Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

the link to spicyf's post is excellent, but i think it's incorrect application because your delayed raise doesn't save any bets. let me see if i can explain why:

-if you raise on the turn and he has a Q, he is going to 3-bet you. so you'll put in four bets when behind.
-if the river comes non-diamond/straight card and he has a Q, and you delay raise, he is probably going to 3-bet you. so you'll put in four bets when behind.
-if the river completes a draw and he has it, and you raise, he might 3-bet you. so you'll put in four bets when behind.

so the only situation where the delayed raise saves you bets is when a draw completes and doesn't help him, but this is tempered by the real possibility the villain is betting a draw you want to charge him the max on. furthermore the value of this scenario is low because he still might have a hand that beats you.

in other words if you are going to play aggresively after the turn card, it's hard not to get hurt if he has a Q, whatever you do.

so, what if you were planning to only call the river if no draw completes (based on when ahead / when behind reasoning)? would you then be saving bets with a delayed raise plan? yes but you wouldn't be extracting the max from A7, 99, etc., and at its heart spicyf's theorem seemed to be about maximization not just saving bets.

the main thing is how confidently you can put this opponent on a Q (versus a draw or a smaller pair) when he checkraises the flop. after ten orbits some opponents are predictable enough where you can lean one way, in which case you can take the appropriate turn action. barring that, this makes good sense, and your seeing how a third diamond might protect your raise is a nice logical grab, and so is at least in the spirit of the theorem.

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

I think you are missing one thing... Hero is going to fold the river if villian 3 bets him. I am almost certain of this and it's why I think the play has merit here.

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are missing one thing... Hero is going to fold the river if villian 3 bets him. I am almost certain of this and it's why I think the play has merit here.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats a key factor to my analysis but yes i forgot about it when writing the 'you put in four bets when behind' parts.

so if villain has Q and enon raises the turn he loses 3-4 bets, if he raises the river he loses three. maybe i did overcomplicate it...

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

I think I would like it if the board didn't pair the top card. I have a hard time understanding what is calling a river CR here that our hero beats.

- Jim

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

i can't see how those thoughts apply to this hand. if i'm not analyzing the situations way wrong, there's a billion hands worse hands that would pay off in the spicyf example and i don't really think the number is close to a billion in this hand.

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

If you don't intend on calling a 3 bet I don't like it. I think you need to see a showdown here you are just good way too often. He can be value betting bottom pair here (and probably correctly) and the draw didn't get there, and you have an overpair shorthanded. Making a big raise and fold to a 3 bet here is just not wise IMO, as he might do something crazy. I don't mind raising and calling a 3 bet, and I don't mind just calling. I think I would have 3 bet the flop though because of the spades.

-DeathDonkey

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

how could this be thin?
raise and call a threebet easy, but against an aggro player i just keep going on the flop and hope to put in 8ish bets right there...

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

Gotta tell you: this play is so common now and it actually pre-dates Spicy F's post.

Nonetheless, it's not a bad raise. But I don't like the fold to a three-bet you're planning.

Re: Incorrect application of the Spicy F theorum?
 

Flop was 2 diamonds and the river was a diamond.

Sorry about the confusion.

***Results and Thoughts***
 

So the final board is [Qx7d4d][Qx][2d]

When I posted this it had been a while since I read Spicy F's post about waiting until the river to raise to save bets and couldn't remember his example from that post. When the Q on the turn hit, my call was more of a wimp out cause I wasn't looking forward to having to put in 4 bets on the big streets against a relative aggro unknown. Calling also allows him to continue bluffing with his hopeless hands. Maybe turn raise is preferred play here since I want to get full value against a bunch of pair hands I'm beating, but I think others like Flawless make good point that I should simply just reraise this flop and hope to get a lot of action in early.

Main reason I posted this was because when the river hit completing the flush draw I had very strong feeling I was still ahead but since the flush came in, I felt more comfortable in getting in another bet without the risk of making incorrect fold to 3 bet on this board. This line makes it very hard for a Q to reraise the river since I've played my hand consistenly with either a made flush draw, a Q or complete bluff with other hands a lot less likely. I guess delaying a turn raise until the river also prevents him from getting away from other pair hands on turn that he might (unlikely) fold to turn raise.

I guess if I'm willing to raise this river, I should definitely have raised a total blank on river as well but maybe not with intention to fold to 3-bet? Guess better question about this hand would not be whether to raise the river at all but rather what frequency I should be raising the river as opposed to raising the turn.

Opponent called my river raise with 76o and I scooped it.