What to do on the flop?

[bernie]

Jam it. Easy value raise.

Your A overcard could still be good even if no one folds.

[ QUOTE ]
Button's raise is either most likely top pair, equal possibility of a set or a draw

[/ QUOTE ]

It's much more likely a draw than a set. The fact the button is possibly slightly tilting makes a lesser hand even more possible.

b

[GetThere1Time]

I like a call. You're getting 2 bets when you make your hand. You're out of position so you're not getting a free card and you might as well keep others around with gutshots, overcards, etc. Plus your ace still might be good. What do you do if an ace peels off?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
#2 A lot of us beginners don't 3-bet because we want people to pay us off if we hit the flush draw (this was my reason for only calling). Is the pot big enough now that we should invest the extra bet to try to maximize our chances of winning it rather than looking for a bigger pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this thinking IMO is that a good number of low limit players will freeze up when the possible flush hits the board. Especially if some numbskull at the table points that out "who's got the diamonds", etc.

I'd rather just jam the pot now. If you clean up overcard outs, great. Getting an Ace to fold here would be pretty big, based on your reads. The button's raise doesn't mean much, and the other player might only have top pair.

[damaniac]

1) Cleaning outs is tricky. For it to work, the following must happen: 1) A better A must be out there, 2) A better A must fold, 3) you must then hit an A, 4) that must be the best hand, 5) it must hold up as best hand, and 6) your flush doesn't come in, since you would have won in that case anyway. In this case, you are getting slight value with your flush draw if 2 opponents call anyway, good value if three call, so you may as well three-bet, if you do buy 2 more outs that wind up winning you the pot, great. All of those factors merely point to why it is important to be selective in doing it, and to make sure the pot is fairly large, as that makes your investment better.

2) People will pay you off/not pay you off regardless of your action. If they are the type that sees monsters whenever a 3-flush appears, they're check/calling regardless of whether you 3-bet or not. Aggro players may bet anyway, tight aggressives may sometimes read you as having pumped a draw on the flop and correctly slow down if the flush comes, sometimes they'll assume you just had a big made hand. In other words, I don't think at this level, in this type of large pot, one should be all that worried about making plays now to win more later. Just do what you can to get value now and improve your chances of winning.

3) Be more inclined to raise. You have 14 outs (assuming all are clean) to a strong two-pair, trips-best kicker, or nut flush. You'll hit your hand half the time by the river, so multiway this is an easy cap, IMO, unless you are able to determine that someone has you beat (a set or something). Being that you usually can't put someone on that from a flop 3-bet, cap away.

[Demana]

Ok, so I've been internalizing this play all day and I've finally figured a couple of things out:

A 3-bet here is critical because if I just call, I give everyone and their brother the correct odds to draw to anything (19:1 + implied). If I instead 3-bet, then although overcards and bottom pair still have the correct odds to call (10:1 + implied), I may get them to fold which is exactly what the Theory of Poker wants me to do. Make my opponents make a mistake that they would not make if they could see the cards I am holding.

I know that I too often get caught up in thinking about out clean up and value betting, when I really need to focus on making my opponents make as many mistakes as possible in each hand (the difference being that I am thinking beyond a name and instead applying the concept).

btw - The reason I've been kicking myself over this hand is that an Ace came on the turn and UTG1's better kicker held up when I missed on the river.

[Demana]

Continuing a look at the misplay...

Live $6/12 Full Ring Game

Hero is BB with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Preflop:
UTG <font color="red">raises</font>, UTG1 calls, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button calls, SB folds, Hero calls

5 Players for a 10 SB pot.

Preflop Reads:
UTG's raise means AA-99, Any two suited cards ten or higher.
UTG1's call means any pair or any ace.
MP2's call means nothing. He is the major LAG who plays any two cards. Probably would 3-bet with AA or KK.
Button's call means any medium pair (77, 88, or 99), any suited connectors, KQ, or KJ. He would have 3-bet with AA-TT or AK. He's also a bit on tilt.

Flop: J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Hero checks, UTG <font color="red">bets</font>, UTG calls, MP2 folds, Button <font color="red">raises</font>

Pot is now 14 SB.

Postflop Reads:
UTG will bet any hand if checked to.
UTG1's call more likely means over cards because he would raise top pair or a set to try to push out any draws. He migh have a pocket pair smaller than a Jack.
Button's raise is either most likely top pair, equal possibility of a set or a draw.

On to the turn...

Hero calls (thinking that it would be good to get payed off if a [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] hits), UTG folds, UTG1 calls.

Turn: A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] [J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]]

Pot: 21 SB - rake = 20 SB = 10 BB

Hero checks, UTG1 <font color="red">bets</font>, Button calls,

Turn reads:
UTG1 definitely has an Ace and should have Hero out kicked because he would need overcards for his flop call.
Button has either a Jack without an Ace or is on a draw. Any other holding (two pair or set), he would raise to try to knock Hero out of the hand.

Hero <font color="red">raises</font>, UTG1 calls, Button calls

Hero check raised because Hero thought that he was trapping them both for extra bets if either a [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or a 4 comes on the river and knows that UTG1 not aggressive enough to 3-bet a raise.

[Gordon Scott]

[ QUOTE ]
Another bonus would be to fold out a better Ace than yours, thus giving yourself 3 more potential outs in a sizeable/growing pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like buying the ace outs. They may not be any good but there free and I think it pays off more often than not. If the button who may or may not have a made hand 4 bets you gain more info by 3 betting.

If the button doesn't cap the flop I bet the turn if the board doesn't pair. Is that a bad line?

Best of Luck

Gordon Scott

[maynard]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so I've been internalizing this play all day and I've finally figured a couple of things out:

A 3-bet here is critical because if I just call, I give everyone and their brother the correct odds to draw to anything (19:1 + implied). If I instead 3-bet, then although overcards and bottom pair still have the correct odds to call (10:1 + implied), I may get them to fold which is exactly what the Theory of Poker wants me to do. Make my opponents make a mistake that they would not make if they could see the cards I am holding.

I know that I too often get caught up in thinking about out clean up and value betting, when I really need to focus on making my opponents make as many mistakes as possible in each hand (the difference being that I am thinking beyond a name and instead applying the concept).

btw - The reason I've been kicking myself over this hand is that an Ace came on the turn and UTG1's better kicker held up when I missed on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I 3-bet this every time, but I don't necessarily think about it the same way. Opponents calling (correctly) 2 small bets with weak draws on the flop are making a call with value, but where does that value come from? It only comes from you in the specific case of your opponent holding a better ace (which unfortunately happened [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]). Any other time, you don't care if they correctly call, because they are taking money from somebody like the button who has a vulnerable made hand like top pair, and is the one facing nasty reverse implied odds in a large multiway pot. What if the button had just overcalled? I still check-raise, now it is purely for value. I wouldn't think "I would be giving them odds to call with anything, therefore I just call". If you knew for a fact everybody held better aces and would play them to the river, you still raise for value on your flush outs; inducing a fold from one of those hands is a bonus.

I guess in general, I still think of my actions in terms of "clean up outs / protect my hand / bet and raise for value" line, rather than concentrating on forcing my opponents into mistakes, although they are very closely related... I just take my opponents' mistakes for granted at low-limits, as they will tend to make a whole bunch of them regardless of what I do.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I give everyone and their brother the correct odds to draw to anything (19:1 + implied). If I instead 3-bet, then although overcards and bottom pair still have the correct odds to call (10:1 + implied), I may get them to fold which is exactly what the Theory of Poker wants me to do. Make my opponents make a mistake that they would not make if they could see the cards I am holding.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless you are playing for ego, the goal of poker is not to force your opponents to make mistakes. The goal is to make money for yourself. You don't really care who is making a mistake when you take a given line. You only care about how much it hurts or benefits you.

This is five way pot. Poker is (roughly) a zero sum game. When someone makes a mistake, the other four guys collectively benefit. Does that mean you specifically benefit? No, of course not. You aren't a team. You don't care about the field collectively gaining. You only care about yourself. Just because someone is making a mistake does not mean you are benefitting and vice versa.

Let's look at an extreme case. Suppose UTG has AJ. Suppose UTG1 has 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. This gives him seven outs. He has three non-diamond tens, two sevens and two safe eights. If the cards were face up, he would be happy to call. Does that mean you want him to fold? No! In this scenario, you can only win the pot my making your flush. If you make your flush, you beat anything he can make. So him putting money in the pot is pure gooness for you even though he is not making a mistake by calling.

When you are drawing to the nuts, you love to have people in there drawing to weaker hands even if they are profitably doing so. Their profit does not come from you. It comes from the schmuck with the best hand. In this case, the guy with AJ would love for the 78 to fold. He is the one from whom the 78 gets his equity. Not you. So even if UTG1 makes a FTOP mistake, you are upset because his mistake is giving money to UTG at your expense. This is sort of an anti-Morton's Theorem situation. In this case, draws clustering is working in your favor.

What makes this more complicated of course is that you aren't only drawing to the outs. Your overcard could be good and can potentially be cleaned up by someone folding. But the above still mostly applies and I don't think you are looking to lose people here. That doesn't mean I wouldn't three-bet though. I don't think it will lose anyone. I think that the most likely outcome is that everyone who is still alive will see the turn for three bets, which is good for you. And then there will be ten gazillion dollars in the pot, so no one will on the turn either, which is still good for you, especially if you turn the flush and they are drawing dead. I think getting more money in the pot when you have a good hand and people are probably calling is a more significant benefit to reraising here than the once in a blue moon that it wins you a pot you would not otherwise have won.

[Demana]

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you are playing for ego, the goal of poker is not to force your opponents to make mistakes. The goal is to make money for yourself. You don't really care who is making a mistake when you take a given line. You only care about how much it hurts or benefits you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're meaning the same thing, but saying it in different ways. I want them to make "profitable for me" mistakes. Nothing to do with ego, rather it is just trying to make the best possible plays to perfect a given hand.


[ QUOTE ]

This is five way pot. Poker is (roughly) a zero sum game. When someone makes a mistake, the other four guys collectively benefit. Does that mean you specifically benefit? No, of course not. You aren't a team. You don't care about the field collectively gaining. You only care about yourself. Just because someone is making a mistake does not mean you are benefitting and vice versa.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not something I had thought about before. I had always been looking at opponents' mistakes benefitting me in some way, not benefitting the other people in the hand. Adds a new light to how each hand plays out.


OK, so given my call on the flop, how's the turn?