cards? agreed this cat isnt happy when the guy comes over the top but one who stabs out alot is rarely happy when they get slapped does that mean one should quit stabbing?

when the dude check calls the flop can we be sooo sure he isnt drawing? if his hand was face up would you let him take off a free turn card w/ 77 or JQ or 2 spades or AQ or any # of hands he might call a flop bet with.

Many times I will make the play you suggest with an overpair because i just dont want to get involved deep with a hand which will only be beating an overplayed draw. Ill make more and avoid more sticky situations just by checking and calling on the river but...in this situation against this type of player i beleive i beat many MADE hands he might make this play with including a top 2 on the flop, a smaller aces up and a big ace.

you shouldnt bet if you cant handle a raise and would like to see a showdown but in this case i think you CAN handle a raise against this player. again you wouldn't be happy with the check raise if you have middle set but would you just check it through?

[Ray Zee]

i made a mistake on this hand as i saw a9s i assumed he also had a spade draw to go with his two pair. tip off is when i said he had odds to draw. but i read the post too quickly sorry. so my advice still stands if you had the draw with this hand.
with straight two pair only, you would play even more carefully. this is a hand where you get to go broke for no reason in an unraised pot to someone who made a set or straight cheaply. i dont like that.

[limon]

i understand the concept, dont go broke in an unraised pot, but...how far do you take it? are you suggesting you never bet the turn here with less than the nuts? im not comfortable with that strategy. the way big bet is played if you're in with a tricky player the nuts could always be out aganst you. i got busted by bobby hoff when he came in utg w/74 and called my raise (snowmen)then flopped a straight. i dont think you can obsess about the nuts all the time you have to play the odds and the odds in this case are your ahead and hes drawing...make him pay. or am i missing something big...would you check anything but the nuts in the situation at hand?

[PAUL-IN]

tough decision. a cheap flop for him in the SB gives him major trapping potential, as well as being able to use the check-raise weapon(for bluffs and traps).

SB was in the hand for very cheap, and can hold lots of different hands. However, think about what he may be thinking. if he hit any pair on the flop with an open ender, or possibly an overcard and gutshot, he may not have the goods there, but what's important to him is that he's most likely reasonably sure you don't have the goods(7T) which makes for a very tempting check-raise move here. even if you slowplayed AA here, you would pause to consider folding on the turn(but most likely that would be too hard to lay down).

Barring AA, you can beat any two pair, or hope for a chop if he's got A9, but they can be spades, which was mentioned before. If he had a set on the flop, with a str8 potential and flushdraw out, it'd be risky of him to just smoothcall you which makes me think he didn't flop a set; i suspect he was semi-bluffing with a hand like 79 or another major draw.

i would have called the raise; psychologically he has an edge on you and checkraising here when he knows with pretty good certainty you don't have the nuts is a perfect time to exploit that psychological edge: he may be aware that you think he wouldn't bluff you. call the turn raise. if he has T7, you do have (a few) outs, but there are cards that can scare him on the river too.

[Mark Heide]

Riverman,

This is just me, but with 5 players that got to see the flop for the minimum bet, and all I have is top pair on the flop I don't bet. My reasoning is that 986 with two suits is going to hit someone with that many players better than me quite often. Since, I don't have the suit draw, I would not want to invest a whole lotta dough on this, unless I had the suit draw. With all those players limping in you could have T7 or 75 out their especially if no one had bet waiting to trap you latter for all your dough. I would do this with a straight and take the risk of running into a flush that I could get away with on the turn. If I was your opponent, your bet on the flop would mean top pair or two pair, and if I had flopped the straight, I would call your flop bet and hope everyone else folds, and your hand gets a little better like it did.

Good Luck

Mark

[Ray Zee]

limon, it boils down to that i think you will see more hands that beat you than you can beat when the pot gets big here. if you think this particular player is going to call with weak hands or bluff you and you intend on calling all the bets then its another case. but against good players you will come up way short here playing big pots. thats my opinion. if you can make more money with these hands here go for it.

[Jon Matthews]

This hand is easier in no limit because you can vary your flop bet (i.e. overbet) so that when a non flush card comes on the turn you have more of an idea whether your opponent is on a draw or not.

[limon]

I pushed on this topic because I guess I was just hoping there was a right answer. Even in a good game where there are 5-6 fish one finds himself in with the sharks and bullies often enough. I suppose i was answering more for myself than the original poster. I plunge around and fire at so many pots i get played with alot. in the game i play the blinds are 1/200 the stacks. when people are in with me they know my values may be light and so they will make moves with lighter values. you just cant let a guy constantly intimidate you by calling a flop bet or raising the turn. In the end it all just comes down to people.

[Riverman]

I tried to get my opponent to talk, but I couldn't get a good read on him, so I flashed my hand (wouldn't normally do that) and folded. He had the flopped straight so I saved 2 grand.

I think the key part of this hand is the turn. Ray is right, there is no reason to risk going broke in an unraised pot. Against other opponents I think a bet is right, but not here. As for the flop bet, it is automatic in my opinion. It will pick up the pot quite often.

[Ulysses]

If you had checked the turn, how much of a bet would you have called on the river?

[Riverman]

Huck Seed took my seat in the game, I left a bit before midnight. I was the young kid in the hat. Next time you see the pot limit game, find the kid with the hat on who wont shut the hell up and introduce yourself.

[Mike Gallo]

Huck Seed took my seat in the game, I left a bit before midnight. I was the young kid in the hat. Next time you see the pot limit game, find the kid with the hat on who wont shut the hell up and introduce yourself.

I will look for you, however due to this game at the Borgata I have found greener pastures at the Trop.

The Trop use to spread that game until Tab (poker manager) pirated the game from the Trop. Now the Trop has a "baby" pot limit game with $2-$5 blinds and a $250 buy in.

You still have some donators in that game aka Pete. I hope I didnt offend anyone with that comment. If anyone knows Pete, they know what I mean.

[tewall]

Could you explain this a bit more? It doesn't make sense to me. The pot is $75, and the stacks are $2200. How are going to overbet the pot without giving information away about your hand? Given the stacks are this deep, if you overbet the pot, why couldn't the tough tricky guy still call and try to take your money away at the turn? How much are you going to bet to have a better idea of where he is? It seems to me if you vary your bet size, HE will have a better idea of your hand, but you'll still be in the dark regarding his. If the stacks were smaller so you could kill the drawing odds, but here that's not the case. My question was specifically how THIS hand would have played differently if it were NL.

Thanks.

[Mark Heide]

Riverman,

I disagree with your flop bet and here is why. After running several simulations, just using basic percentages, you would be paying too much to bet the pot on the flop and think that you could pick it up to make it a profitable bet.

Using Caro's poker probe I ran the following hand simulations: First, giving you A9c with a board of 9d 8h 6h and matched you against 4 random hands (note that random is not an exact science, so they probably have slightly better hands). With you and 4 other players, you will win that pot 27.8% of the time. Which means that your bet is wrong. With you and three other players, you will win 36.3% of the time, with two other players you will win 49% of the time, and heads-up you win 68.5%. Which in the last case you may not want to bet in order to let your opponent bluff at it first.

Good Luck

Mark

[tewall]

"With you and 4 other players, you will win that pot 27.8% of the time. Which means that your bet is wrong."

What's the logic here? What would this have to do with whether a flop bet would be wrong? The bet is right if it's EV is positive. That would be a combination of the probability everyone will fold right away, or later, or the hand winning. How often the hand wins only matters if it gets shown down.

[limon]

...and what if he would have checked the turn and the results would have been different...there would be alot of armchair quartebacks saying "you should have bet the turn". lets say he checks the turn (as advised) then a ten comes on the river and he calls a $300 bet only to have his opponent show a made gutshot. or a spade comes on the river only to have his opponent show a small flush OR a 7 comes on the river only to have his opponent show a set. Evertone would be clammering to say how bad the weak check on the turn was.

[Mark Heide]

I used the math to show how hard it is to win a pot with 5 players, especially when you have a flop that is likely to hit those types of hands that limp in. When you're faced with this type of flop and all you have is top pair you are drawing thin, especially when there can easily be already a straight or a good flush draw out there.

Futhermore, the probability that everyone would fold is approximately 27.8% of the time. So, you are paying too much if you bet the pot. Basically, you are betting even money on the flop for a hand you will probably pick up only 27% of the time. If you could pick up the pot with a bet a quarter of the size of the pot the bet would be ok, but would probably still be wrong because you have nothing to draw at. You will end up losing more money by making this move with a hand that has no drawing possibilities. Approximately, 72% of the time you are either going to lose too much money or get called by a hand with better possibilities. It's not a positive EV play. It's minus EV. Ask Ray Zee or another expert(I would like to hear from an expert myself). From my experience, I've only seen players lose their cash making these plays.

Good Luck

Mark

[limon]

so everyone will fold 28% of the time and your winning at least 25% of the time as well...whats wrong with a flop bet in this situation?

[Mark Heide]

limon,

My objection was to a pot size bet. If you think you can get them to fold with small bets, like approximately twice the size of the big blind, go for it. I know people that will just make a bet a fraction of the size in this situation if they have top pair, nothing, draw to the nuts, or the nuts. In this particular situation, I didn't think you could pick up the pot with the cards connected and suited to hands that were likely to fit in.

Good Luck

Mark

[tewall]

Mark, I'm all in favor of math, but you're not using it the right way. How often the hand will win at showdown has nothing to do with how often people will fold.

What you want to do is split the problem into parts. The first part would be the probability that everyone will fold on the flop. The next is that you bet again on the turn, and people fold. The next is you bet again on the river, and everybody folds. Finally you get called on the river and win the pot.

The above is the general idea, but it is far, far simplified. Just because you bet the flop doesn't mean you'll bet the turn. Someone might raise. Etc. etc. Some situations are so complicated, it's very difficult to come up with a mathematical model for it that can be written out.

The general thinking with this type of hand is you are probably ahead and so you bet to protect your hand. If some of the people fold, and a non-scary card comes on the turn, you can bet again and kill the odds of those drawing to beat you.

[Riverman]

There are times when math is very relevant to a player's proper action. However, the chance of my hand winning after all 7 cards is irrelevant to my proper action on the flop. I probably have the bast hand, and I am protecting it. It is that simple. If you are not going to protect top pair, top kicker, then you are going to be a losing player. As for betting the pot, I suppose we could have a debate, but I don't really want to be called and charging 60 for a draw as opposed to 40 must be correct.

[tewall]

I think you and I are saying the same thing.

[Mark Heide]

tewall,

If you really want to work out the details of this hand you will have to do what you have said, plus take it a few steps further.

Considering all these players limped in, on the flop you will need to consider all the combinations of hands each player has to determine how likely each player has hit the flop. Then figure out what your chances of having everyone fold, players calling, or players raising. If I was to figure out the exact number it would take me several weeks to figure it out and by then everyone would forget about the post.

My method using the poker probe was a quick and dirty method because it figured that each player would play any two cards, and playing any two cards they each had approximately an 18% chance of winning the hand if they went to the river. Even though individually the A9 suited would be the better hand since it is approximately a 27% chance to be the winner, collectively someone is likely to hit the flop better with a flop of 986 with two suits.

Even in Doyle's Brunsons Super System book he states he sometimes limps in and if he limps in he usually checks. I can't see betting top pair unless you are against a bunch of weak players that will pay you off with hands like Q9 or K9. And if you have these types of players you shouldn't bet much either if you want them to pay you off. Plus you get the added bonus of them overbetting when they make a big hand which gives you the opportunity to get away from it. But, against good players, I would not bet that hand with that flop, because I'd want a hand that could improve.

Good Luck

Mark