Situation I think I get wrong every time

[Guy McSucker]

Thanks to everyone for some interesting replies.

Here is what I was thinking when I posted. Consider the (perhaps) simpler situation in which you have aces rather than queens, and the flop comes JJ4 without a flush draw.

My knee-jerk move is to put the opponent all-in and expect to take the pot on the flop most of the time. I started to wonder if this is perhaps wrong, and that what I should do is check behind and attempt to induce a bluff or mistaken value bet from a worse hand.

If I move in, I will probably only be called if I am losing, so I win the pot when I'm ahead and lose most of my stack when I am behind. If I check behind and get a bet out of him on the turn, which I call, then I win his whole stack when I am ahead and lose mine when behind. This is 2000 chips better than the previous situation.

However, this overlooks the chance that he draws out. With AA and no flush draw, it's going to be hard for him to draw out: he can have at most two outs I think. So in this situation, I do believe that checking behind to induce a bluff is better than moving in.

With QQ, he can have six outs if he has AK, and in any case, aces and kings are scare cards for me, so I will probably have to fold on the turn if I check the flop, an A or K falls, and he bets.

I am undecided about whether checking the flop is better than moving in in this case.

With the flush draw out there, there are a lot of potential scare cards/outdraw cards available for my opponent, if I am currently ahead. Fifteen cards will scare me, and of course there may be two more that turn his lower pocket pair into a full house. I would now prefer to take my chances that I'm winning, and bet all-in.

Cris analysed how much to bet in order to make it a mistake for him to call when behind, which isn't very much because he can't be sure of having clean outs. William points out that this small bet is likely to induce a bluff from the opponent, because it screams weakness. A great many opponents might read the bet of 400 or 600 as saying "oh no! AK missed the flop again!".

For that reason, I am now swayed towards making this small bet! It has several effects:

- it's a mistake for the opponent to call on a flush draw or underpair
- it might induce a bluff from a weaker hand on this street, which is an excellent outcome, or on the turn, which is what we want to do if we can
- a lot of the time people will give up on the flop if they have missed, which is what the all-in bet would achieve
- if we're behind, we're going to lose our stack anyway, so nothing changes in that situation.

I am starting to conclude that this might be the best move. Bet 600 or so, and call if he raises or bets the turn. Still not sure though.

Guy.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think there's little difference between aces and queens here. The chance that he just calls with KK is there, but I think most players reraise with that hand.

If there's no flush draw, that increases the chance that he's check a jack he would've called with preflop (say any suited jack with a broadway card). The problem is, that doesn't (IMO) increase that probability enough to warrant checking behind. If you check behind and he pushes in on the turn, it can just as easily be 99 as QJ, and now you've given him a free card if he has AK or Ax. I also would think that he's be just as likely to check the turn with AJs assuming that you didn't have a jack and figuring the second check would induce a bluff.

I guess that was just a long way of saying go ahead and push in if he checks. Odds are, you're ahead.

[Moonsugar]

William is going to think this post is a joke.

But I have to agree with the logic.

[Guy McSucker]

If you check behind and he pushes in on the turn, it can just as easily be 99 as QJ, and now you've given him a free card if he has AK or Ax.


Doesn't this change your play in the case you have AA?

You don't fear much in that case: if you're ahead on the flop, you're very likely to be staying ahead, so inducing a bluff must be better than pushing in.

Does the risk that he hits a two-outer with a lower pocket pair outweigh the gain of 2000 chips you get from checking the flop and getting him to bet the turn?

Guy.

[Guy McSucker]

Why will William think it's a joke?

I think what he objected to was the idea that you bet small on the flop and fold to any action from the opponent. That does seem pretty crazy. Small bets reek of weakness so you might get action from many hands that you beat.

That's not what I'm advocating: I want to bet small to take the pot if I can, but sometimes to induce a bluff too. I am calling if he plays back at me either now or on the turn.

Guy.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Doesn't this change your play in the case you have AA?

True, you no longer fear the possible overcard, but other than that, what's the upside? You check behind, a blank comes on the turn and he bets. Same dilemma.

[JohnG]

Generally, I bet all-in with the QQ or AA. But if I considered my read to be very accurate, I could do something else.

If there were no draws, generally, I probably bet all-in with QQ, and check the AA. But ultimately it would depend on what possible hands I put that player on, and what I thought they would do in this particlular situation with hands I bury.

[SossMan]

Cris,
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you here...
[ QUOTE ]
I usually want 4:1 to chase a naked four-draw at the flop, with the extra overlay to cover the times I'll miss at the turn and have to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll assume by "naked four draw" you mean a flush/straight draw w/ no pair or any other redraws.
If that's the case, then even at 4:1, you don't have any overlay. 9 outs is about 4.2:1 on the turn. If you miss the turn then you recalculate what the pot is laying you and compare it to whatever turn bet you are faced with. You can't simply say "the odds of making my hand by the river are ~2:1, so if I call w/ 4:1 on the turn I have overlay". Each call has to be independent. This is so fundemental, that I'm sure that either I'm misunderstanding you, or it was a simple oversight. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[CrisBrown]

Hi SossMan,

We may indeed be misunderstanding each other.

Yes, when I say "naked four-draw" I mean a straight or flush draw, not in combination, and with no pair. Still, with a flush draw I have 15 outs to improve my hand: 9 for the flush, plus 3 each to pair my hole cards. So I'm roughly 1:3 to improve at the turn. But I may improve and still not call, e.g.: I might pair a hole card and have to fold to a big bet if there are scare cards on board. So I want more than the 3:1 to improve ... I want an overlay for the times I improve and still have to fold.

Does that help?

Cris

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, with a flush draw I have 15 outs to improve my hand: 9 for the flush, plus 3 each to pair my hole cards. So I'm roughly 1:3 to improve at the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will assume you meant 3:1? (actually, 15 outs is 32:15 =more like 2.1:1)

[ QUOTE ]
But I may improve and still not call, e.g.: I might pair a hole card and have to fold to a big bet if there are scare cards on board. So I want more than the 3:1 to improve ... I want an overlay for the times I improve and still have to fold.


[/ QUOTE ]
Why even count your pair cards as outs then? It seems like you're doing double math...if you count your extra 6 outs you only need 2:1, but you say you need an overlay of 4:1 for when you hit and still fold. Why not just count your clean outs and play it by ear when you pair up?
Also, don't the implied odds (amount of chips you can expect to be paid off when you hit) more than make up for the times you pair up and have to fold?
This makes more sense to me.
Anyway, thanks for the reply.
-Sossman