Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

You're UTG with A5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

6 to the flop.

Flop: K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

BB opens the betting. Author says to call. I think this is a raise. I'd agree if you had undercards, then you want to keep customers in and get paid off a little more as that's your only real redraw.

1) You have an A overcard

2) You could possibly knock out a better hand making your A high good, and/or cleaning up an A out.

3) Calling gives any 2 cards odds to call if A high might be good at this time. It really gives a bottom pair odds when you might knock them out with a raise. See 2 above.

4) If only called on the flop, you have good bluff potential should another K hit on the turn. Thin, but possible. There are better boards for this.

5) If some call behind you, they may well pay you off just as well if you hit your flush. If some call behind you, the raise turns to value. Especially if you're A is a clean out. With one it's about even money.

He says the pot is small, only 6 bets. To me, 6 bets in an unraised pot with 5 opponents is enough to start cleaning up outs and maximizing my chances. Actually 7 bets after the initial flop bet. If you just call, many hands, other draws can easily call getting 8-1 or better.

The BB could also be betting a lesser draw as well as a K. If he has a K, he'd be hard pressed to 3 bet your raise given that he got raised by an EP who looks like he'd have a bigger kicker than normal given his position.

I also think you will get called and checked to on the turn much more often than you will be 3 bet in this spot.

Thoughts? Or is it close enough to go either way?

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

I think it's very close either way, and probably depends on table texture too. The thing is, with 6 people seeing the flop, you're getting a great price for your flush draw. So whether to raise here or not depends upon if EP will bet with more than just top pair here, and if a middle pairish hand would call 1, but not 2 bets on the flop.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

But couldn't you also be in a win-win situation by raising? If others call behind you, it's value on your draw. If they fold, you may have the best hand and/or only have to beat 1 player instead of 5.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

But by raising you might end up isolating yourself against a better hand. It comes down to pot size. If the pot was raised preflop, then a flop raise is clear cut because there will be 16 or bets in it, and you get much more value from folding smaller pairs and cleaning up ace outs.

As the situation is, I'd estimate that raising gives you a 45% chance to win, and you'd be investing 50% of the money on the flop twice. Calling would on average have you winning about 37% of the time, putting in 25% of the money. These numbers are just guesses, but I think they are accurate. As it stands, I think calling is slightly better here.

On the other hand, if you knew a couple players would come along for a double bet, then you have a clear raise.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[I]f you knew a couple players would come along for a double bet, then you have a clear raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

Basically what this comes down to is whether you want to win a huge pot with an incredible hand, or try and win a small pot with a marginal hand (which may not even be best. Moreover, Stork correctly points out that when you raise here you'll get isolated against a better hand a significant portion of the time.

Your numbers look pretty good, btw.

John

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) You have an A overcard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... yes you do. How do you think this helps out? Are you trying for an Ace to hit on turn? Sure this is one of your outs, but with 6 seeing flop, you may have kicker issues and you're dreaming a little if you think that A-hi will win when 6 see the flop. In this case, you are roughly 1.9:1 on making the flush... you are better than the number of players in the pot... Raising here would be (IMO) foolish to try to eliminate the rest of the field. Let the field call... The ideal situation here is that the player on your left raises... In this case... 3-bet when it comes back to you... In this situation, I want to see all 6 players see this flop capped... This is much more +EV than raising to try and win with A-high.

[ QUOTE ]
2) You could possibly knock out a better hand making your A high good, and/or cleaning up an A out.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.... I don't believe you can. So don't. Even, in an ideal world, you could do that... it's much more +EV to go for the flush.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Calling gives any 2 cards odds to call if A high might be good at this time. It really gives a bottom pair odds when you might knock them out with a raise. See 2 above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the point of this exercise... The point is to go for the flush. OK... since you're stuck on this concept, let's look at 2 scenarios.

Scenario 1.
You raise... you eliminate the field and get it heads-up. Let's be generous here and say that you're good about 50% (35% for the flush and throuwing in about 15% for an ace and winning w/ A-high) of the time here. (EP player betting into 5 opponents usually means he beats A-high).

You get this heads-up and win 6SB pf (4SB on flop) and about 1BB after the flop, netting you about 3.5BB/hand 50% of the time. You will lose 1.5BB/hand the other 50% of the time (assuming the EP player will never 3-bet or bet the turn). So you net 2BB/2 hands or 1BB/hand. Cool... that's nice.

Scenario 2:

You call... let's say that 4 see the turn. It's hard to tell what happens here... the EP player is betting the hand for you. There may be a raise from LP, it may be capped on the flop, it may be bet on the turn and raised... There may be 2 seeing the river, all 6 may be seeing the river... but there is no disputing that this pot will be bigger. Right away, on the turn, you will have a 10SB (5BB) pot minimum. Same as your scenario. Only this time, there will be a bet on the turn. This is almost guarunteed. If 3 see the river, the pot is already at 8BB. If you miss, you fold. You've invested 2BB and will lose roughly 2 times in 3 attempts here. When you win, you will win at least 10BB.

So 10BB 35% of the time won... 2BB lost 65% of the time. That's 2.2BB/hand won. Much better than the 1BB/hand you're getting by raising.

[ QUOTE ]
4) If only called on the flop, you have good bluff potential should another K hit on the turn. Thin, but possible. There are better boards for this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But you still have good odds to call. When the board pairs on this turn, you can be behind, but that will only be the case a few times. It should be considered in later betting rounds about how far you will take this. Also, be careful, if you raise this and someone does have a K, you will be in dire trouble, thus increasing your losses.

[ QUOTE ]
5) If some call behind you, they may well pay you off just as well if you hit your flush. If some call behind you, the raise turns to value. Especially if you're A is a clean out. With one it's about even money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a little confusing. I want callers behind me on this flop... I would like to see it capped... as long as 2 opponents see the flop capped with you, it will be about neutral EV. 3 or more it will be +EV. As for the turn... You will have odds to call an EP bet and a LP raise.

[ QUOTE ]
He says the pot is small, only 6 bets. To me, 6 bets in an unraised pot with 5 opponents is enough to start cleaning up outs and maximizing my chances. Actually 7 bets after the initial flop bet. If you just call, many hands, other draws can easily call getting 8-1 or better.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot isn't really all that small... I would take it if I could... but this exercise is about maximizing your wins, not trying to win a small pot.

There's an example in a 2+2 book, can't place my finger on it right now, but think it was either PoP or Inside the Poker Mind, that showed the strenght of AA. AA HU is about an 80% favorite, but drops w/ more opponents. For a long time, I hated seeing 4 to a flop w/ AA... Now I like seeing everybody on the table see the flop w/ me. Sure, you're % of wins will drop, but when you win... you will win big. Maximize your wins. That's the key.

[ QUOTE ]
The BB could also be betting a lesser draw as well as a K. If he has a K, he'd be hard pressed to 3 bet your raise given that he got raised by an EP who looks like he'd have a bigger kicker than normal given his position.

[/ QUOTE ]

If BB has a K, you don't fear a 3-bet? That's just plain crazy. I don't know many players at 2/4 and above that will lead out and not 3-bet a K on a 2-flushed board. It's SOP for me as well as others.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, I want to see all 6 players see this flop capped..

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone behind you willing to go to the turn capped isn't going to fold for 2 bets cold. Not to mention, if it goes 6 ways capped on this board, and this table doesn't have a history of maniacal play, how many outs do you really think you have? Not saying it's not value to have it capped, it certainly is, but not as much as you may be thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying for an Ace to hit on turn? Sure this is one of your outs, but with 6 seeing flop, you may have kicker issues and you're dreaming a little if you think that A-hi will win when 6 see the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kicker issues is one prime reason Im mentioning the A high.

[ QUOTE ]
If BB has a K, you don't fear a 3-bet? That's just plain crazy. I don't know many players at 2/4 and above that will lead out and not 3-bet a K on a 2-flushed board. It's SOP for me as well as others

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many, typical players-non 2+2ers, that wouldn't 3 bet this board in this spot. Not if he has a small kicker he isn't. What exactly is he putting you on when you raise? Not a draw. And given the postion, he'd more likely figure a decent sized kicker. Anyone jamming this with Kx is usually blowing money unless they knew for sure you didn't have Kx beat. It looks like a protection raise.

The point is, it's mainly a drawless board other than the flush draw. Yes, I think you can get out a smaller pair by a raise on the flop. Whether it's a PP or small pair from the board. Likely the only folders would be the ones who'd fold to 1 bet anyways. Look at the board, what are they drawing to?

Im looking at the closeness between just calling and raising. I think it's close.

[ QUOTE ]
The pot isn't really all that small... I would take it if I could... but this exercise is about maximizing your wins, not trying to win a small pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot isn't all that small, yet you're not trying to win a small pot. Is it small, or isn't it?

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Basically what this comes down to is whether you want to win a huge pot with an incredible hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the board and your position, I don't think this pot is going to be that huge.

If the flush draw gets there on the turn, you're calling if someone bets into you hoping it gets raised behind you.

However, a case could be made for the ones who'd call a flop bet and fold on the turn. Along with some who would fold an A anyways figuring they are only drawing to 2 outs. On this board, there's not really alot to draw to unless you have the K or the flush draw.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, I want to see all 6 players see this flop capped..

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone behind you willing to go to the turn capped isn't going to fold for 2 bets cold. Not to mention, if it goes 6 ways capped on this board, and this table doesn't have a history of maniacal play, how many outs do you really think you have? Not saying it's not value to have it capped, it certainly is, but not as much as you may be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood. Our equity edge is quite high here, thus the more bets that get put in, the better it is for us. I'm sure you understand this. When easypete says that he wants to see it capped, he's talking only about the equity of the hand. Recognizing that anyone who is there for the cap isn't likely to fold for two bets cold isn't part of the discussion. We don't know if it's going to be capped. We want as many people in the pot as possible, so that when the flush hits we win a big pot. Forcing the field to call two bets cold is not a good way to maximize your expectation with this hand, because it is quite likely that a raise could you leave you heads up (in which case you don't have an equity edge (if you're only counting your flush outs)) or heads up and 3-bet--isolated against a better hand.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying for an Ace to hit on turn? Sure this is one of your outs, but with 6 seeing flop, you may have kicker issues and you're dreaming a little if you think that A-hi will win when 6 see the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kicker issues is one prime reason Im mentioning the A high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But what I'm saying is that I'm going to pass up on the chance to win the current pot with A high in order to win a huge pot with the nut flush.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If BB has a K, you don't fear a 3-bet? That's just plain crazy. I don't know many players at 2/4 and above that will lead out and not 3-bet a K on a 2-flushed board. It's SOP for me as well as others

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many, typical players-non 2+2ers, that wouldn't 3 bet this board in this spot. Not if he has a small kicker he isn't. What exactly is he putting you on when you raise? Not a draw. And given the postion, he'd more likely figure a decent sized kicker. Anyone jamming this with Kx is usually blowing money unless they knew for sure you didn't have Kx beat. It looks like a protection raise.

The point is, it's mainly a drawless board other than the flush draw. Yes, I think you can get out a smaller pair by a raise on the flop. Whether it's a PP or small pair from the board. Likely the only folders would be the ones who'd fold to 1 bet anyways. Look at the board, what are they drawing to?

Im looking at the closeness between just calling and raising. I think it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The pot isn't really all that small... I would take it if I could... but this exercise is about maximizing your wins, not trying to win a small pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot isn't all that small, yet you're not trying to win a small pot. Is it small, or isn't it?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's small compared to what it could be if we simply call and then hit the flush. We're passing up on winning a relatively small pot in order to win a huge pot.

I'm really glad this article is sparking discussion, however. Keep it comin'.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given the board and your position, I don't think this pot is going to be that huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a 30bb pot huge, no. But, relative to the current pot, it will be huge.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

I raise this too.

I don't have my SSH handy, but I could have sworn that Ed had an example where he advocates raising with A7s in a similar situation to clean up the A outs and advocates a call with a weaker flush draw that doesn't have overcards.

Edit: btw, the entire reason I came to the Magazine forum tonight was becuase when I read that article, I was shocked that a call was being advocated with the overcard and wanted to see if anyone else thought the same way [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

I think a case can be made for both lines. I don't mind the line for just calling here, I still like raising better.

In the SSHE example, p 158, if that's the one you're thinking of, it's a little different. You have a caller in between plus 2 overcards and a bigger pot. However, your raise is primarily to free up the Ace (as far as buying outs, which isn't the prime factor of that hand/raise given other, more beneficial factors also involved). You're not worried about your 9 outs as much as you will outkick most kickers unless they make 2 pair.

My contention is looking at the board on the hand. It's K high with only a flush draw. That flop didn't likely hit anyone unless they have a K or a flush draw, both which will call 2 flop bets. I don't see the pot really getting that much bigger given the board. You may also not gain much when you actually do hit your hand. Maybe. That can also be a case for calling the flop to see who might still be there to pay you off when you do hit. You're definitely not raising this turn if bet into if you get your flush.

However, another line I could see just calling the flop, see who comes along, then if you turn a gutshot draw, then raise the turn if bet into.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

By calling on the flop, you're going to be raising the turn a lot.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
By calling on the flop, you're going to be raising the turn a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree, butI wouldn't necesarily be raising the turn when I hit my flush on the turn.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

Right. I meant that if you don't hit on the turn, you'll be raising.

heh.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

I think that's a big mistake I see many, many players make.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case can be made for both lines. I don't mind the line for just calling here, I still like raising better.

In the SSHE example, p 158, if that's the one you're thinking of, it's a little different. You have a caller in between plus 2 overcards and a bigger pot. However, your raise is primarily to free up the Ace (as far as buying outs, which isn't the prime factor of that hand/raise given other, more beneficial factors also involved). You're not worried about your 9 outs as much as you will outkick most kickers unless they make 2 pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to elaborate that the example in SSHE is VERY different. Firstly, the pot was raised preflop. Also, there are two limpers in between you and the raiser. Your raise is NOT primarily to clean up your lone overcard (putting 1SB in to buy 2 outs?). Your raise is for value, and because it may buy you a free river if the button folds and the turn is checked to you.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

Elaborate or summarize what I said?

[ QUOTE ]
Your raise is NOT primarily to clean up your lone overcard (putting 1SB in to buy 2 outs?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned that.

[ QUOTE ]
your raise is primarily to free up the Ace (as far as buying outs, which isn't the prime factor of that hand/raise given other, more beneficial factors also involved).

[/ QUOTE ]

However, that section is also about buying outs. Yes, those 2 outs.

Another factor is that there is a player in between you and the flop bettor. The preflop raiser is one of the people you are targetting to get out of the hand with the raise in that example since it is likely he can have a bigger A.

If you double the pot size, it's very close to that example spot to be in.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

My bad, I sorta skimmed the parenthesis after " your raise is primarily to free up the Ace". Anyway, I still think a flop call is correct in the example the author posted, although it's pretty insignifigant either way, as long as you don't fold [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I still think a flop call is correct in the example the author posted, although it's pretty insignifigant either way, as long as you don't fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in the book example, it's even more significant to raise in that spot. Pot size alone dictates trying to maximize your winning chances over gaining value.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

Hi Bernie

I think the key to this example is the size of the pot.Since the pot was not raised pre-flop you will make more money(expectation greater) if you just call.If the pot were raised pre-flop and the bet came from your right then you probably should raise.When the pot gets big,improving your chance to win is more important than getting extra action. Ice

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, I still think a flop call is correct in the example the author posted, although it's pretty insignifigant either way, as long as you don't fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in the book example, it's even more significant to raise in that spot. Pot size alone dictates trying to maximize your winning chances over gaining value.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. In the book example raising is clearly correct. I meant the author of the article in that quote.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

I think you may be right.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

A general thought.
In a close decision, perhaps both lines could be used randomly, decided by a coin flip (not necessarily a fair coin flip)
As long as we've determined that both raising and calling have similar merits, isn't it time to make yourself less predictable?

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

no. go with the higher EV line.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
no. go with the higher EV line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is calling. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

Obviously, when you know what the higher EV line is.
What if you don't know? What if in your estimation calling has 40% chance of being highest EV and raising has a 60% chance? Should you raise all the time or call sometimes also?

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, when you know what the higher EV line is.
What if you don't know? What if in your estimation calling has 40% chance of being highest EV and raising has a 60% chance? Should you raise all the time or call sometimes also?

[/ QUOTE ]

in low-limit poker (especially online), always pick the play with highest +EV. Most people aren't noticing specific plays you do. Futhermore, you likely won't see these people again. These randomizing plays have no merit in low stakes poker, because opponents simply are too dumb to notice or you won't play against them again.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]

in low-limit poker (especially online), always pick the play with highest +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no argument with this idea. I am asking what happens when you do not know which play has the highest EV. This is what this particular argument is about. Some say, calling is better, others say raising is better. Supposing that both groups make good arguments, do I necessarily have to choose one side, or can I use both plays randomly? Logically I am missing some EV because one of the groups is ultimately correct while the other is wrong, but by not picking the wrong line hundred percent of the time, I am hedging my bet.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

To tell you the truth, you can't go too wrong in this hand if you don't fold.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

My point was that this situation is not a good one to vary your play for the sake of deception. You shouldn't call sometimes and raise sometimes. Do whichever YOU THINK has the highest EV. I would guess that calling is slightly better here.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
in low-limit poker (especially online), always pick the play with highest +EV. Most people aren't noticing specific plays you do. Futhermore, you likely won't see these people again. These randomizing plays have no merit in low stakes poker, because opponents simply are too dumb to notice or you won't play against them again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Key words: 'Especially online'. In live, most rooms, many times small rooms with 1-3 tables, you will have a core of regulars that will notice even though they are the usual donators.

As in most cases when dealing with 'image', gauge it on the action you've been getting before adjusting.

b

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

I actually like a call here. The reason is I think that it's close either way, but with five people behind you I don't think it's a bad idea to let a few more people in behind you. I like this for two reasons. 1) you might get a few more people sucked in that will feel compelled to make "crying calls" on the turn and river if you hit your flush. 2) I think by just calling you may get someone behind you on the flop to raise (maybe they think they have the best hand or are trying to get a free card) and then when it gets back around to you, you can reraise, which will push your pot equity edge and alot of people between you and the raiser may have called. And if the raiser was on your immediate right, a few people may have just cold called his flop raise and now you can make them put in (at least) on more small bet, or they'll have to fold even though they already contributed two small bets on the flop.

Re: Selective aggression hand I don\'t agree with.
 

[ QUOTE ]
... And if the raiser was on your immediate right, a few people may have just cold called his flop raise and now you can make them put in (at least) on more small bet...

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean, "if the raiser was on your immediate left...". In other words, bettor is on your right, you call, raiser is on your left, a few suckers coldcall hopefully, original bettor calls, now you 3bet to push your equity edge.

-ptmusic