When a bet cannot protect your hand - Convince me!

[Toonces]

I'm having a hard time buying the philosophy that you should forego a flop bet to make a bigger bet on the turn if your opponent is not making a mistake to call. I will give a scenario, and if it's wrong, please tell me where I went wrong.

MP call with 9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Hero raises on the button with A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. Blinds fold and MP calls.

Flop is 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (5.5 small bets).

Assume that you are a superb cardreader and know that he is on a flush draw. Also assume that your opponent can read your cards and knows that he needs his flush to win (even though he is still prone to make a pot odds mistake). Also, for simplicity, I will assume that the flush has a 20% chance of hitting on the turn and a 20% chance of hitting on the river (ignoring redraws to AA and running 2 pair or a set for 98s).

I believe that if I were to read SSH properly, Ed would argue that since your opponent has proper odds to call both a flop bet (6.5:1) and a subsequent turn bet (4.75:1), that you should forego the flop bet so that he would be making a mistake to call a double bet on the turn (3.75:1) if a spade doesn't come.

Scenario 1A: Ed Miller checks the flop against smart villian
80% - No spade comes. Ed bets, villian folds properly. EV = +2.75(big bets)
20% - Spade comes. Villian bets, Ed folds. EV = 0
Overall EV = 2.2

Scenario 1B: Ed Miller checks the flop against dumb villian
64% - No spade comes on turn. Ed bets, villian calls. No Spade on river. Ed bets, villian folds. EV = +3.75
16% - No spade comes on turn. Ed bets, villian calls. Spade on river. Villian bets, Ed folds. EV = -1
20% - Spade comes on turn. Villian bets, Ed folds. EV=0
Overall EV = 2.24

Scenario 2A: Toonces bets the flop against smart villian. Villian calls.
64% - No spade comes on turn. Toonces bets, villian calls. No Spade on river. Toonces bets, villian folds. EV = +4.25
16% - No spade comes on turn. Toonces bets, villian calls. Spade on river. Villian bets, Toonces folds. EV = -1.5
20% - Spade comes on turn. Villian bets, Toonces folds. EV = -.5
Overall EV = 2.38

Scenario 2B: Toonces bets the flop against very dumb villian. Villian folds.
Overall EV = 2.75

Scenario 2C: Toonces bets the flop against slightly dumb villian
80% - No spade comes. Toonces bets, villian folds. EV = +3.25
20% - Spade comes. Villian bets, Toonces folds. EV = -.5
Overall EV = 2.5

Against both the smart and dumb villian, betting the flop wins, even though the villian has proper odds to call both times. Am I missing something about this concept? Would the math fail in another example? It seems to me that foregoing flop equity is usually too expensive to forego an extra flop bet.

If I had to guess, I would guess that the reason this example shows the opposite of Miller is that the flop equity is very large. Is there a mathematical example of a small flop edge that contradicts this?

[shermn27]

I may be wrong, but I first read about this concept in HEFAP, and thought it was brilliant. In the situation that I imagine though, you are playing against a player who ALWAYS TRY TO MAKE HIS FLUSH regardless of his pot odds.

This does occur quite often in some of the low-limit, loose/passive games that I play in. People will call anything with draw. So, if you know ahead of time that they are going to call with a flush draw, it is better to just give them the card on the turn, and make them make a big mistake on the river.

As I said though, this strongly applies to situations where people draw everything to the end.

[Toonces]

In the example above, even when your villian calls both the flop and turn, you still do better betting the flop.

[SocialWelfareIV]

[ QUOTE ]


I believe that if I were to read SSH properly, Ed would argue that since your opponent has proper odds to call both a flop bet (6.5:1) and a subsequent turn bet (4.75:1)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not reading SSHE correctly. Miller does not advocate checking the flop here.

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I believe that if I were to read SSH properly, Ed would argue that since your opponent has proper odds to call both a flop bet (6.5:1) and a subsequent turn bet (4.75:1)

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not reading SSHE correctly. Miller does not advocate checking the flop here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that clearly, Ed does not advocate checking the flop with pocket aces. I am trying to create as simple of a scenario as possible where your opponent has odds to call the flop and subsequent turn, but not odds to call a turn without the flop bets.

Page 164 of SSH has a similar example, except it invloves raises rather than bets combined with a weaker draw by villian. If the theory applies there, why would it not also apply here with the same macro conditions?

[Vee Quiva]

To further explain. Ed Miller, David Sklansky, or anyone else at 2+2 will never tell you to check the flop and give a flush draw a free card. Then you are giving your opponent infinite odds to draw.

Even though your opponent has the correct odds to draw to flush, you still bet because you are ahead in the hand and you need to charge your opponent for the draw. Poker is not always a zero sum game where one player makes the right decision and the other player makes the wrong one. Sometimes you are both right.

[ZenMusician]

I would suggest you reread the "two overpairs" section of SSHE.
There is a difference between holding the nut overpair to
merely an over pair - he uses TT vs. AA on a low card flop.

With AA it is more profitable to push your larger edge on the flop
as your equity will only increase about 10% on the turn
whereas TT's equity jumps 20-30% with a safe turn card.

The FTOP states that if you "know" your opponents' hand and
make the best move accordingly, you win regardless of the
result. You will win this hand ~66% assuming HU. With an
edge on the Flop and the best hand anyway, not betting here
is a crime in 49 states (sorry, Tennessee)

-ZEN

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
To further explain. Ed Miller, David Sklansky, or anyone else at 2+2 will never tell you to check the flop and give a flush draw a free card. Then you are giving your opponent infinite odds to draw.

Even though your opponent has the correct odds to draw to flush, you still bet because you are ahead in the hand and you need to charge your opponent for the draw. Poker is not always a zero sum game where one player makes the right decision and the other player makes the wrong one. Sometimes you are both right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything you said, Vee. But then wouldn't the extension of that principle be that you should never let a drawer call for one bet when you can make him call for two bets, even if he has the odds to call both bets?

[Ed Miller]

You have the principle wrong. The example in SSH, with pocket kings and the huge multiway pot, is really the core point.

But the key part that you are missing when you are "boiling it down" is that the purpose of the play is to induce a turn bet from a hand you know to be weaker, so you can raise. You forgo the flop bet because you hope that it will cause your opponent to make a foolish turn bet (at least one you know to be foolish).

So to "fix" your examples, when you check behind on the flop, have Mr. Flush Draw bet the turn as a semi-bluff. Then raise him. Calculate that EV, and you'll see that it's higher than taking single bets on the flop and turn.

(In the KK example from the book, you simply call a flop bet to induce the same player to bet again on the turn. Your fear is that if you raise immediately, he won't bet the turn anymore.)

[Toonces]

Thanks, Ed, that helps a lot.

When I was first reading the section, it seemed like the main point not to raise was because it made the pot too large to bet someone out of on the turn. While rereading the section of SSH in defending this thread (and based on what you said), it seems that the real reason not to raise is that it is too likely to scare your opponents into not betting the turn, where you really need them to bet.

Therefore, in the example on page 164, if you happened to know that the flop better would lead the turn whether or not you raised, I would assume that calling the flop would not be as attractive.