Re: TO BET OR NOT TO BET? 15-30 LIMIT HAND
 

If he gets check-raised he might clean up some outs. Also, the possible cleaning up of outs is not the most important factor, even though I listed it first.

He could knock out some backdoor draw or longshot that otherwise could end up beating him. Say a small pocket pair that folds instead of hitting its set on the turn, or a goofy bad straight draw that needs 4 cards on board for the straight, or a suited Ace with backdoor flush draw that hits its low kicker on the turn or river. These examples are forms of cleaning up outs.

I think betting is also good because if he hits the T, he will probably get more action on it if he has bet the flop.

He might get a free card by betting.

He might make more money by betting and making the backdoor flush.

His hand is worth a bet and the pot so big, and he has outs, that I don't think he should be worried about paying an extra bet here. Some hands you go into initially with so much value that the next cheap street is not that big a deal by comparison. An example in another game might be 3 live suited wheel cards in Stud/Eight-or-Better. If the pot is built real big on 3rd street and you brick off on fourth street, far from folding then, you should perhaps even be betting yourself (situation dependent, but you are almost never going to fold there).

Re: TO BET OR NOT TO BET? 15-30 LIMIT HAND
 

"If he gets check-raised he might clean up some outs."

This is why I suggested betting and hoping to get check-raised.

Re: TO BET OR NOT TO BET? 15-30 LIMIT HAND
 

OK.

While I think a bet is right here depending on if earlier position players are big check-raisers - i.e. will check-raise to isolate you with marginal hands in order to get heads up with a probably position bettor.

I didn't think a straight bet would clean any outs up without anticipating a check-raise to knock out a hand like ATo.

But it's still a bet.

Re: TO BET OR NOT TO BET? 15-30 LIMIT HAND
 

[ QUOTE ]
betting and hoping to get check-raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer not to get check raised but don't mind if I do. There are potential valuble results that can occur if you get check raised. What makes betting in this situation correct is that there are a number of factors that when taken individually each of themselves may not warrant a bet but when combined they add up to betting. My problem is not that I don't understand why in this situation a bet is correct, my problem is that I can't prove it via EV. I base my opinion on my idea of how to play poker and experience.

Vince

Re: TO BET OR NOT TO BET? 15-30 LIMIT HAND
 

Well thinking about EV, you have a hand here that has about a 4% chance of making the nut flush, and roughly another 16% chance of making the nut straight. Now this does not by itself mean that betting is necessarily right, but it does mean it can't be horribly wrong, because you are going to win a reasonable fraction of any bets that go into the pot no matter what.

Now the reason that betting is absolutely right here is that occasionally, your bet will result in all hands that currently have you beat folding.

Here's a dream scenario for you: another straight draw raises, causing all pairs to fold. Nothing comes and your ace high wins on the river.

The above won't happen very often, but it will happen occasionally. Overall, I think betting will sometimes result in a small EV gain and sometimes in a small EV loss. All this is a wash. But occasionally it will result in a monstrous gain, and this is what makes the bet correct.

Re: No right answer
 

The comparison is that they are both high positive EV actions and rarely is there another choice which is even higher EV.

-Ezcheeze

Re: TO BET OR NOT TO BET? 15-30 LIMIT HAND
 

This is a mandatory bet. The three flush makes it not even close.