Way ahead or way behind?
 

So normally I'd have check-raised the flop, but after a moments consideration I decided to play the hand more passively. With no draws on the flop I decided I would get more value from the hand if I was ahead by allowing him to bluff at me, and save bets if I was behind. Was this the correct play? Villain in this piece was 18/3 but I only had 40 hands on him.

Party Poker 15/30 Hold'em (10 handed) converter

Preflop: Heroine is UTG with Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">Heroine raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+2 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">7 folds</font>, Heroine calls.

Flop: (7.66 SB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Heroine checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+2 bets</font>, Heroine calls.

Turn: (4.83 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Heroine checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+2 bets</font>, Heroine calls.

River: (6.83 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Heroine checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+2 bets</font>, Heroine calls.

Final Pot: 8.83 BB

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

I like raising the flop here. I think you would have a better Idea of where you are if you did as well as charging him for any draws.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like raising the flop here. I think you would have a better Idea of where you are if you did as well as charging him for any draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

See the original post.

-SmileyEH

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like raising the flop here. I think you would have a better Idea of where you are if you did as well as charging him for any draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

There aren't any draws, and she played the hand fine.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

If she's going to play it like this isn't a river bet necessary?

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like raising the flop here. I think you would have a better Idea of where you are if you did as well as charging him for any draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

what kind of idea? are you really going to fold when you get 3-bet? or allow him to get off cheaply with an underpair or have him correctly fold a 3 outer?

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If she's going to play it like this isn't a river bet necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Against _some_ players a flop raise for information is actually great, for once.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
With no draws on the flop I decided I would get more value from the hand if I was ahead by allowing him to bluff at me, and save bets if I was behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this makes sense on some sort of level, and I've noticed many more players going with this strategy. However, I absolutely hate the thinking "I could be way ahead or way behind, calling strategy". We didn't get to mid level by not being able to read players and will never get to a higher level by going with this strategy. So, what - you pick off a bluff or lose less bets. Playing against you becomes much more easy when you're on this line. Yes, this is my rant, because I'm the one who's been caught bluffing a few times, because of this new line from reasonably aggressive players. But, there really should be a good reason for calling when you're in position with top-pair great kicker.

Personally, I would pop the turn or the river if I called the flop.

Cheers
Magi

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With no draws on the flop I decided I would get more value from the hand if I was ahead by allowing him to bluff at me, and save bets if I was behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this makes sense on some sort of level, and I've noticed many more players going with this strategy. However, I absolutely hate the thinking "I could be way ahead or way behind, calling strategy". We didn't get to mid level by not being able to read players and will never get to a higher level by going with this strategy. So, what - you pick off a bluff or lose less bets. Playing against you becomes much more easy when you're on this line. Yes, this is my rant, because I'm the one who's been caught bluffing a few times, because of this new line from reasonably aggressive players. But, there really should be a good reason for calling when you're in position with top-pair great kicker.

Personally, I would pop the turn or the river if I called the flop.

Cheers
Magi

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is that she is NOT in position. And no, you don't become easier to play against with this line, it becomes harder; your opponent can never tell if you are drawing and when you are drawing they might start giving you free cards.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

well, good idea, bad execution (only on the river)

you must bet that river.

-Barron

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

Anyone see merit in donkbetting the turn (with the intent to 3-bet?)

Edit: Didn't notice the "...or way behind" portion of the title.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With no draws on the flop I decided I would get more value from the hand if I was ahead by allowing him to bluff at me, and save bets if I was behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this makes sense on some sort of level, and I've noticed many more players going with this strategy. However, I absolutely hate the thinking "I could be way ahead or way behind, calling strategy". We didn't get to mid level by not being able to read players and will never get to a higher level by going with this strategy. So, what - you pick off a bluff or lose less bets. Playing against you becomes much more easy when you're on this line. Yes, this is my rant, because I'm the one who's been caught bluffing a few times, because of this new line from reasonably aggressive players. But, there really should be a good reason for calling when you're in position with top-pair great kicker.

Personally, I would pop the turn or the river if I called the flop.

Cheers
Magi

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is that she is NOT in position. And no, you don't become easier to play against with this line, it becomes harder; your opponent can never tell if you are drawing and when you are drawing they might start giving you free cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about the position -- my bad. I always wanted to chat about this line, so I hope you'll indulge me.

I really believe it makes one easy to play against when taking this line. Given a reasonable opponent, if you are ahead, you're opponent IS drawing. They are either drawing to three outs on the K or two outs to match their pocket, or may have a Jack of diamonds drawing to the flush. Letting them make their draw while they have a chance at winning the pot (in their mind) by bluffing, is bad, IMO.

It does become easier to play against, IMO. As an opponent of the check-call, I'm in control and can bet according to my hand. Yes, I don't know where my opponent is in the hand, but I can make a reasonble estimate. I can check the flop with a set or overpair and pop the turn or, I can check the flop, call the turn and pop the river if I feel you will bail on the turn. So many options as an opponent, and the check-call line, offers you no insight into the play of your opponent.

We have pokertracker, Caro tells, 100 of thousands (likely millions) hands of experience. And, the best we can come up with is check-call.

I totally understand the rationelle for the check-call line, but I think we have way too much experience to settle for that line.

Cheers
Magi

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

All you are really saying is that this line is lackluster and boring. If you want a more interesting pokerlife go ahead and make the moves. If you want to maximize EV you sometimes have to play passively (something that seems to have very little apreciation on this board).

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We have pokertracker, Caro tells, 100 of thousands (likely millions) hands of experience. And, the best we can come up with is check-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the question that should be answered is when is one line of play higher EV than another line of play. You advocate a more aggressive line of play and I'd suggest that yes there are opponents that'd you'd be bettor off taking the more aggressive line of play against. Clearly though the "rope-a-dope" line of play is better against certain opponents. Also it depends on how your opponents perceive you. BTW I would tend to take a more aggressive line of play with the AQ myself.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

Just to make sure I understand why, its because I'll miss a bet if he checks his AK or JJ etc? What if I get raised?

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't get to mid level by not being able to read players and will never get to a higher level by going with this strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this strategy becomes more not less prevalent at the higher limits, at least in my limited experience. Partly because your opponent is doing more to disguise the strength of their own hand. A 'raise for information' gets you less information when your opponent is capable of semi-bluff reraises etc.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Given a reasonable opponent, if you are ahead, you're opponent IS drawing. They are either drawing to three outs on the K or two outs to match their pocket, or may have a Jack of diamonds drawing to the flush. Letting them make their draw while they have a chance at winning the pot (in their mind) by bluffing, is bad, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, you're just allowing them to make more mistakes. They ARE drawing, but they are drawing thin and with insufficient pot odds. For every dollar they put in, you have a massive overlay. If you raise, they can make a correct fold and you lose the opportunity to make money.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

IMO, if you are someone who bets and raises a lot, throwing in check-call lines in certain spots is great, since you can count on your opponent bluffing and value-betting w/ worse hands (that may or may not have called bets) at far more than optimal frequencies.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make sure I understand why, its because I'll miss a bet if he checks his AK or JJ etc? What if I get raised?

[/ QUOTE ]

since he's so unlikely to raise unless your beat you can fold easily for the same bet that would have cost you to call the river if he bets.

and you gain the bet when you're ahead and he checks.

hes not folding a better hand.

this is bad, however, when he'll alwyas check behind even with his KK/AA and instead you force a bet in there artificially

the backdoor flush getting there will make him call even hands hed want to raise for fear of a 3 bet with his 1 pair hands (not counting the paired board)

-Barron

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I am assuming we fold if a tight passive player raises?

Also should we even be running this line on a tight passive player when we are out of position?

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

you're folding that to a raise against a relative unknown?

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

yes, I think you can value bet vs a tight passive specifically becuase he won't raise with the same or any worse hands.

and yes, this line is also optimal on the flop and turn vs that type of player, where/why would you lead or put in a c/r? I guess you could lead the flop and fold to a raise if you knew he would only raise with AA/KK, but that is beyond tight-passive I think.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tougher players will recognize your river bet as what it is and will raise you with AK.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if you are someone who bets and raises a lot, throwing in check-call lines in certain spots is great, since you can count on your opponent bluffing and value-betting w/ worse hands (that may or may not have called bets) at far more than optimal frequencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like usual, I'm not good at expressing what's in my head -- much better at the table (good thing I don't have to explain what I did).

You've hit the nail on the head. It's not that I don't like the check-call line. I just need a very good reason for it, other than "I may be way ahead or I may be way behind" and can't decide, so I need to call this down.

Your table image at that table, as you've mentioned is a great way to befuddle your opponent and will keep them betting when they are behind, because your play suggests you would never call down with tptk. However, I would believe this is only +EV if you have that image and you have a very strong opponent who can bluff semi-bluff on every street. Yes, there are more of these players at this level, but I would say still less than 25% of players would keep betting with something like JJ right to the river.

As you mention though, if I have that betting/raising image and I'm up against a strong opponent, I like this line as I think it's +EV.

Cheers
Magi

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tougher players will recognize your river bet as what it is and will raise you with AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically agree with me?

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]


I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I think you win more by check calling vs this player than betting/calling a raise. ultimately it comes down to how often he will bet and raise a worse hand, so I guess the question then becomse *how* overaggressive* is he.

The times he does raise, how often is it a worse hand? for a passive player that number is close to 0% of the time. for an overaggressive player, the number is still pretty low.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I think you win more by check calling vs this player than betting/calling a raise. ultimately it comes down to how often he will bet and raise a worse hand, so I guess the question then becomse *how* overaggressive* is he.

The times he does raise, how often is it a worse hand? for a passive player that number is close to 0% of the time. for an overaggressive player, the number is still pretty low.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I've sort of made it a point lately to call down a raise if I bet into my opponent on the river, and the percentage of bluffs here is quite high.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

The "Way ahead or way behind" logic is fine. Situations frequently arise, and I think this is a good example, where you have little to gain by getting more aggressive as it will only cause the worse hands to fold and cost you money against the better ones. In these situations theres often no good way to know if you're ahead or not and trying to decide which you think it is and play accordingly is not aspiring to play better poker, its misunderstanding the situation and playing worse.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

I agree, check/call, check/call, lead is very often a line that plans to fold to a raise and this an obvious (and against many opponents highly profitable) bluffing opportunity.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
All you are really saying is that this line is lackluster and boring. If you want a more interesting pokerlife go ahead and make the moves. If you want to maximize EV you sometimes have to play passively (something that seems to have very little apreciation on this board).

[/ QUOTE ]

I know it sounds like that's what I'm saying, when I haven't really expressed myself well enough. I really want a good reason to take the check-call line, rather than I may be ahead or I may be behind. We have some much experience, tools, information, I'd rather make a mistake than to say "hmmm....I can't decide." After all, it's how we learn.

If I have a good reason to take the check-call line with tptk, then I would take the same line holding an overpair like KK or even AA. I'm not advocating aggression at every opportunity. Rather, I want to use the information at my disposal, to make the most accurate assessment and go from there. I may be wrong, but I'd rather be wrong instead of undecided.

As I mentioned in my response to Eldiablo, I like the check-call line if I know I will get bet into by a worse hand, by a strong player who will do that more often than not.

It's been my experience that opponents who "can't decide" are easier opponents. I'm not saying all of you who advovate the check-call line would be easy to play against, but in general this is what I find.

Cheers
Magi

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The times he does raise, how often is it a worse hand? for a passive player that number is close to 0% of the time. for an overaggressive player, the number is still pretty low.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ. Most overagressive players has a tendency to just call with a legitimate but not superstrong hand and only raise with a weak hand, a pure bluff or the near nuts. Once the flush comes on the river even agressive players will often check behind with medium pairs, so you have to bet here and call a single raise from the agressive types. The times you get called with a worse hand and raised with a worse hand, will more than make up for the times you get raised with a better hand.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather make a mistake than to say "hmmm....I can't decide."

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly think you need to read this whole thread again carefully. Nobody is advocating this line becausej 'they don't no what else to do'. I'll let you figure out the rest on your own....

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The "Way ahead or way behind" logic is fine. Situations frequently arise, and I think this is a good example, where you have little to gain by getting more aggressive as it will only cause the worse hands to fold and cost you money against the better ones. In these situations theres often no good way to know if you're ahead or not and trying to decide which you think it is and play accordingly is not aspiring to play better poker, its misunderstanding the situation and playing worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I believe there are many ways to figure out if you're ahead or behind.

1) what's your table image
2) what range of hands will your opponent three-bet pre-flop
3) have you folded to the three-bet pre-flop pressue on previous hands
4) if you have gametime, what %age of rivers will your opponent bet without tp, what's his aggression factor
5) is your opponent weak tight?
6) is your opponent on a tear, or have they not played any hands for the last two oribits -- if it's the latter, they are more likely to keep firing with the worst hand

Those are just some of the things which are available and you really don't have to bet/raise to get that information. I think there are many more tidbits that are available. I don't always use this information, but I aspire to. It's there, so why not use it.

Cheers
Magi

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to maximize EV you sometimes have to play passively (something that seems to have very little appreciation on this board).

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. For many 2+2'ers, it's virtually impossible to ever get them out of the raise/reraise mentality.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather make a mistake than to say "hmmm....I can't decide."

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly think you need to read this whole thread again carefully. Nobody is advocating this line becausej 'they don't no what else to do'. I'll let you figure out the rest on your own....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I usually like your advice, so I reread the thread carefully. I like the suggestion to bet the river. I like it because there's some good thinking about why to bet, how it's +EV and how it forces your opponent to make a decision. Hence, you become more difficult to play against.

Yes, my suggestion on turn aggression wasn't really thinking through the whole problem. It's just that check-call, sends shivers up my spine, and I usually only do it when I'm very confident I'm ahead and will continue to make bets. It HAS back-fired the last two times, where my opponent made their two-outer on the river (stars $100 limit tourney on sunday). So, I'm still a bit over-senstivie.

Thanks for indulging me.

Cheers
Magi

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

I found it interesting how far ahead/behind this flop/turn will put you against a reasonably tight opponent.

Equity on:
Flop<font color="white">_____</font>Turn
0.1<font color="white">______</font>0.05<font color="white">______</font>3 combinations AA
0.22<font color="white">_____</font>0.12<font color="white">______</font>6 combinations KK
0.9<font color="white">______</font>0.95<font color="white">______</font>12 combinations JJ, TT
0.8<font color="white">______</font>0.9<font color="white">_______</font>12 combinations AK
0.02<font color="white">_____</font>0<font color="white">_________</font>1 combination of QQ

34 combinations.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

The point is that sometimes its actually inconclusive after a exhaustive analysis of the available information. Sometimes your opponent has a broad range of hands and you can't narrow it down.

Re: Way ahead or way behind?
 

You're thinking about this incorrectly, you say you don't want to check/call unless you have a specific reason. This is incorrect.

You shouldn't make ANY play without a specific reason, and the reliance on bet/raise when unsure is a (very useful) cruch.

It's a crutch because of the way poker works, it is right more often then its wrong, and if you can't understand how to apply situatonal reasoning you'll do better with that mindset than by choosing random actions.

It is a crutch to get the player that can't think through all the posibilities as close to optimal EV as possible. Again, it's a useful crutch.

However the CORRECT way to look at a play is with no bias towards any action and figuring out what action leads to OPTIMAL EV vs an opponents ENTIRE range of hands. It's not an art its assesing what they could have, how they'll react with what they have, and playing accordingly. Hence in a game of uncertain information you have to accept that you don't know what their hand is, it's costly and uncertain to find out, so you need to take the most plus EV line.

There is no absolute value to raise/fold/check/call, only situational value that gets you as close as possible to optimal EV in an enviornment of incomplete information.

If you had complete and perfect information and knew they'd bet a worse hand but fold if you bet check/call, check/call, check/call is STILL the best line.