I hate when this happens

Lmn55d · #1 07-01-2005, 09:00 PM

River pairing makes an easy river check/fold into a call. My main question is the flop peel with backdoor second nut flush draw, set outs, and slim chance villain checks behind on the turn with a weaker hand/draw. This ok?

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. UTG posts a blind of $5.
1 fold, Button raises, Hero 3-bets, UTG (poster) calls, Button calls.

Flop: (9 SB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (4 players)
Hero bets, UTG calls, Button raises, Hero calls, UTG calls.

Turn: (7.50 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (4 players)
Hero checks, UTG folds, Button bets, Hero calls.

River: (9.50 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 11.50 BB

Catt · #2 07-01-2005, 09:26 PM

What's up with the river call? You played the prior streets as if you believed you were behind to an A. Do you think Villain flopped (and raised pre-flop) 53 so he got counterfeited on the river? Does another A tilt your view to "Hey, he doesn't have an A!" Fold the river. Or call down; but your decision to call down should have been made on the flop and not influenced by the river A.

Lmn55d · #3 07-01-2005, 09:35 PM

Why should it not be influenced by the river A?? That makes it significantly less likely he has an ace.

mperich · #4 07-01-2005, 09:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why should it not be influenced by the river A?? That makes it slightly less likely he has an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the betting, I don't think that A helps you out as much as math would suggest. Anyways, looks fine. Basically the postflop goes like this: You had to bet the flop because you are the leader. When it gets back to you you are getting 14-1 + implied odds, so it's fairly close, but I think with image considerations thrown in its a standard call.

Turn: Plays itself (Note utg is an idiot =P )

River: 10.5-1 headsup, the 2nd ace doesnt even matter. This is a call either way.

Basically if you don't hit a diamond on the turn then you can checkfold turn, but once you get to the river you are forced to pay one more bet to call down because the pot is so large and also because you went into your shell pretty fast (justifiably)

-Mike

Catt · #5 07-01-2005, 09:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Why should it not be influenced by the river A?? That makes it significantly less likely he has an ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he has an A, the chance of the A falling on the river is ~4.3%. If he doesn't have an A, the chance of the A falling on the river is ~6.5%. Does this seem like it is significantly less likely that he holds an A when it falls on the river, after taking into account the prior streets' action?

Catt · #6 07-01-2005, 09:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Basically if you don't hit a diamond on the turn then you can checkfold turn, but once you get to the river you are forced to pay one more bet to call down because the pot is so large and also because you went into your shell pretty fast (justifiably)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this, perhaps because I don't understand it. We're calling the turn only because of the presence of the flush draw in your analysis. When the flush draw fails to hit, we call the river because the pot is big?

Lmn55d · #7 07-01-2005, 10:02 PM

I think you're looking at it kind of backwards. If we give villain a range of hands based on his actions up till the turn we can compute the combinations of his hands based on Bayes. Obviously this range contains a lot of Ax hands. When the A on the river comes you need to recompute the combinations using one less ace. For example there 12 combos of AK rather than 16. This is not a huge difference, as mperich pointed out, but it is something to take into account when the call is otherwise close.

mperich · #8 07-01-2005, 10:06 PM

If the diamond doesn't hit on the turn, we do not have odds to see the river. We are only getting 11.5-2 to call down, and I don't think he is bluffing that often. Let's say he is bluffing 10% of the time (which makes the river call pretty thin, but I like to err on the side of calling). So we would need to be getting 20-2 instead of 11.5-2 to call down here on a blank turn. Now since we have the flush draw we also have 20% equity, plus we still have our 10% equity for the times he is bluffing, so 30% equity. So, the turn is an easy call of course. Now, when we blank the river, we lose our 20% draw equity of course, but we still have our 10% bluff equity. So we have to call. Basically the equity we gained with our flush draw allowed us to get to the river, and on the river we must call. I dunno, others correct me if my thinking is wrong.

-Mike

Catt · #9 07-01-2005, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're looking at it kind of backwards. If we give villain a range of hands based on his actions up till the turn we can compute the combinations of his hands based on Bayes. Obviously this range contains a lot of Ax hands. When the A on the river comes you need to recompute the combinations using one less ace. For example there 12 combos of AK rather than 16. This is not a huge difference, as mperich pointed out, but it is something to take into account when the call is otherwise close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah -- good point; my response neglected a more appropriate Bayesian analysis. But what still troubles me is the range of hands -- we're giving him credit for an A on the flop, or a non-A hand that beats us, or a non-A hand that we beat (whether bluff or not). I haven't tried to put full ranges on his hands and readjust based on each street, but intuitively it doesn't feel like the A on the river reduces the A-component hands enough as a percentage of the whole range to justify the call. Unless we are assigning a pretty decent-sized range of of non-A and non-diamond flush hands pre-flop, then flop, then turn. Maybe I'm just stumbling over or at odds with the likely range of hands that you and mperich are assigning to Villain (I've read mperich's subsequent response below and will respond shortly).

Catt · #10 07-01-2005, 10:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the diamond doesn't hit on the turn, we do not have odds to see the river. We are only getting 11.5-2 to call down, and I don't think he is bluffing that often. Let's say he is bluffing 10% of the time (which makes the river call pretty thin, but I like to err on the side of calling). So we would need to be getting 20-2 instead of 11.5-2 to call down here on a blank turn. Now since we have the flush draw we also have 20% equity, plus we still have our 10% equity for the times he is bluffing, so 30% equity. So, the turn is an easy call of course. Now, when we blank the river, we lose our 20% draw equity of course, but we still have our 10% bluff equity. So we have to call. Basically the equity we gained with our flush draw allowed us to get to the river, and on the river we must call. I dunno, others correct me if my thinking is wrong.

-Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah - all makes sense to me. I guess I was going on the unstated assumption that Button isn't bluffing (he has an A or a four-flush) more than 10% of the time; and that even if he is a heavy bluffer, that it is the rarer breed that runs a 3-street, 3 BB bluff. I totally understand that we definitely have the odds to call the turn when we pick up the FD; I was reacting to (without stating clearly) the assumption that this guy takes a flop bluff all the way through betting the river when checked to. My instinct is that, absent a read, most won't fire three barrels against an SB 3-better (even in this probable steal situation).

In any event, this discussion has been pretty interesting for me; thanks!