5/10 limit - Raising a semi-scare card w/ outs

[sy_or_bust]

5/10 limit, 10-handed. I post in the CO behind an MP2 poster. 2 limps to me and I check A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], SB completes and BB checks. I know SB/BB/limper to be a pretty good aggressive players, and MP2 is very weak.

Flop comes K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], checked to me and I bet, only SB folds. Turn is 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] putting a straight on the board. Checked to MP2 who bets, I raise, BB check-3-bets, limper folds, MP2 calls, I call.

How do you rate this turn raise? The board has tons of draws, which will call 2 big bets, and I have a very strong hand w/ a redraw. Turns out MP2 had a straight. Is the turn raise as obvious as I think it is?

As an aside, how many players raise preflop, trying to get HU against a tight UTG limper and a random hand that always calls?

[DyessMan89]

Preflop- Why do you want to get this hand heads up? When it hits it will almost always make the nuts, which is as good in defeating 1 opponent as it is 9. I just check here.
Flop- Very draw heavy board here. In a previous thread I suggested an option of playing the flop slow, praying for a good turn card to hit ... and then jamming the turn if a nice card hit for you. This is not a good board for your hand. Any 2,3,4,6,8,9 or spade will most likley only give you 1/2 the pot or less. That is a ton of cards to try and dodge. I think protecting your hand here is a futile attempt.
Turn- 3-bet almost guarantees 68, but you have a powerful redraw so I dont think you can dump this. You have to call.

[sy_or_bust]

The flop bet is for value. Top set is also the best high hand with a strong high redraw, and for "protection" purposes you will fold out raw gutshots also. This is the easiest part of the hand. If it were a bet to me, there is some merit in calling, but checking this flop through is very bad.

AKKQ is also a favorite heads-up against all kinds of hands, and is very easy to play postflop. You don't necessarily need to improve to win against A2 and a random hand, though the postflop is considerably trickier and the BB may call too.

You can't play scared in these games.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you rate this turn raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sy - I like the raise. At the point you raise, you have no idea SB is planning a check-raise. You raise, hoping to limit the field, but if they call, so be it. If the board pairs, you’ll scoop. You run the risk of bumping into somebody who is incidentally playing XY68 but since XY68 is not a very good starting hand, the risk seems worth the potential gain. You hope to knock out anyone who would end up taking part of the pot that would otherwise be yours. Seems a good play to me.

And then it backfires when SB check-raises. Because of the money already in the pot, you still have favorable odds to call the check-raise. I think you played correctly.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the turn raise as obvious as I think it is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the raise. Seems a good play to me even though it backfired on you this time. I don’t know if it’s obvious or not. It really only costs you one bet, because you surely would not fold top set here to a bet from MP2, and SB must have been planning to check-raise anyway (even without your raise).

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, how many players raise preflop, trying to get HU against a tight UTG limper and a random hand that always calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with DyessMan here.

I don’t like a pre-flop raise with this hand in this situation. Heads up against a random hand, AcKhKcQc is a slight favorite:

hand...........high.......low...scoop.....total
random .........39...1156.....3575.....4770
AcQcKcKh...1188.........0.....4042.....5230

but it’s almost a coin flip. I think you do better, on average, against a full field. Kings full or an ace-high flush (or king high straight flush), is a nice hand to have against as many customers as possible.

You could raise if you wanted to, but unless you have a good chance to steal the blinds with your raise, I like just calling better. After two limpers you have almost no realistic chance to steal the blinds with a pre-flop raise - and you have almost no realistic way of playing this heads-up. Your raise here will only increase the size of the pot and alert your opponents as to the strength of your starting hand.

You caught a king on this particular flop, but that's only going to happen one time out of eight. Plus you'll get a flop with two or three clubs another ten per cent or so, and maybe there are a few other favorable flops. Okay, make it roughly one time in five you'll hit a favorable flop.

The other four times out of five, you'll be mostly glad you didn't raise before the flop, and you very well might do better on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th betting when you do hit a favorable flop than if you had collected an extra bet on the first betting round.

Then too, with two limps to you, you’re not exactly playing against random hands.

Just my opinion. I like the way you played the hand.

Buzz

[sy_or_bust]

Great - just wanted to double-check my thinking on what I consider a standard play (that 'backfired'). In the actual hand, SB had a huge wrap/flush draw and MP2 of course had the nut straight. Obviously the river was the 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I really disagree with how you're approaching the random hand scenario, though. I've come to regard simulations as really valuable on some levels, and really atrocious on others. This is one of the bad ones, here's why:

[ QUOTE ]
hand...........high.......low...scoop.....total
random .........39...1156.....3575.....4770
AcQcKcKh...1188.........0.....4042.....5230

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this mean? Well, the first thing we notice is that AQKKss wins the high heads-up in nearly every scenario. Great. The second, which maybe you're overlooking, is that since I cannot make a low, any 2 low cards on a 3-low board will take have the pot for the random hand. The vast majority of these hands are wildly unplayable - imagine QJ47, for instance, on a AT8 board. At the same time, I will never chase half the pot on a 3-low flop.

Basically, if AQKKss takes the initiative in position against a random hand, it will have a tremendous playing advantage that translates into significant +EV. I find this extremely difficult to dispute.

There was a recent thread talking about Perry Friedman's treatment of a high hand (coming in for a raise with 2-3 players in front) that touches on similar ideas. I find his play in that spot harder to understand, but it's certainly the same concept of a 'playing advantage'.

My question dealt with a situation where I can raise to get 3-handed, with position, against a sure low hand and a random hand. Some small portion BB will call, as well. Perry's play implies that he'd raise in this spot 100%, and after thinking about it, I can't disagree. We all might be underestimating high hand 'playability' to a large extent.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
What does this mean? Well, the first thing we notice is that AQKKss wins the high heads-up in nearly every scenario.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... not exactly. Perhaps you misinterpreted the sims data.

AQKKss does win high more than the random hand. But the random hand wins the high about 39*2+3575 = 3653. In other words, AQKKss hand wins the high about 63.47% of the time. That’s almost twice as often as not, but hardly “nearly every scenario.” Meanwhile AQKKss <font color="red">NEVER</font> wins for low!

[ QUOTE ]
The second, which maybe you're overlooking, is that since I cannot make a low, any 2 low cards on a 3-low board will take have the pot for the random hand. The vast majority of these hands are wildly unplayable - imagine QJ47, for instance, on a AT8 board. At the same time, I will never chase half the pot on a 3-low flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s a good point. As I’m currently running the sims, they just indicate how often a given hand will win on the river if nobody folds.

I could choose different Wilson characters for the sims. And if I did, I’d focus on the amount of money won or lost. That’s an idea. I’ll think about it and probably try it. Thanks for focusing my thinking on that idea.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, if AQKKss takes the initiative in position against a random hand, it will have a tremendous playing advantage that translates into significant +EV. I find this extremely difficult to dispute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. but isn’t that true of almost any four cards?

[ QUOTE ]
There was a recent thread talking about Perry Friedman's treatment of a high hand (coming in for a raise with 2-3 players in front) that touches on similar ideas. I find his play in that spot harder to understand, but it's certainly the same concept of a 'playing advantage'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn’t read that thread. I’m mostly not reading pot-limit threads on this forum. Pot limit games have entirely different considerations than limit games and, as primarily a limit-Omaha-8 player, are not of much interest to me. The only other forum I’ve looked at recently has been the “other games” forum. Is Perry Friedman some great Omaha-8 player I should know about?

[ QUOTE ]
My question dealt with a situation where I can raise to get 3-handed, with position, against a sure low hand and a random hand. Some small portion BB will call, as well. Perry's play implies that he'd raise in this spot 100%, and after thinking about it, I can't disagree. We all might be underestimating high hand 'playability' to a large extent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn’t I write that I’d also raise in this spot, that I think your raise was a good play? From your response, that was obviously clear to you.

However, my answer had more to do with playing the particular hand/board/opponents you posted than “high hand playability.”

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The plain truth is a hand like A4KKss is a much better hand for one-on-one play than AQKKss. Indeed, in my humble opinion A7KKss is a better hand for one-on-one play than AQKKss.

Well... I’ll agree that AQKKss is a better one-on-one hand than 89TTss. There is merit to having higher cards when playing for high only. But you, yourself wrote “since I cannot make a low, any 2 low cards on a 3-low board will take have the pot for the random hand.”

Where’s the nebulous “high hand playability”?

[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Buzz