Selective aggression hand I don't agree with.

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, I want to see all 6 players see this flop capped..

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone behind you willing to go to the turn capped isn't going to fold for 2 bets cold. Not to mention, if it goes 6 ways capped on this board, and this table doesn't have a history of maniacal play, how many outs do you really think you have? Not saying it's not value to have it capped, it certainly is, but not as much as you may be thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you misunderstood. Our equity edge is quite high here, thus the more bets that get put in, the better it is for us. I'm sure you understand this. When easypete says that he wants to see it capped, he's talking only about the equity of the hand. Recognizing that anyone who is there for the cap isn't likely to fold for two bets cold isn't part of the discussion. We don't know if it's going to be capped. We want as many people in the pot as possible, so that when the flush hits we win a big pot. Forcing the field to call two bets cold is not a good way to maximize your expectation with this hand, because it is quite likely that a raise could you leave you heads up (in which case you don't have an equity edge (if you're only counting your flush outs)) or heads up and 3-bet--isolated against a better hand.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying for an Ace to hit on turn? Sure this is one of your outs, but with 6 seeing flop, you may have kicker issues and you're dreaming a little if you think that A-hi will win when 6 see the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kicker issues is one prime reason Im mentioning the A high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. But what I'm saying is that I'm going to pass up on the chance to win the current pot with A high in order to win a huge pot with the nut flush.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If BB has a K, you don't fear a 3-bet? That's just plain crazy. I don't know many players at 2/4 and above that will lead out and not 3-bet a K on a 2-flushed board. It's SOP for me as well as others

[/ QUOTE ]

I know many, typical players-non 2+2ers, that wouldn't 3 bet this board in this spot. Not if he has a small kicker he isn't. What exactly is he putting you on when you raise? Not a draw. And given the postion, he'd more likely figure a decent sized kicker. Anyone jamming this with Kx is usually blowing money unless they knew for sure you didn't have Kx beat. It looks like a protection raise.

The point is, it's mainly a drawless board other than the flush draw. Yes, I think you can get out a smaller pair by a raise on the flop. Whether it's a PP or small pair from the board. Likely the only folders would be the ones who'd fold to 1 bet anyways. Look at the board, what are they drawing to?

Im looking at the closeness between just calling and raising. I think it's close.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The pot isn't really all that small... I would take it if I could... but this exercise is about maximizing your wins, not trying to win a small pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot isn't all that small, yet you're not trying to win a small pot. Is it small, or isn't it?

b

[/ QUOTE ]

It's small compared to what it could be if we simply call and then hit the flush. We're passing up on winning a relatively small pot in order to win a huge pot.

I'm really glad this article is sparking discussion, however. Keep it comin'.

[bobdibble]

I raise this too.

I don't have my SSH handy, but I could have sworn that Ed had an example where he advocates raising with A7s in a similar situation to clean up the A outs and advocates a call with a weaker flush draw that doesn't have overcards.

Edit: btw, the entire reason I came to the Magazine forum tonight was becuase when I read that article, I was shocked that a call was being advocated with the overcard and wanted to see if anyone else thought the same way [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bernie]

I think a case can be made for both lines. I don't mind the line for just calling here, I still like raising better.

In the SSHE example, p 158, if that's the one you're thinking of, it's a little different. You have a caller in between plus 2 overcards and a bigger pot. However, your raise is primarily to free up the Ace (as far as buying outs, which isn't the prime factor of that hand/raise given other, more beneficial factors also involved). You're not worried about your 9 outs as much as you will outkick most kickers unless they make 2 pair.

My contention is looking at the board on the hand. It's K high with only a flush draw. That flop didn't likely hit anyone unless they have a K or a flush draw, both which will call 2 flop bets. I don't see the pot really getting that much bigger given the board. You may also not gain much when you actually do hit your hand. Maybe. That can also be a case for calling the flop to see who might still be there to pay you off when you do hit. You're definitely not raising this turn if bet into if you get your flush.

However, another line I could see just calling the flop, see who comes along, then if you turn a gutshot draw, then raise the turn if bet into.

b

[shadow29]

By calling on the flop, you're going to be raising the turn a lot.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
By calling on the flop, you're going to be raising the turn a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I tend to agree, butI wouldn't necesarily be raising the turn when I hit my flush on the turn.

b

[shadow29]

Right. I meant that if you don't hit on the turn, you'll be raising.

heh.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a case can be made for both lines. I don't mind the line for just calling here, I still like raising better.

In the SSHE example, p 158, if that's the one you're thinking of, it's a little different. You have a caller in between plus 2 overcards and a bigger pot. However, your raise is primarily to free up the Ace (as far as buying outs, which isn't the prime factor of that hand/raise given other, more beneficial factors also involved). You're not worried about your 9 outs as much as you will outkick most kickers unless they make 2 pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to elaborate that the example in SSHE is VERY different. Firstly, the pot was raised preflop. Also, there are two limpers in between you and the raiser. Your raise is NOT primarily to clean up your lone overcard (putting 1SB in to buy 2 outs?). Your raise is for value, and because it may buy you a free river if the button folds and the turn is checked to you.

[bernie]

Elaborate or summarize what I said?

[ QUOTE ]
Your raise is NOT primarily to clean up your lone overcard (putting 1SB in to buy 2 outs?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned that.

[ QUOTE ]
your raise is primarily to free up the Ace (as far as buying outs, which isn't the prime factor of that hand/raise given other, more beneficial factors also involved).

[/ QUOTE ]

However, that section is also about buying outs. Yes, those 2 outs.

Another factor is that there is a player in between you and the flop bettor. The preflop raiser is one of the people you are targetting to get out of the hand with the raise in that example since it is likely he can have a bigger A.

If you double the pot size, it's very close to that example spot to be in.

b

[Stork]

My bad, I sorta skimmed the parenthesis after " your raise is primarily to free up the Ace". Anyway, I still think a flop call is correct in the example the author posted, although it's pretty insignifigant either way, as long as you don't fold [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[Girchuck]

A general thought.
In a close decision, perhaps both lines could be used randomly, decided by a coin flip (not necessarily a fair coin flip)
As long as we've determined that both raising and calling have similar merits, isn't it time to make yourself less predictable?