Re: An old live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're ignoring that we picked up a gutshot on the turn to go along with our top pair/weak quicker.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're correct, we can't fold to a raise.

Still this bet has about zero folding equity so I don't consider it a semi-bluff, I still believe it's a way of preventing a freecard.

Re: An old live hand
 

I don't understand why people are pretending we have less than 3 outs on the flop. BD flushes are kinda awesome!

I don't think I have it in me not to call that river, or bet it, but I guess it's right. I'd like to know more about the button and what range he might have here.

Re: An old live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Dumb question: What about folding the flop when it's 2 back to you. PF raiser could easily have a better A, but even if not, the raise from the loose passive has to indicate that at least one of them likely has a better A which has us drawing pretty thin, no?

If I'm off base here, can you explain your thoughts on calling the flop for 2?

Thx.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all the eights in the deck are good, the backdoor flush, backdoor straight outs are giving you another 2.5 outs or so for a total of say 5. That is enough, but then again the action isn't guarenteed to be closed. close?

Re: An old live hand
 

PF okay.

Flop okay.

Turn donkbet wah?

We're calling the flop getting like 8:1-9:1 with 3 dirty twopair outs and 1.5 outs to the BD Flush. Also lets give the BD Straight .75 outs. Its probably good.

But if were going to donk the turn to try and win the pot why not 3-bet the flop instead? Is it because we picked up a gutshot and would rather bet in attempt to pick up the pot right there since we're calling anyways? Well it did make Brad fold.

Re: An old live hand
 

i was confused by this hand for a lil while, too, but the turn donkbet makes sense given that (a) part of the flop call was based on the possibility that the button was raising for a free card (?). presuming this, we're fine putting in one bet on the turn, but don't want to offer the button a chance to take a free card. on the river, i imagine we might call a bet from someone other than the button, but it's unlikely the button raises the flop and bets this river with anything we beat.

at least, that's my guess.

Re: An old live hand
 

I didn't get the turn bet at first, but it makes sense now.

I'm still not sure on the river fold. I can't make up my mind, yet. I don't see anyone holding a 4 here. It doesn't make sense, so I lean towards a call... I think.

Re: An old live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't get the turn bet at first, but it makes sense now.

I'm still not sure on the river fold. I can't make up my mind, yet. I don't see anyone holding a 4 here. It doesn't make sense, so I lean towards a call... I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought you said you understood the turn bet. the river is a diamond. see? do you know why you bet the non-diamond turn? for the same reason you folded to the diamond river.

Re: An old live hand
 

This is a really interesting hand, in my opinion.

There's a really interesting and fairly subtle trade-off going on on the turn.

Basically, we are trying to weigh two different costs in deciding between checking and betting:

If we check, we lose when we give villain a free card.

If we bet, we lose when villain raises us and we have to pay extra to continue to draw to our gutshot + possible two pair outs.

Notice that checking and calling a bet when villian has us beat, and betting and getting called by a better hand cost us exactly the same, so that situation is a wash.

Let's break down these costs. We'll use a few assumptions:

BDK is out of the problem. By not reraising pre-flop, we'll go ahead an assume (rather ambitiously) that he probably has a pocket pair smaller than A and will simply fold the turn to any action not having hit his set. Though there is the possibility of the turn checking through here, will basically discount his influence on the problem (he might hit a set and win on the river if we check, but this is quite unlikely and so we'll let it go). People are welcome to comment on this effect.

We'll say that on the turn our hero is drawing to about 5.5 outs or so, or, in other words, he owns about 12% of the pot.

We'll note that when villain is one a flush draw with no other outs against us, his equity is about 19%.

Let's say that F % of the time, villain has a flush draw. R% of the time he has a better A or some other hand that is beating us AND will raise the turn. C% of the time he has a better hand but would call a bet. We say F + R + C = 1, and we assume that anytime villain has a better hand he'll bet the turn (so the odds villain will bet the turn if checked to is R + C).

We will disregard the possible costs of hitting and losing, and the implied odds on the river if we improve our hand. Feel free to comment on how these might change the model.

So, if we bet the turn:

F% of the time villain has a flush draw and will call. In this case, we earn 81% of that big bet that villain puts in, because our hand will hold up 100 - 19% of the time.

R% of the time we will get raised, and have to call an extra bet. In this case, we lose 2(1-.12) = 1.76 BB.

C% of the time we will bet and get called by a better hand, and lose .88 BB.

So we calculate the expectation of a turn bet as:

.81F - 1.76R - .88C

If we check the turn:

F% of the time villain will check behind. We will neither gain nor lose immediately on the turn (except insofar as we have foregone value, but that is represented on the other side of the equation, as will be shown).

R + C% of the time, villain will bet, we will call, and we'll lose .88% of a BB.

So the price of checking is:

-(R+C).88

If we equate the two, we will find the relationship between F, R, and C which puts us at equilibrium.

.81F - 1.76R - .88C = -.88R - .88C

which reduces to:

.81F = .88R

Or F = 1.09R or so.

In other words, if villain has a flush draw just slightly more often than he has a better hand, betting and checking actually have pretty much equal expectation here. If villain has a flush draw more than about 55% of the time (versus a big A which he will raise on the turn), betting is clearly better. If villain has a flush draw less than half the time, checking is clearly better.

How do we know the value of F relative to R? Reads, I guess. Dave's read that villain is generally passive actually leads me to believe that F might be a little smaller here than it might be for a more aggressive player. From a Bayesian perspective, a big flush draw might be more likely that a big A considering two As are accounted for. I'll leave that calculation to someone else, though.

Re: An old live hand
 

Holy [censored].

I'd be lying if I said I understood what you just posted.

Well you concluded that betting and checking has the same expectation if villain has a flush just as much times he has a pair. I don't think its safe to assume if Brad will fold if fold if the action goes check, check, bet, call.

Re: An old live hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't get the turn bet at first, but it makes sense now.

I'm still not sure on the river fold. I can't make up my mind, yet. I don't see anyone holding a 4 here. It doesn't make sense, so I lean towards a call... I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

i thought you said you understood the turn bet. the river is a diamond. see? do you know why you bet the non-diamond turn? for the same reason you folded to the diamond river.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would make a lot more sense for me to read these at home in an maximized window rather than at work in a smaller window.

I didn't see the diamond. My bad.

Fold the river.