Turn raise: Super-Genius or Super-Magoo?

Here's a hand where my aggressive turn raise was heralded on one side of the p'litical spectrum as Super-Genius, and Super-Magoo by the other. You be the judge...


I'm playing against a MANIAC FROM HELL (MFH). Four star. Certifiable. He's on my right. Yea! I LIVE for this situation.


He has recently Be-ached me for a biggie. Yea, my pair got cracked. HARD. 7 way action, he capped pre-flop with Q3s and made the backdoor flush. Put a real HOITIN on me. But I'm cool. I'm together. I'm beyond the past, and playing for the hand in front of me now, KcQc. I'm in the cutoff and the maniac raises nearly a half-dozen limpers. I just call, as does the button. Some joker limp-reraises and MFH of course reraises again. After all, he probably has a stupendous hand, right? A billion (or maybe it was seven) players take the flop for four each.... 28 sb / 14 bb in the pot


The flop's a goodie for me: Tc 3c 4s. I could win a big one here, I may even be the money favorite with my 2nd nut flush draw and two good overcards. The BB bets. The loose players call (everyone) and the tight ones fold (NO-ONE). MFH raises. I cold call two bets. Reraising was an option here, but I opted for calling to allow the button and SB a chance to remain in the hand. My hand likes lots of players at this point, and reraising didn't seem prudent. Besides, these jokers might wind up capping the hand for me anyway, which will be fine with me. The raising war never happens, everyone else remains having paid two each to see the turn. 42 sb / 21 bb in the pot.


The turn is the 9d, giving me an inside straight draw to the nut str8 and three more outs. It's checked to MFH, who (naturally) bets. I raise.


Turn raise: Super-Genius or Super-Magoo?


Rest of hand and comments / reasoning to follow...

I raised the turn because of several factors. First, I figured there was a strong possibility that the maniac was betting little or nothing. There was some chance my KQ high might have even had him beat. If I didn't have him beat, pairing the K or Q might have given me the winner (up to 6 outs). I did not think these outs would be worth much unless I narrowed the field considerably, so I was raising with the possible 2nd best hand to drive out even worse hands (that might wind up outdrawing me on the river). Being that the pot was so big, I figured that everything I could do at this point to increase my chance of winning it was probably worth more than I could have gained by allowing players to remain (although this would have given extra value on my flush and str8 draws). This is where the debate between the two p'litical spectrums on this matter differ, and also where I may have been wrong...


Was the best play raising, to make my overcards more likely to be good, and to drive out worse hands that might outdraw me, thus increasing my chance of winning the pot?


Or...


Was the best play just calling, to increase the value on my draws?


Opinions taken now, further analysis to follow

Analysis:


In this hand, the following is assumed:


- The board is Tc 3c 4s, 9d.


- I have KcQc


- the maniac has AsTh and has the best hand


- the remaining four opponents are named Larry, Curly, Moe, and Shemp


- Larry has 8d3h. (4 outs, two threes, two eights, but the last eight is a club)


- Curly has Ts7s. (4 outs, two tens, two sevens, but the last seven is a club)


- Moe has Kd4d (3 outs, one out with the 4h, the last four is a club, two outs with the Ks + Kh)


- Shemp somehow has absolutely no outs at all and also has none of anyone else's cards. (What can he have? No, don't answer that!)


- Everyone will call the turn for one bet (6 bets total, 1 each)


- Only the maniac will call two bets on the turn if you raise, the rest will fold (4 bets total, 2 each)


- The maniac pays off on the river every time for one bet


- One person (the maniac) will pay you off one bet if you make a flush on the river


- Two persons (the maniac + one other) will pay you off one bet each if you make the straight or a pair that stands up on the river


- 42 sb / 21 bb are in the pot going into the turn. 7 players remain. I am the cutoff and the maniac is on my right. Shemp is the button.


There are 3 pair cards that will give me the winner (the queens), but two that will give me one pair, but Moe two pair (the other two kings). I will have to pay off Moe one big bet on the river if I hit a king (2 cards). The entire set of nine clubs is available for my draw, as are the other three jacks that give me the nut str8, 12 total. This is 15 total outs that give me the winning hand. The remaining 31 outs result in my losing the pot (2 of which I pay off an extra bet). I will not pay off the maniac (by calling with KQ high) if I do not hit one of my 15 outs.


[Notice I am taking implied odds into consideration here, something which is sometimes difficult to do when making these analyses, but is fairly straight forward in this particular example.]


scenario 1: just calling the turn bet and allowing everyone to draw for one bet.


- Iam getting 22:1 odds when I have to decide whether to call or raise


- if I call and everyone calls behind, I'm getting 26:1 immediate pot odds


- implied odds adds 1 bet 9 times when I hit a flush, 2 bets 6 times when I make a straight or winning pair, and effective odds costs me 1 bet 2 times when I hit a king and pay off Moe


My EV:


9 times I win 26 on the turn and 1 on the river = 9/46 * 27 = 0.195 * 27 = 5.282


6 times I win 26 on the turn and 2 on the river = 6/46 * 28 = 0.130 * 28 = 3.652


2 times I lose one on the turn and one on the river = 2/46 * -2 = 0.043 * -2 = -0.086


29 times I lose one on the turn and none on the river = 29/46 * -1 = 0.630 * -1 = -0.630


5.282 + 3.652 - 0.086 - 0.630 = 8.218 big bets


Scenario 2: raise the turn and drive out everyone but the maniac:


- My pot odds on the turn change. I am now investing 2 bets to win the 22 already there plus 2 more from MFH making your total pot odds on the turn 24:2


- implied odds adds one bet for every out, paid by the maniac. The rest of the players will be out, which has the effect of now making two more kings as outs for me


17 times I win 23 on the turn and 1 on the river = 17/46 * 24 = 0.369 * 24 = 8.856


29 times I lose two on the turn = 29/46 * -2 = 0.630 * -2 = -1.260


8.856 - 1.260 = 7.596 big bets


In this particular case, there were obviously not enough additional ways for me to win the pot to justify raising out the others who were drawing. I only won the pot twice more than I otherwise would have, but cost myself two bets (instead of one) 29 times. This implies that as the pot were to increase in size, there would come a point where even these two additional ways to win it would make it worth raising. Conversely, the more times I could pick up the pot, the more valuable the extra "wins" become relative to the implied odds gained by those drawing. In this particular case though, raising costs me more than half a big bet of EV, but increased my variance for this hand nearly twofold. In this particular example, I clearly made the wrong play by raising (assuming this is exactly what my opponents held).


The proof is in the pudding: Super-Magoo. Should not have raised the turn.

The mistake of my turn raise in the previous example is clear, but what if the hands were a bit different? What if my raising gave me a bigger chance to take the pot? Where is the dividing line between gaining value by letting draws in and gaining value by increasing your chance to win the pot? Let's re-calculate after changing the situation around a little....


Scenario 3: if raising the turn gives me more ways to win the pot:


Without specifying exactly what all my opponent's hands would be, assume that one player has pocket AA, and my raising the turn WILL make him fold, which gives me all six of the kings and queens as winning pairs, but if I do NOT raise and drive everyone but the maniac out, that the kings and queens will NOT make me a winning hand, because AA will call the river no matter what happens. So, if I raise, I have 12 outs to a str8 or a flush, AND I have six more outs to top pair, which will be a winner. In every case on the raised pot, I collect one bet on the river from the maniac. If I do not raise, I simply have 12 outs to a str8 or flush. Furthermore, if I hit a king or queen, I will have to pay off one bet on the river, but if I hit a str8 or flush, I will collect 2 bets on the river (one from the maniac). Will this change things enough to make raising the turn a better play than calling, unlike the previous scenario?


If I raise, 18 times I will collect 23 on the turn and 1 on the river, and 28 times I will lose two on the turn.


18/46 * 24 = 0.391 * 24 = 9.384


28/46 * -2 = 0.608 * -2 = -1.216


9.384 - 1.216 = 8.168 big bets


If I just call, I will win 27 bets 12 times, lose one bet 28 times, and lose 2 bets 6 times


12/46 * 28 = 0.260 * 28 = 7.28


28/46 * -1 = 0.609 * -1 = -0.609


6/46 * -2 = 0.130 8 -2 = -0.260


7.28 - 0.609 - 0.260 = 6.411


In this case, the extra 6 times I win the pot more than makes up for the revenue lost by shutting out the other players on the turn. Raising is clearly much better, to the tune of better than 1.5 big bets of EV. This analysis has implications on my original play of this hand in the actual game, if only that it would be impossible to tell whether my raise was correct or not unless I knew the exact holdings of my opponents. It was a situation where judgement was needed, as knowing enough info to precisely figure all this out is impossible when you are in a hand. I do these calculations after the fact to learn more about these situations and to try and hone my instincts. Despite what they ACTUALLY had, I do feel that in the original hand, calling would have been better than raising the turn, but of course I can't be absolutely sure. I believe the need to be aggressive here when playing against the maniac may have swayed me towards raising, when calling would probably have been better. I will keep that in mind for next time.


Good deal. I analyzed a play where I won the pot, but probably still made a mistake in how it was played. Still, I can feel better about it because the generic universal "out" in any debate regarding poker allows me to say "IT DEPENDS." The truth as to whether or not I made a mistake by raising depends on the exact holdings of my opponents.


A detailed analysis to be sure, hopefully I did not make any mistakes that are too glaringly obvious. If I did, chastize me and cast me out....


Dave in Cali (somewhere in the USA)

I made the flush on the river and won the hand!


I bet it was driving you CRAZY. Some of you even skipped the rest of my long analysis just to see what happened on the river. SHAME...

there would be n need for tinkers-


but as long as you are analyzing this hand, how would your play be effected if your opponents holdings were better? for instance a player holding two pair or a set would have some of your flush outs counterfitted- a player holding A4 of your suit would still be in and there go ALL of your flush outs (this is a worst case scenario, and maybe should be ignored) but two pair or a set could be played this way by your opponents-

especially because there is a maniac in this game,


1. they check their flopped set of 3's because someone was going to bet it (the maniac) and they were going to check raise on the turn. now when you raise the turn you are maybe getting three bet behind you, and your ev drops at that moment.

2. they turn their two pair, but with two bets on the flop and everyone calling they get timid, and go for the check call mode and hope they win the show down. in fact what ever happens they will feel like they were right. if their two pair holds they will say to them selves hey calling was the right move, i won the pot... a big pot!

and when your flush hits they say, i couldnt have gotten him out i am glad that i didnt raise, i saved myself money. now when you hit your k or q with two opponets you find youself at least calling the maniac and losing an extra bet.


i know my image with my friends has been weak tight, as i often see what could beat me. but i think if you are going to calculate your odds, these should be considered....

The issue here was more about how the best draw performed when it also included the possibility of winning the pot extra times by driving out callers. However, your questions are valid, but I might not necessarily calculate the answers. These analyses take a LONG time, mostly in going over it again and again to try and catch mistakes. This one was particularly difficult because I took implied odds into consideration.


If someone had a set, two pair, or Acxc, obviously I would be in much worse shape, and might not even have a positive EV at all. However, you just have to take your chances when playing these pots, because most of the time, the chasers have very little. When they DO have a big hand, then they will just have to win a big pot off of me.


Dave in Cali

i think youv'e been in vegas too long man...take a break...in montana..lol..gl..dave in cali/vegas/montana...gl

Although I agree with your math, I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions. I absolutely agree if you knew for sure that those were your opponents exact hands, and how could you have possibly known those holdings, that you want the other two players to continue with their "non-draws".


But if another opponent held a naked A or A4s another gut shot KQ, two smaller clubs (they still call the turn raise) and you get them to fold, you win in the long run. In the above situation, you didn't have any non outs. All your outs were live and I don't think you could have assumed that while playing the hand. Just getting another KQ to fold should swing the calculation in your favor for a raise.


Maybe I'm wrong but I certainly wouldn't claasify this as Super-Magoo even if it turned out to be marginally incorrect.

First, let me say I am a poker novice and that this is my first post on 2+2. Dave, you said "These analyses take a LONG time, mostly in going over it again and again to try and catch mistakes." Please understand that I am not trying to be a smart alec here, but did you time out? :-)


Really, I have always wondered how players that play four levels above me have time to think all of these things through in the heat of battle while setting at the table. Heck, I have trouble just reading the board, considering previous bets, pot odds, position, limpers, my own holdings, etc. Guess I will have to be satisfied with playing low limit up to $2./$4. Oh well, I love it.


This is also the first time I have been able to read this forum because my old ISP and modem just couldnt download 2+2. I just got wireless, and it blazes on downloading.


Don Q. (Yes, I do "tilt" at windmills and root for the underdog.)

Dave,

I know this is obvious, but your raise on the turn is a semibluff. If you think you can knock people out with your raise here, I think this is the right play. In some of the games I play in, semi-bluffs are totally useless because they won't make anyone fold. If that was the case I think a call is correct. But if you thought you could knock people out, then it is hard to argue with your raise.

Incidentally I think you should have raised preflop and on the flop too for the same reason (trying to knock others out so if you pair your K or Q it has a better chance of standing up). The only reason to call in either case is to keep people in for the flush, which isn't going to come that often. But after reading your posts over the last year I know you would kick my ass at the poker table, so my advice is probably crap, LOL. Keep up the good posts.


Tim

Here is what I see. You have the second nut flush draw on the flop. These guys are practically begging you to stay in and be a MFH too, they won't even notice your action they are soooo focused on MFH.


You only have to really worry about AJc or A9c, but with four known clubs and with MFH in the game, it's doubtful they are out there together. TT is a consideration, but a minor one imo.


It's PLAYING TIME! You are getting ~5.5:1 (Forgot how I arrived at this) for a hand that should stand up, where's my checkbook! I want some of that! A few bets either way on the end is moot to me, especially in the heat of the hand. You just want to try to win the pot if you miss your flush by the river and you have to get them out or lock them in at the turn. If you lose the hand you have prepaid for the next hand like this.


Of course if you could call time, drag out your calculator...but you can't. Good hand! One of the more conservative you have posted lately.