15 The Newbie Chronicles: Three Hands

mdlm · #1 01-07-2003, 04:59 PM

I’ve been putting some time into playing ring games and would appreciate comments on the following three hands:

1. Weeping call
EP limps. I raise in MP with KsQc. Everyone folds to EP who calls. 5.5 small bets in pot. Flop is Kc7cQs. EP checks. I bet. 6.5 small bets. EP calls. 7.5 small bets. Turn is 8d. EP checks. I bet. 9.5 small bets. EP calls. River is 6c. EP bets. I call. EP has straight with Td9d.

Comments: What irritates me most about this hand is that the EP’s play is ok (I think). On the flop call he is getting 6.5-1 which is fine since if he gets the J on the turn he will be able to check-raise me and then get me to call a bet on the river. The turn call is also ok. He is getting almost 5-1 for an open end straight and I’m going to call his bet if he makes it on the river. His river bet is a dead give away that he has a good hand, but I would have to see this situation at least a dozen times before folding.

2. Middle pair and backdoor straight/flush
UTG calls. UTG+2 calls. UTG+3 calls. UTG+4 calls. Button calls. I’m in SB with 8d9d and complete. BB checks. 6.5 small bets. Flop is Ts8c2d. I check, there are three callers before me (9.5 small bets), and I fold to one bet.

Comments: I folded here because Jones writes: “Normally, it’s best to check and fold when you flop second pair” but I believe that I should’ve called. Jones actually discusses a hand that is almost identical to this one. In that hand the player has Ts9s and the flop is KhTc4s (middle pair and backdoor straight/flush) and he says that you need at least 12-1 odds to call in this situation. In my hand, there are 6.5 bets preflop. On the flop there are an additional three small bets before me for a total of 9.5 bets. So I am getting 9.5-1 odds to hit a second pair. I have 5 outs (3 for 9, 2 for 8) and I also have a backdoor flush and straight. There are 47 unseen cards so I would need 42-5 odds or slightly better than 8-1. This seems like a call to me. What I don’t understand about this situation is why Jones is making such an enormous odds adjustment to compensate for the possibility that hitting two pair may get beaten (I assume that is the difference between the 8-1 that I calculate for hitting the second pair on the turn and the 12-1 that Jones says he needs to call). Note that the backdoor straight and flush don’t really enter into the discussion here. I think that hitting a second pair is enough while Jones thinks that second pair plus two draws is nowhere near enough.

3. Two bad draws equal one good hand?
UTG+1 calls. UTG+2 calls. UTG+3 calls. UTG+4 calls. Dealer calls. SB completes. I’m in BB with 9d3c and check. Flop is 4d5d6d. SB bets. I fold.

Comments: I have a bad flush draw and a bad straight draw. Is this worth a bet? What confuses me about this hand is that I don’t know exactly how much to take off for how “bad” the draws are. If I just count this as a flush draw or a straight it is clearly a call. However, the flush draw is unlikely to win because someone is likely to have a diamond better than 9 (there are so many opponents). So I count this as 0 outs. Jones writes “If the flop is all one suit, you can continue if you have the nut or second nut flush draw. Anything else, there’s too much of a chance that you’re drawing dead.” And then there is the straight draw which is weak because only one of my cards is participating and because there is a 35% chance or so that there will be four diamonds on the board by the river. Maybe the right thing to do is to play the straight to the river and fold if the fourth diamond comes.

==>
Comments on Comments

My last Chronicles produced more responses than any other. I was quite happy to see that other people have started their own journals (e.g., “Manly Chronicles” by bdypdx). If everyone started their own journals then we could all learn from each other. At least it would be interesting to see brief bios of everyone’s poker careers.

In my last Chronicles I wrote: “Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped.” Glenn says that this statement is “so wrong” that it made his “head hurt.” This is an issue that I raised and discussed on the Small Stakes forum (not the issue of Glenn’s head hurting, but of what to do when you limp and there is a raise). Here is what Mason had to say: “Before the flop, if it was correct to limp in and now you call a raise for one more bet, you are playing correctly. There are virtually no hands that you would fold in this spot for one more bet.” This was the consensus among 2+2 posters. My post was titled “Calling preflop raises after limping: How to exploit & avoid” and was posted in the Small Stakes forum on 12/20. Along with Mason, Jim Brier and Dynasty also participated in the discussion.

Glenn also disagrees with some of my answers on the Turmel questions. Turmel assumes that you are trying to suck out against the top pair so you are never ahead. I should’ve clarified this. Glenn also points out that I am ignoring implied odds. That is correct. Finally, Glenn says that the highest variance strategy may not be best for Brett Favre. That’s also true. For example, if Favre’s EV is enough to overcome the disadvantage then he may not need to increase his variance.

Pudley4 noted that in question #7 the opponent could raise. This is an excellent point and it greatly complicates the question. Now a full EV calculation needs to be done. Pudley4’s view is that it is correct to fold. That is what I would do as well unless I had a great handle on the EV calculation. Ulysses makes a similar point and notes that you cannot create your own pot odds. This last comment is well taken. The pot odds give you a line on the EV to see the next card so you need to take into account all bets in the current round not just the current bet.

On the issue of whether a bet on the flop with three callers is a value bet or not, Pudley4 gives an example in which there is only one caller on the turn and notes that with this hand you are typically going to the river. This is a nice example but it is actually the opposite of the critical example. In the critical example all three opponents raise on the turn. This is what kills your pot odds and makes you unable to go to the river. If this happens, you do not have the pot odds to call. But there is a deeper point. If this were a value bet we wouldn’t need to discuss the turn. The flop bet itself would make money off of the bets that it collects. There is no doubt that a flop bet with a flush draw and three callers is not a value bet. It is a good bet in virtually all games but it is not a value bet.

On the issue of whether or not Jones is correct in saying that the only thing that needs to be considered when making a river bet is how often you win when you call, the distance between my position and Pudley4’s has narrowed considerably. Pudley4 believes that Jones is only addressing the case in which the goal is to be called and therefore his analysis is fine. In fact, in the third paragraph of this section Jones writes: “Of course, if you think you can make some better hands fold, it may be to your advantage to bet.” However, and this is the critical point, Jones never does the EV calculation so the reader is left to think that even in this situation “You should only bet on the end if you’ll have the best hand most of the time when you’re called.” This is clearly wrong. I think that the most charitable comment that can be made about Jones’ analysis is that his writing is extremely unclear. But it really, really reads like very bad advice. I hope that Pudley4 finally agrees with me on this. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Pudley4 also gives an example in which a flush draw has a 37% chance of being good by the river and says that a bet against three opponents on the flop is a value bet. This example is, at best, muddled. If there was a 37% chance of winning on the turn then it would be a value bet. But it’s a 37% chance of winning by the river so the turn action needs to be included in the analysis. Again, if you get killed on the turn then the flop bet could actually be negative EV.

Ulysses says that if I am not confident enough to play real money poker after studying for six months, I’m probably not cut out to play poker. I agree. If I accomplish my four goals by the end of March, I will move on to phase 2, but if I don’t that will be the end of my poker experiment.

KurnsonofMogh invites me to play PP 2/4. This is off-topic, but I’ve always wanted to ask someone who plays LL PP (and I assume that KM does) why they play on PP? My understanding is that PP has the best players. I have looked at the preflop percentages on PP and they are rarely above 35%. I have found sites where it is rarely below 35%. I understand why PP is the place of choice for some games, such as draw and 20/40 hold ‘em. It’s the only place big enough to regularly host those games. But there are at least half a dozen places that have LL games going almost all of the time. So why does anyone play LL hold ‘em on PP? I’m curious. Back to KM’s invitation to play 2/4 on PP. My poker project is not going very well right now so I probably will never play real money poker, but if I do, PP 2/4 is probably the last game I would play for the reason I give above.

Easy E asked me a few meta-questions. First he wants to know why I chose an “18 month tour.” I chose an 18 month tour as opposed to an 18 month journey because I think it sounds better. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Seriously, I chose 18 months because I’ve done something like this before and that’s approximately how long it took. Second, he wants to know why 6 months is the “correct amount of time” for Phase 1 (P1). I don’t know if it’s the correct amount of time but, again, that’s approximately how long it took the first time. Third, he asks if any left over money from P1 will be rolled over into P2. Since it doesn’t look like I’ll be making it to P2 this question will probably be moot, but the budget for P2 will be at least $5K so it doesn’t really matter one way or another. Easy E also asks what’s up with my two monitor system that doesn’t let me use TTH. I have a standard two monitor system. For example, right now I am typing this in a Word document on one monitor and I have a browser open to Easy E’s post in the other monitor. Every piece of sofware that I have works with this two monitor system except for TTH which splays its screen over both monitors.

Pufferfish says that I should look into O/8. This is excellent advice. There is no doubt in my mind that ring hold ‘em is the worst online game from an EV perspective. Worse than short-handed, heads-up, and tournament. Worse than draw, 7cs, and Omaha. But from a learning perspective it’s the best because more is known about hold ‘em than any other game (that’s why it’s the hardest) so I get to check my thinking. Once I can beat LL hold ‘em, then it will be time to make a big switch and figure out how to beat another game.

Homer Simpson writes “I achieved this goal [making $1000 a month for three consecutive months] after spending about a month reading WLLHE and HPFAP, then jumping right into 2/4 and 3/6 online.” Looks like I’ve found another reason to commit suicide. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Assuming 100 hours a month of 3/6 poker, making $1000 would require a win rate of 1.7 BB/hr. That’s nice.

==>
Goal Update

This past week, I spent approximately 27.5 hours on poker: 9 hours on PokerPages tournaments, 10.5 hours in ring games, 3 hours on Masque, and 5 hours on 2+2.

I did not spend any extra money this week. I have spent a total of $438.46 out of my $1000 budget.

An update on each of the four goals (which are to be accomplished by 3/30/03):

1. Read and study Jones’ “Winning Low Limit Hold ’Em”
I have confirmed one out of the three points I need to achieve this goal. The second and third points are pending based on the discussions with Pudley4.

2. Beat Acespade
Goal Completed on 11/5/02.
Over a period of 100 hours (3600 hands) I beat Acespade’s best lineup at the rate of over 4 BB/hr.

3. Beat Masque World Series of Poker
Goal Completed on 11/17/02
After playing Masque WSOP dozens of time I finally became the Masque WSOP Champion.
I played Masque once again this week to try to get back on target with the PokerPages tournaments. To my amazement I won the tournament after only three tries. I discovered that if I put in a large bet on the flop and another on the turn Masque would often fold. By sheer coincidence I then started reading Reuben & Ciaffone’s “Pot-limit & No-limit Poker” and Ciaffone says that the strongest part of his game is “knowing when to fire that second barrel.” The second barrel is a turn bet after a flop bet!

4. PokerPages 85% rating in one calendar month playing 20 tournaments
I have lost my mojo in the PokerPages tournaments. At my peak I used to get to the final table in 30% of the tournaments but now I struggle just to get in the top one-third. I played five tournaments this past week and finished #26 out of 135, #54 out of 140, #58 out of 101, #50 out of 178, and #20 out of 107. My rating is a gloomy 70.72%.

Kurn, son of Mogh · #2 01-07-2003, 06:04 PM

hand #1: Not much you can do. You want him to call on the flop with the gut shot. Its about 8-1 against hitting with 2 cards to come and he's only getting 6.5-1. On the turn he's calling on the straight draw with an EV=0. He's getting 4.75-1 from the pot and those are his exact odds. In the long run you make money with this hand.

Hand #2: this is a good hand to semi-bluff check-raise. If you check-raise, you could get a weak T, a better 8, or a gut shot to fold. Also, there are a number of cards that could come on the turn that would scare your opponents if you then lead out on the turn.

Hand #3: Your fold here is good. The sb leading out on a monochrome board with so many players left to act shows strength, so discretion is the better part of valor.

pudley4 · #3 01-07-2003, 06:16 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Pudley4 also gives an example in which a flush draw has a 37% chance of being good by the river and says that a bet against three opponents on the flop is a value bet. This example is, at best, muddled. If there was a 37% chance of winning on the turn then it would be a value bet. But it’s a 37% chance of winning by the river so the turn action needs to be included in the analysis. Again, if you get killed on the turn then the flop bet could actually be negative EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to explain this any better. If on average you get more back than what you put in, you are making a value bet.

With the nut flush draw, we are about 2-1 to make the flush by the river. Sometimes the board will pair (or pair twice) and our flush will lose. Sometimes the board will pair on the flop or turn, and we will fold without going to the river.

We take these scenarios into account when betting on the flop. This is why we need more than 2-1 on our bet to consider it a value bet (just like Jones says in his book).

When we calculate whether a bet is a value bet, we only need to look at whether or not we are making money during the current betting round. We don't know exactly what will happen in the future. What we can do is look at all possible outcomes, then determine how likely they are to happen, how likely we are to win them, and then figure out whether to bet or not.

Example: You have KK. If you know I will call, do you raise preflop? Absolutely. Is this a value bet? Absolutely. Why? Because you will win more than 50% of the time. Since you will win more than 50% of the time, this makes it a value bet - you are getting more money back than you are putting in.

Obviously it won't be a value bet every time. Sometimes I'll have AA and you'll lose that bet. Sometimes I'll have QQ and run you down on the river and you'll lose that bet. Sometimes I might even be able to bluff you out of a pot. However, when we consider whether something is a value bet, we (try to) take all of these scenarios into account. Just because it didn't turn out for you in one particular scenario doesn't mean it's not a value bet.

Allan · #4 01-07-2003, 06:24 PM

Good to see you getting into some games and posting hands......

Hand 1:

I think you played fine. I believe your opponent played the hand badly. On the flop he is getting 6:1 for his gutshot, which is fine in some cases, in this case I think he needs a much bigger pot. He has the bottom end of the gutshot and there is a 2 flush on board that is not of his suit. There is a chance that he hits a card that helps him but helps someone more, or he hits his hand only to get rivered.

Eg: You could be holding ATc

Hand 2:

I think you have a call with your middle pair and backdoor flush.

Hand 3:

You've got nothing and correctly folded. Your flush draw is no where near the nuts and even discounting the flush draw out there, your straight draw is a one card bottom end draw meaning the only card you can be happy about is a duece..

Allan

Kurn, son of Mogh · #5 01-07-2003, 06:41 PM

I play at Paradise for two reasons:

1) It was the easiest site to make a deposit on in September when I started (I tried True Poker and Pokerstars first). So there's a bit of inertia involved.

2) I heard it was tough. You don't get better at chess by only playing worse players. Same for poker. I want to be good. Therefore I play at Paradise primarily. As it is, I'm slightly ahead for the past 4 months, but my game is much better than it was. My B&M reults at higher limits are much better - 4 out of six winning sessions live. When I sit at a live table, it's nowhere near as tough.

As of now, I do have an active account at Pokerstars, but that's primarily to play in their Super Satellite for a free buy-in to the WSOP. hey, even Klingons can dream. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

bernie · #6 01-07-2003, 07:12 PM

"You don't get better at chess by only playing worse players. Same for poker"

poker is also a texture based game. if one plays nothing but tough games, they wont have the experience in adjusting to much looser games....in fact, some 'tough' players refuse to play some textures because they cant handle playing guys who 'dont know how to play'. fact is, they just dont know how to adjust...so they themselves really arent 'that' good of players....(this wasnt aimed at you, just a general observation of some players ive seen, so no offense is intended. you may have seen this too)

i prefer to try and beat ANY game...playing in only tough games against tough players, may limit you for a bit when texture change occurs

personally, i dont want to play a table with tough players...i dont like to work that hard unless i have to [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

b

angelo alba · #7 01-07-2003, 08:33 PM

Allright! [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

I will refrain from backpedaling or giving in to temptation re your Masque-victory vis a vis Ciaffone's 2nd barrel, and your NLHE tourney rating at Pokerpages; what the hell you ight win the WSOP seat and...oops sorry. Just keep reading Caiaffone. No other comment. Bite tongue. . .

Hand #1 And # 3 seem to me just fine. As well as to most other posters, and (I prophesy ) others still to post.

Hand #2 is VERY interesting from a theoretical point of view.

In addition to my half ironic request for a Forum devoted exclusively to AKo and AQo we might suggest an SB forum as well. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

Ok, here we go: LL, Mid stakes , Pot or even NL I don't think it matters as far as your bet with 8-9 suited from the SB against 4 EP (in a row, no less !) limpers and the button limping as well. Good call.

BB checks and now after the Ts8c2d flop--middle pair and backdoor straight and backdoor flush.

You check, three bet and you fold.

Two schools of thought. Taking the fact that there are 4 players now and the PF pot, one can go with the loyal opposition (Carson) and say that this is now a game of money odds rather than hand domination, etc.

Consequently your question re thhe odds and why Jones (who is taking an imlicitly a similar perspective ) seems to bend the math a bit, is a legitimate question.

As well as the advice to call or check raise.

From more um.. dominance (?) perspective, against 3 other players post flop, one can argue, simply dump it!

I wonder if the high stakes limit players would go with the second school of thought?

You

As to hands #1 and # 3, you'll probably get

pudley4 · #8 01-07-2003, 09:40 PM

Hand 1 - Notice he is only a 60/40 underdog preflop. He should call your preflop bet.

On the flop, I think he made a very marginal call, since you could have the club flush draw. Getting 6.5-1 is probably too little as even if he hits the J on the turn and check-raises you, you still have 4 outs on the river to a full house. He also might not get the check-raise in if you check behind.

On the turn he's definitely not going anywhere, and on the river it's tough not to pay him off.

You'll see hands like this very often. Just remember that every bet you made was a value bet - for every bet that he put in, you were getting anywhere from 60% to 80% of it back.

Hand 2 - In both your hand and the Jones example, hitting the second pair will complement the board. Your 9 hitting will put 3 parts to a straight (89T) on board, making it much more likely for you to lose to a straight. A similar situation is in Jones example (KT9 would be on the board if the player hit 2 pair). This is one reason you need to be more careful about playing middle pairs on a coordinated board. I'd probably call if I closed the action, or if there was only one more person left to act. More than that and I'd probably fold. I think it's close either way.

Hand 3 - Your straight draw is a 1-card draw to the bottom end of a straight. You could be completely drawing dead against someone with 78. There are many people behind you; someone might already have a flush, or a higher flush card and you could be drawing dead. Fold without a second thought. Even though the "pot odds" might say you should call (with an open-ended straight and 4-card flush draw), you have to realize that the only 2 cards you want to see on the turn and river are the 7 [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img] and 8 [img]/forums/images/icons/diamond.gif[/img]. Anything else that helps your hand could make someone else's hand even better.

pudley4 · #9 01-07-2003, 11:10 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
On the issue of whether or not Jones is correct in saying that the only thing that needs to be considered when making a river bet is how often you win when you call,

[/ QUOTE ]

He's not saying it's "the only thing" to be considered, even though the vast majority of times you will be called (as he points out later). In the relevant section, he's talking about a specific scenario - betting when you will be called. The whole chapter is broken up into different topics:

*Betting good hands on the river (His advice - Bet, don't try for the checkraise)
*Calling or raising big pots with marginal hands (Usually call/raise due to the pot size)
*Multiway pots (try for overcalls instead of raising a bettor)
*Raising forever with the best hand (obviously [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img])
*Betting only when you want to be called. This is the relevant section. He is talking about the same thing Sklansky talks about in TOP "Heads up on the End" (p202)

If you bet into someone on the river and you think they will call, you need to have a better than 50-50 chance against them because they might raise you.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
Pudley4 believes that Jones is only addressing the case in which the goal is to be called and therefore his analysis is fine. In fact, in the third paragraph of this section Jones writes: “Of course, if you think you can make some better hands fold, it may be to your advantage to bet.”

[/ QUOTE ]

You're picking and choosing again; taking statements out of context. The first sentence in that paragraph states:

"Note that we are not talking about bluffing here."

So he is obviously going out of his way to point out that he is only talking about betting when you'll be called.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
However, and this is the critical point, Jones never does the EV calculation so the reader is left to think that even in this situation “You should only bet on the end if you’ll have the best hand most of the time when you’re called." This is clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly right. He even states it in the book. Sklansky says the exact same thing in TOP. Jones doesn't do a lot of EV calculations anywhere in his book, but since it's aimed at Low Limit (Beginning) players, he tends to "dumb-down" some of his writing. It's still correct.

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
.I think that the most charitable comment that can be made about Jones’ analysis is that his writing is extremely unclear. But it really, really reads like very bad advice. I hope that Pudley4 finally agrees with me on this

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he's unclear at all. It helped me a lot when I first started playing. I think you are looking at it differently than he intends. This book is not aimed at showing lots of different playing styles, or lots of different plays you can make. He intends to lay a solid foundation for a beginning player to be able to beat a Low Limit game. In Low Limit games the easiest way to be a successful player is very boring and methodical. If you're looking for more in-depth analysis, look for HPFAP or TOP or the Middle-Limit book by Brier/Ciaffone.

Bluffing on the end rarely works in Low Limit games for a number of reasons:

1 - The pots are so big most opponents will call anyway.
2 - They're also bad players - you'll see them call with as little as bottom pair (in some cases with nothing more than J-high).
3 - Most LL players don't pay attention to anything other than their own hand, so semi-bluff raising them on the turn and betting on the river won't get them to fold their KK (it does make for great value bets though [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] )

pudley4 · #10 01-07-2003, 11:25 PM

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
In my last Chronicles I wrote: “Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped.” Glenn says that this statement is “so wrong” that it made his “head hurt.”

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what he was referring to. He was referring to this:

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />
"Note that it is almost always correct to call a raise preflop if you have limped so if there are enough limpers this is actually a value bet. "

[/ QUOTE ]

This second statement is not always true. Look back to my example from your post "Chronicles 14" where you hold pocket 4s. Your hand only wins 16% of the time in that scenario, so against those 4 players you are losing money on every bet that goes in preflop. Does that make sense?

However, you will limp preflop in order to try to hit your set, because the implied odds are so great. If another player after you raises, you will then be getting up to 9-1 on your second call, so you obviously have to call the second bet. However, you are still losing money on that particular bet. Does that make sense?

Since you are losing money on every bet that goes in preflop, you want to see the flop as cheaply as possible. Raising preflop is not a value bet in this scenario, even though you should call a later player's raise.