88 in the BB

[AviD]

Jeff I agree this is a very good line as well, your points are well stated.

The flop raise could indeed easily give you control of the hand, having SB check to you on the turn and therefore giving cheap cards from that point on.

But when most of the people involved in this hand are as sfer described:

[ QUOTE ]
Preflop raiser has slightly LAGish stats. The other two (MP and SB) are donkarrific with very loose, not overly aggressive stats. CO is unremarkable.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a raise is best as you *may* get overcards from UTG+1 to fold (i.e. AQ/KQ), doubtful...but I think it may be better than giving him the opportunity to raise and you are the monkey in the middle. Raise and find out where he stands, if he 3-bets...then you have something to consider. If he folds, all the better.

With an unremarkable CO (I'm assuming that means a good player) I think he is capable of folding both marginal hands/draws and overcards here to a flop raise. And you don't want him continuing on making this hand any more difficult on later streets if trouble/scary cards come. I think he'll only call if he feels he has a reasonable chance to continue and make the best hand (i.e. draw to the flush or if he was somehow slowplaying a big hand (overpair))

With SB being loose, but not too aggressive, I factor that in, figuring I'm ahead a good deal of the time and raise for the reasons above because he may very well just check to you on the turn after everyone smooth called (feeling someone may pop him on the turn, so he checks to see how the action unfolds before continuing).

Raising him on the flop could make him believe he may still have the best hand on this draw heavy board, especially with the BB raising what could be "anything" to protect his hand (Trust me he knows who the LAGGY Asians are, HI SFER!!! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]), and continue his aggression (which is the best way/most consistent way to get your turn raise in IMO).

That's my line of thought, but I do like your line ONLY IF you can be near certain SB will bet the turn again giving you the opportunity to raise.

But I am not Ed Miller, so I'm not saying anything about the TT hand in SSHE! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
The hand in SSH is different because the entire field is between you and the flop bet, so you can't protect your hand in his example. You can only raise when your pot equity increases. Here, with the bet to my immediately right, I can try to protect my hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can try and protect your hand, but your still presenting the field with 6.5:1 odds which doesn't protect you from much. Overcards have odds to call, a lone ace has odds to call due to the gutshot draw, etc.

[TMac]

[ QUOTE ]
because the sb called your call was correct, you were getting the correct odds, if sb fold you are getting the incorrect odds with any small or mid pair. your goal is to flop a set. calling vs one player has a neg ev and costs you $ over time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the small blind folds and it's heads up, you are definitely getting the right odds to call if there will be no more betting.

Assume the hands are played hot and cold after the flop, i.e., no more betting. If you played it 200 times, your expectation would be appr. 138 small bets, or .7 small bets per try. This assumes that half the time you are up against an overpair, and the other half you are against 2 overcards.

100 times, against overpair you: win 20 * 3 .5 = 70;
lose 80 * -1 = -80; net –10

100 times against 2 overcard you: win 55 * 3.5 = 193;
lose 45 * -1 = -45; net 148

Overall, you net +138 sb per 200 hands, or .7 sb by calling. Not bad.

However, it isn’t as good as it appears when you factor in betting because with the 88 you worry about reverse implied odds. You are out of position and you are not sure if you’re ahead or behind. Future bets will tend to hurt you more than they hurt your opponent. I believe David Sklansky calls this a scared hand. This is discussed on page 51 in TOP.

I'm not sure if they will hurt so much to turn your =.7 sb ev before the flop into -ev after. But I believe it is not an automatic call pre-flop when you consider reverse implied odds. I guess it depends on how well you play post flop.

[AviD]

Well this is if you consider they consider odds, and what do they think of sfer, if they are even thinking about sfer. I find it hard to believe the aren't, as sfer is one sexy mofo! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

And interestingly, I think calling with overcards here is marginal...with 6.5:1 odds...as there is a chance you are drawing to a hand (1 pair) that is no good given the aggression by the blinds whom you can't put on a hand. When it gets 3-bet (and then capped meh) on the flop, they have to figure they are behind...but now have even more odds to draw to only because they made the initial call...which again IMO doesn't seem as close as you are making it seem.

Again, we don't know what sfer's image is...and when it comes to 15/30 on Party I don't think it matters...they are coming anyway...raise at every opportunity. I viewed this hand (and many hands like this) as trying to get HU with the SB and charging everyone behind me as much as I can ,even if I am building a pot and giving them odds because nothing I do is getting the people out behind me most of the time.

Most importantly, with UTG+1 as the preflop aggressor...why are you going to smooth call with a marginal hand and let him continue with his aggression? Put him in an awkward spot and raise him now on the flop.

Otherwise...

SB bets, sfer calls (?), UTG+1 raises, MP calls, CO folds, SB 3-bets, sfer ????

Folds to 77 and UTG+1s overcards with the best hand???

[amulet]

no i am not wrong about implied odds. let's take an unraised pot as an example. you have a pair. you are 7.5 to 1 against flopping a set. that would mean that you need 8 opponents to break even. however, there are implied odds, and the implied odds bring it down. i could do the math, but it is accepted that if you have at least 4 opponents (5 seeing the flop) you are getting the correct odds to see the flop with a pair becauuse of impied odds. in most cases if you have fewer opponents you have a negitive expectation. you can read about this in hold em for advanced players, small stakes hold em, etc. and i suggest you read them again, because you have a misunderstanding of implied odds.

now to your call in the raised pot. if you are in bb and it is raised and one other player calls, then you are basiclly getting the same odds as if you called with 5 of you seeing the flop in the unraised example above. but if the sb does not call, you are getting the wrong odds and that absolutely includes implied odds.

[amulet]

no i am not wrong about implied odds. let's take an unraised pot as an example. you have a pair. you are 7.5 to 1 against flopping a set. that would mean that you need 8 opponents to break even. however, there are implied odds, and the implied odds bring it down. i could do the math, but it is accepted that if you have at least 4 opponents (5 seeing the flop) you are getting the correct odds to see the flop with a pair becauuse of impied odds. in most cases if you have fewer opponents you have a negitive expectation. you can read about this in hold em for advanced players, small stakes hold em, etc. and i suggest you read them again, because you have a misunderstanding of implied odds.

now to your call in the raised pot. if you are in bb and it is raised and one other player calls, then you are basiclly getting the same odds as if you called with 5 of you seeing the flop in the unraised example above. but if the sb does not call, you are getting the wrong odds and that absolutely includes implied odds.

[amulet]

i think you misunderstand impied odds. here is what i posted above to the same misunderstanding.

no i am not wrong about implied odds. let's take an unraised pot as an example. you have a pair. you are 7.5 to 1 against flopping a set. that would mean that you need 8 opponents to break even. however, there are implied odds, and the implied odds bring it down. i could do the math, but it is accepted that if you have at least 4 opponents (5 seeing the flop) you are getting the correct odds to see the flop with a pair becauuse of impied odds. in most cases if you have fewer opponents you have a negitive expectation. you can read about this in hold em for advanced players, small stakes hold em, etc. and i suggest you read them again, because you have a misunderstanding of implied odds.

now to your call in the raised pot. if you are in bb and it is raised and one other player calls, then you are basiclly getting the same odds as if you called with 5 of you seeing the flop in the unraised example above. but if the sb does not call, you are getting the wrong odds and that absolutely includes implied odds.

[sfer]

Ugh. You've posted this 3 times and it's wrong each time. There's no point arguing this.

[sfer]

Think for a second, and let's assume the worst (best) case scenario. Preflop raising dude has AA. The flop comes xx8. How many bets do I make before AA has any idea what I flopped?

[7ontheline]

Did you even read the hand history? There are MULTIPLE callers. Your posts are wrong on so many levels. You're also ignoring the fact that a pocket pair may win on its own, as in this case, so that flopping a set is not completely necessary.