Flop

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
The key points for this hand is the size of the pot and your position vs. the flop bettor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Jim,

While these are important points for consideration in any hand, I think the key to this hand is the low probability you have the best hand coupled with the low probability that a raise will save you the pot should you improve.

Note that a raise may actually COST you the pot should you get called by a hand like A4 and turn a Q. Now you may miss out on the chance to face him with 2 cold and get a fold. Oops.

Note how much better it is to have to put in extra hand protection bets only on those turns where you have turned top pair, vs every hand when you are still likely to be drawing yourself.

-Eric

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi sfer,

I'm interested to know what the caller had, as it can give us some insight into the raising debate. For example, if he show less than top pair, it lends credibility to the argument that raising has very little bluff equity and you must improve to win.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

It was a 40/80 game at the Borgata so the cards were mucked at showdown.

[soweak.]

I'm so glad you re-opened the discussion of this thread. Honestly I think this is one of those threads that really tests peoples knowledge of post-flop play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"When the pot is large invest extra bets if doing so improves your chances to win." (149)

[/ QUOTE ]

you are quoting a generalization while we are discussing a specific hand. How does this apply to the hand in question? You have to weigh the cost of raising vs the gain of improving your odds of winning. The cost is 1 extra small bet with the possibility of more since you have reopened the betting to the aggressor. The gain is winning against a hand like QJ when it comes J then Q AND nobody has flopped two pair, a set, or has a any pair with a queen or jack kicker... How often does this happen? `% of the time? 3%? 3% of a 13 SB pot (your gain in EV) is much less than the cost of the money put in the pot while drawing. Never mind the lost bets when you fold QJ and a queen hits the turn!


[/ QUOTE ]
The reason why I quoted this passage is because it directly applies to the hand in question. We have a vulnerable hand with multiple opponents, and most importantly we only have one opponent who has position on us, and he hasn't acted yet. We also have loose opponents who we have not bet into the pot. The point of a raise is to give us the best chance to win the hand when all the cards have been dealt. The possibility of re-opening the betting here is not what we are worried about, we are worried about have multiple opponents on the next two streets, and we are trying to fold hands like KJ, A4, and reverse dominated hands. We are also trying to make other draws unprofitable. We also, by far and large, want a free card (or if you must a discounted card). The whole idea is we INCREASE our equity for the remainder of the hand for every opponent who folds to our raise, regardless of his holdings.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Failing to protect your hand is almost always an error."

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand protection only makes sense when you have the best hand. This is unlikely here.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your statement that hand protection is only for the best hand is incorrect. Now I will explain why. Hand protection is a bet or raise by VULNERABLE hands trying to get better hands to fold (e.x: second pair trying to get a TP-weak kicker to fold), OR to get hands THAT MAY DRAW OUT (like flush, straight, overcard draws) to fold or to make an unprofitable investment in the pot. If this is not clear I seriously suggest you re-read SSH, especially the "Post Flop Concepts" section.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Gutshots and other overcard draws are making mistakes here, and that is what poker is all about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd much rather hold a gutshot draw than your hand. If it's a mistake for gutshots and KJ to call 2 cold, why do you think it is correct for YOU to put in 2 bets with AQ? The only explanation seems to be that you think ace high is the best hand. Is that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gutshots with no pair draws have 4 outs twice. Our combined outs on both turn and river number numerously more than that. In fact we can have as much as 18 cards to help us on the river if the turn brings us a gutshot straight and flush draw. The reason for charging other draws more is to get them to make mistakes. Headsup against just a gutshot on this board we are a favorite. That is what matters here. Charging them the most for thier draw while we are ahead OF THAT DRAW is the point to raising.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you opponent calls two cold with A4 and connects, then good for him we move on. I raise here 95% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

A4 calling and connecting is only an issue if you also improve. Look at the possibilities (assuming this hand is even out there!):

- the turn is a deuce or a 4. You probably are forced to fold your unimproved overcards anyways.


[/ QUOTE ]
Against most small-stakes opponents, if you raise and someone OOP turn a gutshot straight on this board, they are looking to check raise you. If you just call the flop you are folding your overcards anyways. With a raise you get a free card most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]

- the turn is an ace. You now face a 7 out redraw, but you get much of that back when he calls the river unimproved.


[/ QUOTE ]
But I've also made him invest an extra small bet, now especially he is drawing very slim.

[ QUOTE ]

- the turn is a queen. You are happy now that you may well get to face A4 with 2 cold, and actually now have a chance to drive him out, as his overcard+gutshot looks much weaker facing two cold on the turn than it did on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of if we raised the turn or the flop, his calling in either place is a mistake. The only difference is we gain more equity when he folds the flop, and on the turn we have so much equity against his hand, we dont mind him in the hand.

[ QUOTE ]
- the turn is any other non-ace, non-queen. you are happy you didn't raise. who cares if A4 is still in there? There's one card to come and you're still drawing yourself. Even better, if you do manage to see the river, you're happy A4 is there, as he's simply another person to pay you off should you catch on the river. If HE catches on the river, he doesn;t hurt you, because you have missed... he's stealing the pot from someone else.

Good luck.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]
If you do not raise the flop you get to the river rarely. How ever you chance of making the best hand on the river coupled with the chance of a free card from the raise make it the most profitable choice.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- the turn is a queen. You are happy now that you may well get to face A4 with 2 cold, and actually now have a chance to drive him out, as his overcard+gutshot looks much weaker facing two cold on the turn than it did on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]
Regardless of if we raised the turn or the flop, his calling in either place is a mistake. The only difference is we gain more equity when he folds the flop, and on the turn we have so much equity against his hand, we dont mind him in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the action got to the player with A4 on the turn (after our flop raise and turn bet), there would be about 10 BBs in the pot, and he wouldn't really be making a mistake if he called and chased his gutshot.

I don't think he'd be making a mistake to call SFer's flop raise either, at least not if the action went as anticipated. If the flop bettor just called the raise, the guy with A4 would be getting 8:1 on his cold-call. SFer will sometimes be taking a free card on the turn, and when he does, the A4 will get two chances at the gutshot for one flop cold-call.

And that gutshot will come in by the river about 16.5 percent of the time. (The odds against it hitting by the river are only about 5:1.)

In any event, I think the question of whether or not he would be making a mistake to cold-call on the flop is not as relevant as you think (because our chances of currently having the best hand are not very good). I think its relevance is largely linked to our folding equity and chances of winning the pot without a showdown. If we can get the A4 to fold, whether he should or not, then our chances of buying the pot have improved.

For that reason, and also because we do face a redraw if we catch on the turn (edit: oh, and also, a turn sequence that went check, bet, call, checkraise on a 2 instead of check, check, check would suck), I think we want the A4 to fold to our flop raise, not call. It sounds like you do too, but I'm not sure our reasons are the same.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
Gutshots with no pair draws have 4 outs twice. Our combined outs on both turn and river number numerously more than that. In fact we can have as much as 18 cards to help us on the river if the turn brings us a gutshot straight and flush draw. The reason for charging other draws more is to get them to make mistakes. Headsup against just a gutshot on this board we are a favorite. That is what matters here. Charging them the most for thier draw while we are ahead OF THAT DRAW is the point to raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to put the actual hand aside and invent a new one in order to respond to what I just quoted.

Let's say you have KQ and somehow know precisely what both of your opponents hold. The board is JT2. 87 checks the flop, JJ bets, and now it's your action. Do you raise because 87 is drawing badly against you (and dead versus the JJ and KQ combined)? I hope not. Sure, we'd love for the 87 to call two cold, but our raise would be a mistake even if he did, since we're at an equity disadvantage even against two opponents. And if he folded for two when he would have called one, that would be awful for us.

(Without knowing my opponents' holdings, I might raise the KQ [apparently, in my invented example, the JJ limped preflop], but I'm trying to make a point.)

Sometimes it doesn't matter very much how we fare heads-up against other draws when we ourselves are currently drawing.

[soweak.]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes it doesn't matter very much how we fare heads-up against other draws when we ourselves are currently drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, however one must concede by thinning the field (even by 2-3 players) we are drawing considerably better.

Also, in your example, 87o is drawing dead [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. if you know that he's drawing dead you would actually want to keep him around yes? Sometimes knowing your opponents holdings can change your approach.

Knowing (in your example) that you only have 8 outs and that your third opponent is drawing dead, I don't think I'd raise.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes it doesn't matter very much how we fare heads-up against other draws when we ourselves are currently drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, however one must concede by thinning the field (even by 2-3 players) we are drawing considerably better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that in SFer's hand, we may be drawing better if we thin the field. I'm not as sure about the "considerably" part.

I have been convinced though that a flop raise is the best play in SFer's hand because of these combined potential benefits:

(1) We create some chance of winning without showdown.
(2) The raise potentially will allow us to draw more cheaply.
(3) We might fold out a hand that would have gone on to beat us even if we improved.

I do think that (3) is less significant than (1) and (2), though -- partly because a good portion of the time the player(s) who are calling one bet on the flop but wouldn't call two will in fact go on to lose to us anyway if we improve.

If I knew that the flop bettor would never fold his vulnerable made hand and would also donk-bet on the turn (or, worse, 3-bet the flop), I wouldn't raise just to improve my chances of actually ending up with the best hand. If that were our only potential benefit, I would just call. And, in fact, if that were our only potential benefit, I think the decision just to call would be easy, since if we raised under those circumstances we'd just be charging ourselves extra to draw, at worse odds, so often.

[elindauer]

Hi Nick,

I like your analysis of this hand and think you have nailed it. I personally rate the odds of winning unimproved quite low, and give only some value to the prospect of getting a free card on the turn. We seem to agree that folding out hands that would have gone on to outdraw us has been far overrated in this thread.

You seem to give a little more credit to the possibility of winning unimproved, so I can see that you have a reasonable argument for the raise being close. The way I see it, if we get the chance to take a free card, we're taking it, so winning unimproved seems unlikely. I can't imagine how the flop action would go where betting the turn would look like a good idea. Can you? Even if it gets heads up, the bet isn't clear, since you have so little fold equity and certainly do not want to be check-raised.

-Eric

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to give a little more credit to the possibility of winning unimproved, so I can see that you have a reasonable argument for the raise being close. The way I see it, if we get the chance to take a free card, we're taking it, so winning unimproved seems unlikely. I can't imagine how the flop action would go where betting the turn would look like a good idea. Can you? Even if it gets heads up, the bet isn't clear, since you have so little fold equity and certainly do not want to be check-raised.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I think this might be a hand where the best play for SFer on the flop is to raise, whereas I'd be better off just calling.

His idea of buying bluffing outs (that would have no value if the broadway card in question hit someone else's hand) does appeal to me. If SFer got heads-up and a king fell on the turn and he was then bet into, would he raise? I doubt I'd manage to, but it could take the pot from a hand like 66 or possibly even A5s (meanwhile, though, I think a hand like 87s would probably at least see the river). I could probably find a bet if checked to (heads-up) on a big card; maybe that's all SFer had in mind anyway, and maybe it's enough.

My first instinct is to call the flop. But I like the reasons SFer gave for raising. Some of those reasons are complex (such as decreasing the likelihood of someone waking up on the turn with a checkraise), and I didn't think of them myself.