Live 4/8 hand

[Jake (The Snake)]

I'm not so sure about the river on this one.

A common misconception people have on this board is that c/c c/c b/f is the only way to play a way ahead/way behind hand out of position. You can also c/c or maybe c/f the river depending on the opponent and your cards. Usually when you have KK on an ace board you have more like 40% equity while when you have Ax you have 60%, so this changes your river play.

I think you'd be better to c/c this river.

Edit: oops, meant c/c

Also, yeah I still bet these flops, nobody else raised preflop so there's no reason to suspect so strongly that somebody has an ace yet.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure about the river on this one.

A common misconception people have on this board is that c/c c/c b/f is the only way to play a way ahead/way behind hand out of position. You can also c/c or c/f the river depending on the opponent and your cards. Usually when you have KK on an ace board you have more like 40% equity while when you have Ax you have 60%, so this changes your river play.

I think you could make a good argument for c/f this river if the opponent is good. Anybody agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you definitely can.

The important point to me is that, in the hierarchy of concepts to apply when playing a poker hand, that of "having the initiative as the pre-flop raiser with a good, showdown-able hand is a good thing" trumps "way ahead/way behind."

My basic thought is that some people responding to this post are so excited to find a possible WA/WB situation that they are not approaching this hand with the normal, straightforward poker approach that dominates play in like 90% of hands. Checking this flop does not make much sense.

Checking is more likely to cause you to lose money here. If you bet the flop and get raised, you may be able to confidently say you're against an A and fold. If you check the flop and commit immediately to going to showdown (which, in a four way pot, is foolish), you are committing to: a) never attempting to determine the strengths of your opponents hands; b) putting in money regardless of what those hands might be. This hand is not heads-up. Folding might be an option here. Similarly, since it's multiway, betting might actually cause opponents to fold (maybe not those with As, but maybe those with lesser outs). Betting makes this hand so much more straightforward to play.

Yet another way to think about this:

-If we bet and don't get raised, this is probably better than checking. If we check, either it gets bet behind us and we put in one bet anyway, or it gets checked through, and we may have missed bets.

-If we bet and get raised, fine. We can probably use our poker knowledge to make a sound decision about villain's hand, and probably get away from the hand more cheaply.

Going WA/WB assumes a bunch of factors that aren't at play here. One is that we absolutely have to get to showdown with our hand. (Not the case with an underpair in a four-way pot). Another is that betting puts us in a position to regularly get raised off the best hand. (Not the case in a four way pot, where the pot is generally protected and bets are more likely to mean something).

So we need to all think about the assumptions underlying certain buzz-word concepts before haphazardly applying them at the expense of much more basic concepts.

[Jake (The Snake)]

Yeah I agree on betting the flop here. While the flop is dry enough that we don't need to protect so badly, the pot is fairly large, and we can still make our opponents commit FTOP errors by (1) folding the flop with an ace or (2) calling the flop without one.

To clarify the river, I think b/f is probably best the way hero played the hand. But if villain had raised preflop and Hero had 3-bet, I like c/c better. My point was just that when you get to the river, don't just follow a line because you saw someone else do it, figure out why a particular line is best.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree on betting the flop here. While the flop is dry enough that we don't need to protect so badly, the pot is fairly large, and we can still make our opponents commit FTOP errors by (1) folding the flop with an ace or (2) calling the flop without one.

To clarify the river, I think b/f is probably best the way hero played the hand. But if villain had raised preflop and Hero had 3-bet, I like c/c better. My point was just that when you get to the river, don't just follow a line because you saw someone else do it, figure out why a particular line is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely Jake. Very well put. I think we are both getting at the same point here, which is that some people are approaching this hand from the "way-ahead-way-behind-is-cool-let's-try-it" point of view, and hence approaching this hand to formulaically.

[NateDog]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree on betting the flop here. While the flop is dry enough that we don't need to protect so badly, the pot is fairly large, and we can still make our opponents commit FTOP errors by (1) folding the flop with an ace or (2) calling the flop without one.

To clarify the river, I think b/f is probably best the way hero played the hand. But if villain had raised preflop and Hero had 3-bet, I like c/c better. My point was just that when you get to the river, don't just follow a line because you saw someone else do it, figure out why a particular line is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

The line wasn't taken to play, 'oh look, I can use WA/WB here, aren't I so damn cool'. The table was playing as passively as you can imagine a live 4/8 table playing. (If you haven't played live, think "loose .5/1"). Leading the flop here and offering 10:1 and better for those farther back seemed assinine. I really, really doubt that I have the best hand in this situation, however I had planned to c/r a LP bettor, had there been one. When villain bets his hand my c/r plan is no good, and when the rest of the table folds leaving me HU, why not play the hand WA/WB?

Still think it's horrible?

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree on betting the flop here. While the flop is dry enough that we don't need to protect so badly, the pot is fairly large, and we can still make our opponents commit FTOP errors by (1) folding the flop with an ace or (2) calling the flop without one.

To clarify the river, I think b/f is probably best the way hero played the hand. But if villain had raised preflop and Hero had 3-bet, I like c/c better. My point was just that when you get to the river, don't just follow a line because you saw someone else do it, figure out why a particular line is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

The line wasn't taken to play, 'oh look, I can use WA/WB here, aren't I so damn cool'. The table was playing as passively as you can imagine a live 4/8 table playing. (If you haven't played live, think "loose .5/1"). Leading the flop here and offering 10:1 and better for those farther back seemed assinine. I really, really doubt that I have the best hand in this situation, however I had planned to c/r a LP bettor, had there been one. When villain bets his hand my c/r plan is no good, and when the rest of the table folds leaving me HU, why not play the hand WA/WB?

Still think it's horrible?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are checking because you don't think you have the best hand, then you should be checking and folding becuase you don't have the correct odds to continue, will have to put in many more bets to get to showdown, and gain nothing in the way of protection or control or value by checking.

If you think you have enough equity here on average to continue past the flop, betting is much better. Your hand is really not that vulnerable, so checking in the attempt to protect your hand with a check-raise is really not necessary. Giving a free card is much worse than giving a 1 SB card here. Betting is far better also because, even if you don't have a clear equity edge, it is far better to take the initiative and attempt to clarify your hand, rather than blindly checking and committing to a showdown. As long as you are the one betting, you have much better control over the number of bets you have to put into the pot. I generally don't advocate the "betting for information" line, but this is a pretty clear case where betting will make the hand so much easier to play and give you such a better idea of where you stand, that it is much better than checking. The fact that the table is playing passively makes me want to bet more, to a degree; if I get raised, I'm folding quickly and with a minimal investment.

(If you really think checking is better because the table is so passive and so you'll get a better sense of where you are by checking, then you should be checking and folding to what appears to be a legit flop value bet. Checking and calling an early position bet makes absolutely zero sense here.)

[W. Deranged]

I think this hand is played in an unnecessarily complex way.

You are the pre-flop raiser. You should bet the flop.

Checking the flop completely gives up control of the hand. Often, betting would simply allow you to take this pot down without any further contest (4 handed is not that multiway). By checking, you forgo this right. It then places you in the position of having to play the hand without iniative.

Way Ahead/Way Behind is a powerful line in many situations. But, until proven otherwise, on the flop you should not approach this as WA/WB. You have the best hand until proven otherwise. Once you get called/raised, then you should start reevaluating; betting the flop and then checking the turn indeed might be a correct way to play this depending on what happens after your flop bet.

Checking the flop gives up your right to win without showdown, provides you no sense of the quality of your opponent's hands, confuses your opponents and/or gives away the fact that you don't like the board, and many other bad things.

So bet the flop and reevaluate.

[JacksonTens]

KK must bet. Must. If raised, against a typical 4/8 ABC passive, you can let it go right there. Betting IS the easy option.

JT [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[chesspain]

I hate everything after the preflop raise.

[alul]

I don't think WA/WB line applies here because it wasn't proven by any action. You just assumed that somebody may have an ace and started calling, allowing hands like 78 or 88 to draw up on you.