Need a line check in the BB
 

I'm new at the table (less than 10 hands) so no particular reads.

PokerStars 1/2 Hold'em (6 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is BB with J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. CO posts a blind of $1.
UTG calls, MP calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO (poster) raises</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#CC3333">UTG 3-bets</font>, MP calls, CO calls, Button calls, Hero calls.

With 5 players in, I don't think I can let this go for either of these bets. No? Yes?

Flop: (15.50 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, MP calls, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG 3-bets</font>, MP calls, CO calls, Button folds, Hero ?

A 2-card flush against 3 opponents playing 6-max...I'm pretty happy with the check-raise, and my inclination is to cap for value since I don't think anybody's going anywhere. What do YOU do?

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

You are frequently going to be up against a set here, so I don't think your flush alone has sufficient equity to cap. With your straight draw, though, cap away. Cry if the board pairs on the river after you hit on the turn.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

I like the line so far, and would agree with a cap on the flop here.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Fold p/f first time around, call second, cap flop.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Eh, it's a little loose, but not too bad 5 ways.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Cry if the board pairs on the river after you hit on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, were you in this hand?

PokerStars 1/2 Hold'em (6 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is BB with J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. CO posts a blind of $1.
UTG calls, MP calls, <font color="#CC3333">CO (poster) raises</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, <font color="#CC3333">UTG 3-bets</font>, MP calls, CO calls, Button calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (15.50 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, MP calls, CO calls, Button calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG 3-bets</font>, MP calls, CO calls, Button folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero caps</font>, UTG calls, MP calls, CO calls.

Turn: (16.25 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls, MP calls, CO calls.

River: (20.25 BB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls, MP calls, CO folds.

Final Pot: 23.25 BB

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Nope. vnh. I'm honestly pretty surprised you didn't get raised on that river. What were they packing?

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Personally I never would've called the first raise; you only have one thing going for this hand and IMM is a marginal mway hand to begin with. Would be interesting to know how many times you could play J2s even @ 6:1 and make any money.

I don't get the flop check - what's its purpose? Are you trying to build a bigger pot or trying to win this already humungoid pot? (For all you know utg limped a mway hand and 3-bet pf to maximize implieds and pairing 2's could beat it.)

IMM you should not be trying to tie 4 others to the pot - you should be trying to win it because it was already huge...

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. vnh. I'm honestly pretty surprised you didn't get raised on that river. What were they packing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was, too, but I was prepared to call one back to me.

MHIG
UTG had J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
MP had A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Edit: Oh, and CO (poster and PFR) accused us of being "...a bunch of colluters [sic]..." on the turn.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]

IMM you should not be trying to tie 4 others to the pot - you should be trying to win it because it was already huge...

[/ QUOTE ]
i was just wondering if you happened to look at boz's cards?

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

this is such an easy call pf for me getting 9.5:1 (after UTG and MP call, which they almost always do). even the chance of a LRR, like here, doens't scare me at all. I'd be tempted to play any 2 cards getting those odds.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the flop check - what's its purpose? Are you trying to build a bigger pot or trying to win this already humungoid pot? (For all you know utg limped a mway hand and 3-bet pf to maximize implieds and pairing 2's could beat it.)

IMM you should not be trying to tie 4 others to the pot - you should be trying to win it because it was already huge...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the preflop call was marginal, but I made it, and I'd make it again at an unknown 6max table. 'nuff said.

On the flop I was going for building the pot with the anticipated agressor to my immediate left. The worst possible play would be to bet and have UTG blow everybody else out leaving me with no value. I have 15 outs, only 3 of which I'd even consider discounting (the 3 non-spade 9s)! I want every single one of those effers tied to the pot, as the chances are very good that at least 2 of them are contributing dead money.

Also, with 2 preflop aggressors, my chances of winning this huge pot without showing down the best hand is somewhere in the neighborhood of zero, if not less than that.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

IMM you should not be trying to tie 4 others to the pot - you should be trying to win it because it was already huge...

[/ QUOTE ]
i was just wondering if you happened to look at boz's cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

co raises Axx; utg 3-bets a now-big field w/J9s; do I really need to look at his hand to know that 2's have won these before?

Or is what you're saying a better hand has never folded so go ahead and make sure you're up against the entire field to the very end?

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

are you serious about trying to clear up our pair outs here?

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get the flop check - what's its purpose? Are you trying to build a bigger pot or trying to win this already humungoid pot? (For all you know utg limped a mway hand and 3-bet pf to maximize implieds and pairing 2's could beat it.)

IMM you should not be trying to tie 4 others to the pot - you should be trying to win it because it was already huge...

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the preflop call was marginal, but I made it, and I'd make it again at an unknown 6max table. 'nuff said.

On the flop I was going for building the pot with the anticipated agressor to my immediate left. The worst possible play would be to bet and have UTG blow everybody else out leaving me with no value. I have 15 outs, only 3 of which I'd even consider discounting (the 3 non-spade 9s)! I want every single one of those effers tied to the pot, as the chances are very good that at least 2 of them are contributing dead money.

Also, with 2 preflop aggressors, my chances of winning this huge pot without showing down the best hand is somewhere in the neighborhood of zero, if not less than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems fairly sensible; but you said you had 10 hands w/them (IIRC) so really you have no idea what your worst outs are (IMO).

When I see large flop pots I think of sshe/hepfap; "large pots" pg 148 sshe #2: "Sieze opportunities to knock out players..." So when I saw 16sb and a c-r on the field, it didn't seem like trying to knock anybody out.

I understand your rationale; and the way it played out is pretty cool. I'm just wondering, technically, what's "correct" here...

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

yeah you should try to win pots fast, but you can't win this pot without improving. so we keep everyone in to basically pad the pot for our draw.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
This seems fairly sensible; but you said you had 10 hands w/them (IIRC) so really you have no idea what your worst outs are (IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I do. 95% of the time a two-card flush (i.e. a flush that uses both of your hole cards) is going to be good, so until that third [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] falls and somebody's still going hard at the pot, I'm figuring all 9 spades in the deck to be good for me. I suppose I over-stated the worrying about the 9 falling...if it falls and makes my hand, I'm still losing to AJ, which I'd be losing to on the flop, so I guess all 8 9s and aces should be counted as good, too, so in reality I have 17 clean outs, here, until one of them falls and somebody is still hitting me hard (if the ace falls, of course, I'm not slowing down).

[ QUOTE ]
When I see large flop pots I think of sshe/hepfap; "large pots" pg 148 sshe #2: "Sieze opportunities to knock out players..." So when I saw 16sb and a c-r on the field, it didn't seem like trying to knock anybody out.

I understand your rationale; and the way it played out is pretty cool. I'm just wondering, technically, what's "correct" here...

[/ QUOTE ]

What's "correct", of course, depends.[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] However, with this big a pot and this number of players at this limit, you're not going to be able to knock anybody out most of the time, so instead you go for building the biggest pot possible with a couple of strong draws and hope that (a) you make your hand, and (b) it holds up.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

a suited jack is definitely playable in a five handed pot against any raise let alone a poster raise

I'm surprised there is any debate about this.


OP: nice hand, I like everything you did here

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I never would've called the first raise; you only have one thing going for this hand and IMM is a marginal mway hand to begin with. Would be interesting to know how many times you could play J2s even @ 6:1 and make any money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm ususally folding this preflop as well, but I may be a bit too tight out of the blinds. I think this hand only has value for making a flush value and the occasional one card straight that you'll often have to pay many bets to miss (with 2 PF aggressors and a Broadway-ish board)

[ QUOTE ]

I don't get the flop check - what's its purpose? Are you trying to build a bigger pot or trying to win this already humungoid pot? (For all you know utg limped a mway hand and 3-bet pf to maximize implieds and pairing 2's could beat it.)

IMM you should not be trying to tie 4 others to the pot - you should be trying to win it because it was already huge...

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Others have already said this, but hero has exactly 0% chance of winning this without completeing his (fairly strong) draw, so the flop C/R for value is perfect IMO. Build a monster.


Tom

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

You have 3 oppenents that will call and you are 55% to make your hand by the river. Cap the flop for value.

The only fear is that someone else has made a set (The UTG limp reraise means AA, KK or more likely some type of crap)

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This seems fairly sensible; but you said you had 10 hands w/them (IIRC) so really you have no idea what your worst outs are (IMO).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I do. 95% of the time a two-card flush (i.e. a flush that uses both of your hole cards) is going to be good, so until that third

[/ QUOTE ]

W/all due respect, IMO no you don't; I'm not sure you're following what I'm getting at: I have one and only one overriding thought here - the flop pot was plenty large to try winning right from the start. And that's all that's on my mind

So as simply as I can put it, IMO c-r flop means you have now virtually guaranteed that you MUST hit the fl to win. You have foregone what was already a great pot and (I'm assuming) tossed out any other options, locking yourself into a must-hit draw by tying everyone to the pot.

Consider the unk but assumed 3-out gutshots; betting into utg and praying for a raise, folding any of them is huge because if you hit your J's you're now not losing to their str. Tying them to the pot means that option is gone.

Consider the 45o idiot that isn't going anywhere now because he's put so much in the pot; he could conceivably hit a 4 or 5 and win; IMM ANY hand is a threat with a pot this large; folding them is an option now gone.

What I have the problem with is instead of having the fl as a backup if you cannot win the already large pot w/a lesser hand, IMO tying everyone to it right from the start makes hitting the fl your ONLY option.

I'm going to catch a lot of [censored] for this but IMM helps demonstrate my point; we're not talking about highly skilled, extremely clever players here; they're morons and I don't discount anything happening at $1/2 (and I expect to be called a moron after posting this hand):

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

Preflop: Hero is MP with 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB caps</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls, Button calls.


Flop: (13 SB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button folds, SB folds.

Final Pot: 7 BB



Some ppl (maybe most/all) think betting flop is stupid; but IMO there is no other option on a 3-way pf capped pot - it's too big. I can either give up w/o even trying, get cute, etc., but I had 0 chance to win by checking and IMO is easily worth a 1 sb stab.

So the chance of folding pf aggressors is not 0; it isn't high, but it's not 0. My point is that assuming you're against awesome hands and fl is only alternative is I think a mistake. And, IMO, the likelihood of a lesser hand for you winning a 10bb+ flop pot by playing aggressively to eliminate instead of trying to make a huge pot even larger is FAR from 0.

What hands can be eliminated? Who knows; but my point is that you have thrown out right from the start any other possibility other than the flush. All I'm getting at is locking yourself into a must-hit draw is too extreme when the pot was big to begin with...

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
a suited jack is definitely playable in a five handed pot against any raise let alone a poster raise

I'm surprised there is any debate about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, help me out here. I don't hesitate to toss this w/o second thought. After a cpl replies thought maybe I better see if pokerstove shows me I'm misplaying.

blinds == rake; I picked two reasonable $1/2 hands for co/button.


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

850,668 games 0.016 secs 53,166,750 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 32.0279 % 31.48% 00.55% { JcJd }
Hand 2: 27.9696 % 27.09% 00.88% { AcQs }
Hand 3: 09.9262 % 09.05% 00.88% { AdTh }
Hand 4: 19.6313 % 19.60% 00.03% { 9c8c }
Hand 5: 10.4449 % 09.90% 00.55% { Js2s }


Based only on what he knows for certain (pot size when he called), he needs 6:1 to break even. Pokerstove in this case says J2s needs 9+:1.

If my math is correct and assuming any unk hands weren't even better than what I picked, the best case might be break even longterm IF sb always calls and no one ever folds the raise.

According to what I see, J2s doesn't even have a chance to be anything other than a longterm loser. Am I missing something?

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

. . . and on the river if you're raised once you call, and if raised twice you consider folding?

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

pokerstove is not the tool to use in this situation
using your methodology looks like QJs is a fold too huh

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 37.3233 % 36.95% 00.37% { JcJd }
Hand 2: 31.0122 % 30.68% 00.33% { AcQs }
Hand 3: 17.7185 % 17.67% 00.05% { 9c8c }
Hand 4: 13.9459 % 13.29% 00.65% { QhJh }


there are a zillion threads out there that will explain in better detail why pokerstove is worthless for a thread like this, all it gives you is hot/cold equity if everyone goes to showdown. there are other factors at work like implied odds, etc that can make calling &gt; folding.

look for old peter rus post about calling suited trash in the BB after a raise and ONE cold caller (so in a 3way pot). I wouldn't advocate loosening up that much until you are playing at an expert level and the rake does not have nearly the impact as it does at 1/2 (I only play 5/10 where rake is still a big concern and i'm not close to expert -- so I don't go that far either). basically what it comes down to in the blinds is that if you fold you have -.5bb EV, so if you can find a way to make -.3 or -.4 bbs it is better than folding.


editted grammar

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

There is a big, big difference between the flop in your hand and the flop in the OP. The flop in your post has only a K. It completely missed people who don't have a K, and QQ-TT may be scared of it. In the OP, the board surely connected with whatever villains have here. They have a pair or a draw to a gutshot or better every single time. As you said, the pot is gigantic. They're not folding, certainly not everyone. Every now and then you find people who fold incorrectly, but the overwhelmingly largest mistake you find in poker is people going too far with the wrong hands. Seriously, let's say you manage to fold all the aces because you bet and someone raised. Do you think that person is folding, ever? Do you think that person can beat a pair of J's every single time? Her's a hint. The answers are no, and yes. On a board like this, you have zero chance of winning by folding everyone. Additionally, you have to hit your flush or a straight to win. A crappy pair with the crappiest possible kicker is never going to do it.

The words "win the big pots now" are sound. However, they don't apply here. They apply when you have a strong hand and are considering slowplaying. Hero's hand here is uttter trash right now, but it has a huge chance of improving to be the best hand at showdown. The other place it applies is if the board and your hand reading suggest that you can fold better hands. I challenge you to name two hands that typical internet opponents would play this way preflop and then fold the flop.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
pokerstove is not the tool to use in this situation
using your methodology looks like QJs is a fold too huh

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I stand corrected; thanks. I have more hands to play.

So this is too complicated for any tool to reduce? Is there anywhere to see starting hand values?

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
W/all due respect, IMO no you don't; I'm not sure you're following what I'm getting at: I have one and only one overriding thought here - the flop pot was plenty large to try winning right from the start. And that's all that's on my mind

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I get that. How, exactly, do you propose that I do that in an enormous pot that hit at least a couple of my 4 opponents? That was a rhetorical question; the answer is it's not possible to take this pot down on the flop, leaving as my only option playing to hit one of my draws, and if that's what I'm going for the pot might as well be as big as possible.

The remainder of your discussion is predicated on the idea that you might be able to take this down on the flop. As I believe that's patently impossible, I'm going to stop talking about it, now.

Your example hand is night-and-day different from the OP hand. First, you're the first aggressor preflop; second, you don't have any other draws; third, the pot is nowhere near as big. In your case, I think betting the flop is correct.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Yay for a flop cap. Uberequityfuntimes. Yay for the rest of the hand as well. As for getting 3-bet with two cold back on the river...yikes...fold? There's a sickening amount of hands improving here (KK, KQ, KJ, QJ, humdiddly hum dum dum...)

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Oh man. Look, I'm tired of this (too) and have nothing to say after this post but MUST say 3 things (to no one in particular):

1. I am not criticizing OP/OP's play; I've been questioning prematurely tossing away outs in a big pot;

edit: actually I just reread part of my other reply and it does sound like I'm criticizing; so I apologize because I really didn't intend that.

2. Nowhere did I ever say or hint this could/would be won on the flop. If somebody misinterprets my hand example, the point was (as I said when I posted it) something everybody must know - aggressors aren't always what they seem, don't automatically have killer hands, and even the most aggressive players can fold unexpectedly. Most importantly, they could be betting complete crap like I was. Am I saying OP pfrs will fold? Not at all. But did they connect? How big? Who knows; but when the pot is big I don't just assume I'm miles behind because of what the board looks like. So it didn't even occur to me ppl would think I was "proving" OP could win with a flop raise. I wasn't.

3. Generically, "winning the big pots now" is not at all a function of hand strength; not even close. If no one believes me you might want to take another look at sshe ppg 147-152 (and so I don't have to reply again, "no" I am not comparing sshe marginal hand example to OP; but IMM the underlying principle still applies).

Mike

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Haven't read any replies, so sorry for any redundancy. (Grunch, right?) (What a stupid [non-]word...)

I cap for value. The only problem with capping, as I see it, is that, being out of position, you'll probably want to check a blank on the turn which will give your hand away. OTOH, everyone still in has a piece of that board - most likely a large piece. Anyone with 2 pair or a set will have odds to chase their boat on the river if you hit and lead out on the turn. Since they're there to stay in this huge pot, cap it up and see what the turn brings. Tread lightly if the board pairs or you make your flush on the turn (setting A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] up for a redraw).

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

Alright. I'm resurrecting this thread. It appears that tinhat is still not satisfied, and I think clarifying the lingering discussion will be for the benefit of everyone in the forum.

I'm unsure of a good place to start my response for good flow, however. I apologize, but I think this is going to be somewhat disjoint. I'm going to try and respond to as many lingering points as I can.

I'm going to kick things off with something I posted in another thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Granted, there are exceptions. I was up against a guy on UB about a month ago who had a PFR of about 5%, but I was iso-3betting him with KJo, A8o, and stuff because he only raised junky hands. He slowplayed his good stuff. There aren't very many of these guys, though. Barring a real read, we can't assign a significant probability to this guy only raising his junk hands.

Just as we do Bayesian analysis when we consider hand ranges, the same math applies to opponent ranges. There's a probability this guy's true stats are 25/2. He might also be 30/10. Or 10/1. Or 40/20. He might be raising from a subset of the top 10% of hands, the 2nd 10%, or the bottom 10%. However, base on the ranges of players who, after 50 hands, have these stats, it's most probable that this guy has a VPIP of 20-30, a PFR of 1-7, and is raising from a subset of the top 10% of hands. Even if you want to completely disregard stats until you have thousands of hands of data on the guy, you're most correct to look at the average player from your database. This would be something like a VPIP of around 35, PFR around 12, and raises from a subset of the top 20% of hands. I'd strongly consider folding against this guy, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's this Bayesian sort of thinking that will form the heart of everything else I have to say here. We already know how to do this for hand ranges. If we know our villain only caps with AA, KK and AK, we know we're up against AK 57% of the time (assuming we hold no A's or K's ourselves) because of the distribution of cards. We can use this information to look at the board and estimate our chances of winning by figuring how many outs we have (or our opponent has) based on the board post flop scaled by the probabilities that he has a particular hand.

Now, as I stated in that first quote, we can do the same things with our opponents. While in this case we're not concerned with stats, the idea still applies. We're instead concerned with the what I'll call the degree of wonkiness which we assign to our opponents.

You said many times that villains do unexpected things. You posted your had as an example of a highly unexpected outcome in which everyone folded to your (rather wonky in itself) bet. You stated several times that the hand you posted was not an example of how you think we can fold our opponents here. Instead, it was an example of wonkiness and the unpredictability of our opponents. OK.

Here's the thing, though. We CAN, in fact, predict our opponents actions. We have thousands of hands playing against thousands of opponents. We know the mistakes that a lot of people make. We know what set of hands they tend to raise. We know what sorts of hands they tend to call. We know to expect a certain level of wonkiness from an unknown opponent. Thus, we can use our past experience combined with the limited read we have on these opponents, the action so far in this hand, and the board cards, and we can assign an estimated probability to what they're going to do. I think that you and I and everyone else agree, for example, that the probability of betting out and having everyone fold in this hand is negligibly small. There are people who might fold certain hands that the may hold in this spot, but let's look at it from the Bayesian point of view. Most players with most of the hands they might hold in this situation will at least call most of the time. Anyway, that was an easy point. Let's move on.

One of the things you advocated quite strongly was saving "our worst outs." Those outs our for our J's, our 2's, and you even said our straights. From the PM you sent me:

[ QUOTE ]
The compelling factors here (IMO) are pot size and fantastic position on pf 3-bettor. So the 3-outers (A's or 9's) should've been folded by betting into pfr, fully expecting it to be raised, to recover his J/str outs instead of tying ppl to the pot. Now his J/2 outs (what I called his "worst outs") may not be powerful outs but IMO the size of the pot compels one to not be throwing away outs prematurely. He REDUCED his winning chances from 17 possible winning outs down to 9 (cut in half) by (my contention) thinking his only chance was to hit the flush. His crap hand has gone from needing only mediocre improvement to win to a must-hit draw. (The exact outs can be argued but not the reduction) And this is the important point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to talk about saving our J's and our 2's first, because that's easier. First of all, you give us 17 outs if we manage to save these outs. I'm not exactly sure how many outs you're assigning to our J's and 2's in that number. We obviously have 9 outs to the flush, and if we have 6 more for our OESD (I'll cover that later) does that mean we have 2 outs for our J's and 2's? Is it 5 for the OESD and 3 for the J's and 2's (treating them like overcards)? For the conclusion I'm going to draw, the exact number is irrelevant, I suppose, so I'll start with six outs and trim from there.

Let's give you exactly what you want. You lead, and UTG raises. How happy are we if we hit a J or a 2, really? Well, that depends on UTG's range of hands. He LRR'ed, however, so that gives him some inherent wonkiness. AA-JJ is a good start, however, as those hands are all consistent with a LRR and a raise on the flop. Given what we now know, he can have AA 6 ways, and KK-JJ 3 ways each, a total of 15. AK might also make this play, that's 12 hands. Unfortunately, hitting a J or a 2 does absolutely nothing for us against those hands. We're still losing. There may still be hope, however. Now we're into that wonkiness. LRRs are often done for stupid reasons with stupid hands, so how many effective wonky hands should we include. We can't list them explicitly without a better read, but we can give them a proportionate probability. For my purposes here, I'll give them 27 hands, so 50% of the time UTG was just wiggin' out with his LRR. Now, how often can we expect to win against that range if we hit a J or a 2? Well, LRR's that were done for stupid reasons are often done out of spite with a hand that wanted to see a cheap flop and is now mad, or else villain is thinking "may as well build a big pot," and raises. There are a lot of Ax, Kx, Qx, Jx, and PP hands that might do this. If we hit a J or a 2 against these sorts of hands, we're still not winning much of the time. Furthermore, he raised. He likes his hand. There's a probability that he's a maniac, but we don't have such a read yet. We bust out our Bayesian analysis of our opponents and conclude that, while there's now a larger than usual probability that this guy is a raving lunatic, most players raise the hands they like here, and even loons can hold K's and Q's. In my estimation, I'll say there are two effective hands in his range against which we'll win if we a J or a 2. Two hands out of 54, and that's with a very high degree of wonkiness assigned to this guy. Since our J and 2 outs are only good 2 times out of 54, 3.7% of the time, each J and each 2 remaining in the deck is only worth 0.037 outs, for a total of 2/9 of an out. Furthermore, since we can't raise if we hit one of these, but we still have to call down if we hit them (since we are considering them outs, after all), we're going to be paying off a lot. I am going to further discount them because of how much we stand to lose even if we hit. One ninth of an out should be sufficient, but I'll round to a tenth of an out to make things easier.

How much is this worth to us? Well, we can use the good ol' multiply by 4 rule to estimate what percentage of the pot we own with our tenth of an out -- 0.4%. Scaled by the pot size means that these outs have added 0.062 SB to our equity. That's pretty darn small. Let's compare this to pumping a flush draw. If we have a nut flush draw, and we bet out and get two callers, we gained approximately 2% of all bets that went in (neglecting full house redraws), or 0.06 SB. Huh. Look at that. These J and 2 outs are a little bit better. If, say, we were to c/r and trap 2 opponents for 2 SB each, though, pumping the flush draw nets us more, and if we trap 3 or 4 opponents, life is better still.

Unfortunately, in this hand, we don't have 35% equity from our flush draw. The chance that villain has a set on this board is fairly high, based on our Bayesian analysis above. Consequently, the equity from our flush draw is markedly lower than 35%. The Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] isn't a great out, and villain has a redraw even if we hit a clean spade on the turn. Giving us, say, 7 outs is a little more reasonable, perhaps on the conservative side. Thus, we'll need more opponents in order to pump our flush draw for value, denying us the EV I cited earlier from pumping. Seven outs gives us 28% equity, so we need 3 opponents minimum. If we can c/r a field of 3 opponents, even with our reduced equity, we should gain more by pumping our draw rather than keeping our J and 2 out equity. That is, if we only have a flush draw. Speaking of which...

Saying we forfeit our straight outs by c/r'ing the field is grossly fallacious. If we hit, there's a good chance we're chopping with someone, and there's a full house redraw against us (like the flush), but we can't just throw them out, no matter how many players are still in the hand. If we turn a non spade A, we have the nuts! The nuts is not a function of how many players are in the hand. The nuts just wins pots, plain and simple. There's a pretty good chance we chop with another J, unfortunately, but that's how it goes. So I say we give ourselves 3 additional outs for our OESD, no matter how many remain. We don't always chop if we hit an A, but we don't always win if we hit a 9 (AJ, boat). We get those outs no matter how many are in the hand. Furthermore, why on earth do you think that we can keep them clean if we bet and UTG raises. Hell, no J is folding on this board without a very high wonkiness factor. UTG has been shown to have such wonkiness, but his wonkiness has been raising, not folding. If we bet and UTG raises, the pot is offering 18.5:2 for any A's to come along, too. They're not folding their gutshots, typically. As we have all seen, the mistake made by most opponents is going too far with marginal hands. If we see people everyday call 2 cold with gutshots in a small pot, why do we think there's a reasonable chance they'll fold when they're getting the right price? There's a chance, sure, but that chance is very small, and the equity we gain from this chance is going to be small compared to the value of pumping our 7+3 out draw. While I set out to show that the value we gain from UTG raising the field is negligible (I think I gave it a rather generous treatment, in fact), I think now that it's more effective to show that that the value we gain from pumping our draw is much greater than anything we gain from trying to get HU with UTG or trying to fold everyone. I'm going to end here, but let me know if you or anyone else has any further comments.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

I think a majority of the confusion here revolves around winning the pot right now because it is huge.
It seems a bit counterintuitive to me that we would want to win a pot (immediately) in which we have a large pot equity edge in.

As I understand it, when we have a weaker or more vulnerable holding we bet out hoping to either win the pot right then, or improve and win the pot later. On the other hand, when you have a strong or in this case very strong holding/draw you focus on building a pot and tying players to it for the very reason that we have a large equity edge and over time we stand to show a profit.

Is my reasoning off here?

Furthermore, ramming and jamming this flop and turn seems to be the best play. In an article written by Izmet Fekali he states
“Jamming (raising or reraising when not holding the best hand but a good draw) is a very important concept in loose hold'em games. It's about being an about 2 to 1 dog when drawing to a flush or a straight on the flop, therefore, you are making money on your bets and raises *if at least three opponents call*! Therefore, if you are *sure* you will get enough callers, it's imperative to bet or raise (ram and jam) to maximize EV. IMHO, this is one of the most powerful weapons when combating the fish.”

I think this illustrates that we need to get as much money in here because we are drawing to a huge hand.

Kevin

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

It makes some sense. The "win it now" approach essentially means folding out other hands and cleaning up outs or hoping to win without showdown, giving you some wins that you would not have otherwise since your big draw will sometimes miss. The problem is that you have to compare that with the EV of keeping people around and how big a pot you win when your draw does hit. A lot of variables exist in knowing how many bets people will go when you hit your flush, how often you are chopping with your straight, how likely an aggressive strategy to push people out the pot is going to work (if it doesn't, we're building a bigger pot with an edge which is also great), etc.

Glancing quickly at this hand, I wouldn't have thought hero could win very often without a showdown, given the board and the opponents and such. Guess I was wrong.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

For me this hand is really simple, so please kick me back to reality if needed. Im suprised its had so many responses.

PF- no debate, this is a super easy call. Any 2 suited is good enough here.

Flop- Cap it, we have a tonne of equity and the board isnt paired. Cap it anyway. check raising is great btw, let UTG bet and trap the field.

Turn- Perfect. Easy raise and cap if possible.

River- Bet/call.

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

[ QUOTE ]
For me this hand is really simple, so please kick me back to reality if needed. Im suprised its had so many responses.

PF- no debate, this is a super easy call. Any 2 suited is good enough here.

Flop- Cap it, we have a tonne of equity and the board isnt paired. Cap it anyway. check raising is great btw, let UTG bet and trap the field.

Turn- Perfect. Easy raise and cap if possible.

River- Bet/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this, however I like calling the 3-bet on the flop and c/ring the turn on a flush and betting out on the straight.

The reason for this is that the straight would be a 4 card board straight whereas the flush would just be a 3 card board flush making it less obvious to our aggressor.

Our aggressor hasn't shown any sign of weakness and has always promoted a very strong hand here which gives us no reason to think that this will be checked through on the turn. Obviously if it is we lose a tonne of value but it is definitely something to think about.

True

Re: Need a line check in the BB
 

I'd cap this for a reason not given by anyone yet. It's because the straight draw will be obvious and get won't be able to check raise UTG reliably if we hit an ace or a 9. Capping for value is good but if the action was the same and you held 7s4s and the flop was K6s5s I would recommend a call of the flop 3-bet. Try for a check raise on a 3 or 8. Flush you have to decide the chances of it getting checked around.

Also, don't take my word as gospel. I cap draws less than most of 2+2 meaning there is more room for error in my advice about this stuff.

Krishan