Pocket Aces Heads Up -- Party $3/6

[colgin]

My opponent in this hand seems to be a somewhat tight, fairly straightforward player (bets and raises his good hands; I have not seen any tricky moves, e.g. check-raise).

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG folds, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, <font color="CC3333">CO 3-bets</font>, Button folds, SB folds, BB folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.33 SB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif, Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players) </font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">CO bets</font>, Hero calls.

Turn: (4.66 BB) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players) </font>
Hero checks, <font color="CC3333">CO bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">Hero raises</font>, CO calls.

River: (8.66 BB) J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players) </font>
<font color="CC3333">Hero bets</font>, CO calls.

Final Pot: 10.66 BB
<font color="#990066">Main Pot: 10.66 BB, between CO and Hero.</font>

Anybody play this differently? Thanks in advance.

Colgin

[Alobar]

I Think the flop play is horrible. You're giving him a shot at a free card on a board you can't like. Bet out, if he raises, 3 bet.

[sfer]

CO 3-bet preflop. I think there's no chance of him checking that board through heads-up.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
You're giving him a shot at a free card on a board you can't like.

[/ QUOTE ]

A spade draw isn't going to fold anyway. I like the way he played.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
CO 3-bet preflop. I think there's no chance of him checking that board through heads-up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. What about the turn then, do you take a chance there?

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]

A spade draw isn't going to fold anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't bet to get him to fold, you bet so he can't take the free card

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't bet to get him to fold, you bet so he can't take the free card

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The purpose of not giving a free card is to keep your opponent from improving his hand. Sure, maybe you can get them to call with insufficient pot odds, which is +EV for you, but waiting until the turn on this hand to bet is fine. We haven't even examined the possibilty that he's up against a made flush.

[Kenshin]

[ QUOTE ]


Huh? The purpose of not giving a free card is to keep your opponent from improving his hand. Sure, maybe you can get them to call with insufficient pot odds, which is +EV for you, but waiting until the turn on this hand to bet is fine. We haven't even examined the possibilty that he's up against a made flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the purpose of avoiding free cards is to prevent infinite odd draws. Although the hero will not lose a flush draw here, he must prefer an opponent drawing to 7:1 rather than infinity:1

Kenshin

[ddubois]

The purpose of betting and not let flush draws draw "for free" is to get more money in while you are a 1.8:1 favorite. You don't need them to fold to be making money. Your bets make your money the 65% of the time they miss their flush. This assumes you "know" your opponent is on a draw though.

[colgin]

I am glad that this hand sparked a little debate. I am a little surprised that the flop play has been the main point of contention in that I thought my river play was more questionable.

I am not very worried about giving a free card here. First, I think there is close to 0% chance that my opponent will check this through. He will either like this flop and bet or hate it and bet to protect his hand (and possibly fold if checkraised). If I bet my opponent will call with either a better made hand or a strong draw. The hand that I would not want to give a free card to is AK with no spades, because I would be giving the inside straight draw a free card. However, this hand will call because it will appear to be getting proper calling odds between the str8 draw and the two overcards. I believe the only hand that will fold on the flop is one that I am way in front of in which case I don't want them to go away.

My line here was to check-call the flop and then check-raise the turn if a safe card fell. I am very certain that my opponent will bet agin if checked to on the turn. If a terrible card comes, say the J /images/graemlins/spade.gif, I probably bet and then fold to a raise since I don't think this opponent was capable of bluff raising without a spade or a straight in that situation.

My plan was to bet the river again if not re-raised on the turn adn if a scare card doesn't come. But the Jack is not a great card for me since my opponent could reasonably be on AK and play the hand the way he did. Will a worse hand really call here? COuld I call a river raise. I think that I was better off checking and calling in the hopes of catching a bluff.

Any other thoughts are appreciated. Results to follow a little later.

Colgin

[Kenshin]

[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of betting and not let flush draws draw "for free" is to get more money in while you are a 1.8:1 favorite. You don't need them to fold to be making money. Your bets make your money the 65% of the time they miss their flush. This assumes you "know" your opponent is on a draw though.


[/ QUOTE ]

I do not think the two reasons (push your edge and cut down his odds) are mutually exclusive.

[coyote]

I know the question maybe on the river play, but honestly, I'm curious why you didn't cap preflop....

what is the thought process there?

[The Dude]

I like every street, including your river value-bet.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious why you didn't cap preflop....

what is the thought process there?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's giving away only a fraction of EV preflop by not getting that one extra SB in there. By only calling, he disguises the strength of his hand enough that he can usually make that up post flop.

Just calling has more merit when you have position on your opponent, but it is still fine here. If there were one more opponent, he would almost certainly be wrong to not cap it, since he's giving up more by not raising.

Also, if it were a 5-bet cap, I would be more inclined to 4-bet.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious why you didn't cap preflop....

what is the thought process there?


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
He's giving away only a fraction of EV preflop by not getting that one extra SB in there. By only calling, he disguises the strength of his hand enough that he can usually make that up post flop.

Just calling has more merit when you have position on your opponent, but it is still fine here. If there were one more opponent, he would almost certainly be wrong to not cap it, since he's giving up more by not raising.

Also, if it were a 5-bet cap, I would be more inclined to 4-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly. I would cap it with two or more opponents.

Colgin

[colgin]

My opponent had 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif and MHIG. Thanks for your input.

Colgin

[sfer]

I can't see the CO not betting again. CO probably feels he's in total control at this point and can possibly take down the pot with another bet. I'm sure he was also wary of giving a free card to a high spade.

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the purpose of avoiding free cards is to prevent infinite odd draws. Although the hero will not lose a flush draw here, he must prefer an opponent drawing to 7:1 rather than infinity:1

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the purpose of avoiding free cards is to prevent infinite odd draws. Although the hero will not lose a flush draw here, he must prefer an opponent drawing to 7:1 rather than infinity:1

[/ QUOTE ] Exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, you guys are a little confused here, so I'll try and clear things up. Nobody gets infinity:1 odds to draw.

Let's take our current example. Let's say villian had 8/images/graemlins/club.gif 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, giving him 11 clean outs. That means he's getting about 3:1 odds to hit on the turn, regardless of how much he 'pays' to see the next card. You could theoretically say, "he's getting infinity:1 implied odds, but that's still looking at it the wrong way.

Let's say villian checks through on the flop, but would have called a bet. Since our hero is a 57% favorite to win this hand, he loses .14SB in EV... (.57)*(2SB) - (1SB). Not much he's risking by checking!!

As it turns out, our hero was a 90% favorite on the flop, which means he would have lost more in EV by having this checked through than he would have if villian actually had a flush draw!! (He would have lost .8SB in EV.)

I want you guys to notice this. Because villian would not have folded a flush draw to one bet anyway, risking giving a free card costs very little in this case. Where giving a free card hurts you, is when villian would have folded to a bet, but because you let him stick along he now has the winning hand. In this case, the free card has cost you the pot. In the flush draw example, the free card only cost you a small fraction of a bet.

So to think of this situation in terms of "not letting him get infinity:1 odds to draw" is ridiculous. Think of things in terms of EV.

[Dylan Wade]

I think if he's going ot play the flop this way, theres no real advantage in calling the 3-bet preflop

[The Dude]

Then how would you recommend playing this board after just calling pf? I don't see a better way.

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if he's going ot play the flop this way, theres no real advantage in calling the 3-bet preflop

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. Why should he push his hand on the flop and get one extra small bet when he can wait for the turn and get one extra big bet?

Raising and calling a three-bet pre-flop does not look like a big pair. When the hero checks the flop, his opponent is likely to bet out with anything he'd thre-bet pre-flop. After meeting no resistance on the flop, the villain is pretty likely to bet that raggedy turn, too. I like the way the hero played this hand and that includes the river bet that he seems to be worried about.

SpaceAce