Clearly I made a mistake on 4th, right?

[Diplomat]

First hand, 20-40 stud. I am dealt [K/images/graemlins/diamond.gifK/images/graemlins/spade.gif]A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and am first to act. I complete. A seven and a ten call. On 4th I catch the A/images/graemlins/spade.gif and both my opponents catch queens. I bet double and both fold.

Should I bet double on 4th here? Should I bet at all?

Thanks in advance.

-Diplomat

[Andy B]

Checking looks suspicious. Betting small looks suspicious. Say you completed on third street with a three-flush or KQ in the hole or maybe with garbage. Now you want them to fold, right? If my opponents folded every time I bet, I'd be a happy man.

[MRBAA]

No free cards with two pair. Good bet, take the money. Now, if you'd hit a king for hidden trips and a draw to a big full, that's a checking situation.

[7stud]

I think you should look at what hands the other two players needed to call your raise. The seven needed a big pair in the hole to play, and would most likely have called with a big pair higher than tens. For the ten to have called, he needed three to a straight, three to a flush, or a big pair. So, after they both caught queens on fourth street, what were the dangers? The seven might have hit trip queens, though that is unlikely with the other queen out, and the ten might have made 9,10,J,Q for a four straight. You didn't list the suits, so I can't determine whether flushes were also a danger. So, you definitely don't want to give a free card. Remember, if you’re going to slowplay a hand, i.e. check, your opponents need to be drawing to second best hands, NOT hands that can beat your hand.

Now the question is whether you should bet the minimum or maximum. If your opponents would make a mistake by calling, you gain, so the idea is why bet the maximum and put more pressure on your opponents to correctly fold if they would make a mistake by calling. So, the question you have to consider is: would it have been incorrect for an opponent with four to a straight to call your bet if he knew you had two pair?

Taking a look at some numbers at twodimes:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=151374
pokenum -mc 500000 -7s as ad ks kd - 9s th jh qh
7-card Stud Hi: 500000 sampled outcomes
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ks Ad Kd 330015 66.00 169975 33.99 10 0.00 0.660
9s Qh Jh Th 169975 33.99 330015 66.00 10 0.00 0.340

You might only have been a 1.94 to 1 favorite if the ten had 4 to a straight and three to a flush. Would the pot odds have justified a call by your opponent?

Antes: 8 x $3 antes
3rd street: $5 + $20 + $20 + $20
4th street: $20 + should ten call with a 4 straight?
5th street: $40
6th street: $40
7th street: $40

There is $109 in the pot after your bet on 4th street, and the ten is going to have to bet an additional $140 to win ($109 + your bets on later streets of $120) which gives the ten effective pot odds of $140 to $229 or 1.64 to 1. So, it appears that it would be a bad call for the ten. Therefore, you don't want the ten to fold, so betting the minimum looks like the right play.

Also, if for some reason you had good reason to believe both your opponents would only play big pairs in that situation, you would want them to mistakenly call, and betting the minimum would also be appropriate.

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if for some reason you had good reason to believe both your opponents would only play big pairs in that situation, you would want them to mistakenly call, and betting the minimum would also be appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, even if you had bet the minimum, it is most likely that both players would have folded anyway. When an Ace raises on 3rd street and then catches another Ace, you rarely see any callers.

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
Antes: 8 x $3 antes
3rd street: $5 + $20 + $20 + $20
4th street: $20 + should ten call with a 4 straight?
5th street: $40
6th street: $40
7th street: $40

There is $109 in the pot after your bet on 4th street, and the ten is going to have to bet an additional $140 to win ($109 + your bets on later streets of $120) which gives the ten effective pot odds of $140 to $229 or 1.64 to 1. So, it appears that it would be a bad call for the ten. Therefore, you don't want the ten to fold, so betting the minimum looks like the right play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arrrgh! Of coure, you made a double bet on 4th street, so the calculation should look like this:

Antes: 8 x $3 antes
3rd street: $5 + $20 + $20 + $20
4th street: $40 + should ten call with a 4 straight?
5th street: $40
6th street: $40
7th street: $40

There is $129 in the pot after your bet on 4th street, and the ten is going to have to bet an additional $160 to win ($129 + your bets on later streets of $120) which gives the ten effective pot odds of $160 to $249 or 1.56 to 1. So, it appears that it would be a bad call for the ten. Therefore, you didn't want the ten to fold, so betting the minimum looked like the right play.

[DanZ]

you can't slowplay an exposed hand. Bet double and take the pot. If they are dumb enough to fall for a small bet or check, their money will be yours shortly anyway.

[DanZ]

actually, it's not. You can't check AK agaist 2 ragged boards, just like you can't check open aces. if they are dumb enough to buy in, they will give you their $ anyway.

Dan Z.

[DanZ]

If you bet big and are called, you can quickly realize you are drawing... If you bet small and trap someone, you will only find out that you have trapped yourself.

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet small and trap someone, you will only find out that you have trapped yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What hands will a small bet be trapped by?

[DanZ]

well, when your bet is called, it will be by trips most of the time. So you can sit there and think "woohoo I got one now", but for someone to call any bet they almost have to have trips. AA is possible, but even that hand should fold, and the size of your bet will make no difference.

[pianist]

The single bet is right here. You're only slightly more likely to get called by a dominated hand, but you lose $20 less when you run into trips.

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't slowplay an exposed hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not?

[MRBAA]

I'm a 5-10 and occaisonal 10-20 player, so I don't know about the bigger games. But at 5-10, I can definitively say that checking hidden big trips against weakish boards is often the right play. That's precisely because these opponents often start weak and you are likely to be almost a lock to win -- so you want the guy who played a pair of sevens to make a second pair. He's a weak player and will feel he "has to" call you down.

[DanZ]

Of course these things are a little oppoent dependent, and I play and post to beat somewhat competent players.

However, I have found that, the vast majority of the time, someone is more likely to call you down when you make "automatic bets" with a scary board, than if you check and forego these "automatic bets". Not only is the check VERY suspicious, but you keep the pot small and ask players to call a double sized bet instead of a small bet with fewer cards left. The other reason for my proposing the aggressive apporach, is that in always betting these spots (or virtually always betting them), you are not leaking any information about your hand.

Most of the time, you'll be happy or tolerant of their folding, but if they notice that you check in these spots, you will get called a lot more when you do bet, and you probably don't want that.

BTW, I play online and occaisionally 30-60 live, and all of my opponents know me as either a very tight (live) or a very good (online) player. If you are perceived differently, perhaps these slowplays can work on occaision, but I sincerely doubt they're worth it.

Just my 2 cents.

Dan Z.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Better to win a small pot than lose a big one. You only had two pair, bet double. They won't be fooled by your deception anyway if you check, so save time, effort, and maybe the pot and bet double now.

al

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
Better to win a small pot than lose a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to suggest that statement is false.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Better to win a small pot than lose a big one.

[/ QUOTE ] I would like to suggest that statement is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot for the life of me imagine why. I also can't imagine why you would say this and not elaborate as to your reasons why you are suggesting that it's NOT better to win a small pot than lose a big one. Please do elaborate because I cannot see what you are getting at or how you arrived at this conclusion.

al

[7stud]

The idea is that the actual result of a hand is immaterial if you are trying to maximize your long term profits. If you can increase your expected value(=the probability you will win multiplied by the amount you will win) by not having your opponent fold, then it is certainly not better to win a small pot than lose a big one. In the long run, you will win the big pots enough times to more than make up for the bets you lose. If instead, you always try to win a small pot to make sure you never lose a big pot, you will be minimzing your expected value, and in the long run, you will minimize your profits.

In this case, it seems pretty clear that the correct play was to bet the minimum and hope the opponent called.

[Diplomat]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm suprized no one commented about both my opponents catching off-suit queens -- it appeared that these cards could not have helped their hands in any way, or at least not relative to my hand.

The problem for me in this hand was that hands I want them to fold (three-flushes, three-card straights) might call, but one-pair hands (and lots of weak two pair hands) will probably fold. So do I give draws that can beat me a free/cheap card, or do I fold out hands I want calls from? It's a problem.

The other possibility is that they both have total junk, which is really possible. In that case, do I want to give them some rope to hang themselves with?

I'm still leaning towards betting double for the reason Andy mentioned -- I would prefer them to fold here regularily, because more often I'll have something like [5T]AA rainbow instead of [KK]AA double suited.

I see the debate between 7stud and Al and wonder if you guys have taken this into account -- the 'long run' +ev might come from these opponents making mistakes in the future. Just a thought.

-Diplomat

[7stud]

[ QUOTE ]
A seven and a ten call. On 4th I catch the A and both my opponents catch queens.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm suprized no one commented about both my opponents catching off-suit queens

[/ QUOTE ]
You did not mention suits, so all we could comment on were straights and pairs:

[ QUOTE ]
So, after they both caught queens on fourth street, what were the dangers? The seven might have hit trip queens, though that is unlikely with the other queen out, and the ten might have made 9,10,J,Q for a four straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
-------------

[ QUOTE ]
The problem for me in this hand was that hands I want them to fold (three-flushes, three-card straights) might call,

[/ QUOTE ]
The numbers show that you didn't want 4 card straights to fold, so you certainly didn't want three card straights to fold, and once again flushes weren't discussed since you didn't provide information on suits. However, I believe the numbers would show you didn't want 4 card flushes to fold either.

[ QUOTE ]
So do I give draws that can beat me a free/cheap card...

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't think of a situation where you would give a draw that could beat you a free card.

[ QUOTE ]
or do I fold out hands I want calls from?

[/ QUOTE ]
The idea is that you shouldn't encourage hands to correctly fold with a double bet when a single bet might get them to mistakenly call.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't see how always trying to make +EV plays is a problem.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm still leaning towards betting double for the reason Andy mentioned -- I would prefer them to fold here regularily,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you want to maximize your profits. You want them to fold if they have trips, which they aren't going to do, and you want them to call if they have straight draws or pairs. Therefore, both situations call for betting the minimum, since as was mentioned ealier, if you're up against trips you save money by betting the minimum.



[/ QUOTE ]because more often I'll have something like [5T]AA rainbow

[/ QUOTE ]
Generally, you aren't going to be playing [5, T] A rainbow on third street in early position. And if you limp in in late position with that hand and catch an Ace, the most important information your opponents are going to consider is your bet on 3rd street not your minimum or maximum bet the last time they saw you hit your doorcard.

[ QUOTE ]
I see the debate between 7stud and Al and wonder if you guys have taken this into account -- the 'long run' +ev might come from these opponents making mistakes in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess it's always possible to make bad plays yourself and hope that will somehow throw your opponents off in the future and cause them to make bad plays, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I would rather always make good plays, and hope my opponents make bad plays either now or in the future--hopefully both. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[rtrombone]

What goes through your head if somebody completes on 3rd with a big card and then checks 4th when he pairs it? I put him on trips and play accordingly. There's basically no way he's going to get action from me; if I improve to a 4-straight or 4-flush on 5th it's still not correct for me to call a bet on that street, whether 4th gets checked around or not.

Bad players may stick around if they pick up a draw on 5th, but these same bad players will very often call a big bet on 4th, too. Bet.

[CJC]

Buddy..Buddy..Buddy..

But at 5-10, I can definitively say that checking hidden big trips against weakish boards is often the right play. That's precisely because these opponents often start weak

Its me /images/graemlins/grin.gif I want you to rethink your statement here. How often do weak opponents fold on FOURTH street at 5-10? Now after you come up with the answer, ask yourself how many bets you are costing yourself if you always checked big hidden trips!!! Hidden trips are some of the best things to bet in those games.

Now in a tougher game ( and trust me 10-20 HASN'T been lately )..you'll want to mix it up more. But in the lower limits..just bet-em.

CJ

P.S-- ONE disclaimer..and that is a head-up situatio, then you'll need to determain what is the best EV based on that particular opponent.


Me

[CJC]

Hi,

Should I bet at all?

YES! of course!!

WHAT to bet depends largely on what you think your opponents have.. but in general..anything that isn't a double-bet looks funny. ( Hopefully you are correctly raising with a fair amount of hands so they don't AUTOMATICALLY put you on more than your board )

CJ

[MRBAA]

Of course you're right, and against many opponents I'll put in all the action I can. But here's an example from my last trip to Fox -- I am the tightest player at the table and haven't been playing many hands -- I start with pocket kings and raise on third. A loose aggressive, pretty good player and a drunken loose passive guy both call. Now on fourth, I catch a king, so i've got hidden trips with a board that's something like 6-K offsuit. I bet, loose guy calls and mr. aggressive raises with a queen and a 9. Now, this guy would definitely do this with queens and maybe with 9s -- loose guy has two unsuited low cards and will call with any pair -- so I think I'm way ahead here. If I reraise, loose guy is likely to wake up and fold and lag may call down or even fold fifth. If the passive guy folds and the aggressive guy calls down, I stand to win 3.5 more bb by playing it this way. Now if I just call and keep the other player in, I will be bet to again almost surely by the LAG and can call there to hook the other guy (2bb), get in a raise on 6th if I haven't filled, at which point the loose guy may call for the size of the pot (4bb) and get a bet and one call on the river (1bb). So I could possibly win 7 bb as opposed to 3.5 by laying back on fourth.

On the other hand -- in the actual hand the drunk guy caught runner runner suited to his door, called along checked his cards three times on the river and bet when I checked and beat my trip kings with a rivered baby flush (I probably should have folded after all his checking -- he definitely wasn't thinking well enough to do that as a bluff).

[Al_Capone_Junior]

OK 7stud, you explained your point well enough, thanks.

I do not necessarily agree in this particular case, but then hey, this is a forum for debating! /images/graemlins/grin.gif I still think betting out double is the play here.

Thanks for the response tho. See you on the forums!

al