Like the flush draw line

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3-bet the flop for value. We don't care if we knock people out. We will definitely get enough callers to make the raise for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the hand not standing up UI, how is two callers (assuming it's two and not one) for a flush draw still for value? Is it just because the pot's large, so try everything to win it ASAP?

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

2 Callers means Hero's fair share is 33% while his equity is ~35%. Certainly we'd prefer 3 callers or more, but this is certainly a 3-bet situation in my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]


~35% is your pot equity.
Your chance of hitting the turn is ~20% Thats the number you need to compare for a value raise on the flop. (I think)

[/ QUOTE ]

The 20% chance to hit the turn indicates that you need ~4:1 pot odds to justify CALLING a bet. The fact that you currently have a pot equity edge is what justifies RAISING.

Somebody back me up on this. (Man I hope GrunchCan gets back soon.)

[matt42s]

[ QUOTE ]
The 20% chance to hit the turn indicates that you need ~4:1 pot odds to justify CALLING a bet. The fact that you currently have a pot equity edge is what justifies RAISING.

Somebody back me up on this. (Man I hope GrunchCan gets back soon.)


[/ QUOTE ]

35% is the amount of the pot you give up by folding.
Its also your chance of hitting the flush by the river. Using 35% to justify a value bet is playing 2 streets at once and wrong IMO.

Edit - playing 2 streets is wrong because it ignores any turn betting.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3-bet the flop for value. We don't care if we knock people out. We will definitely get enough callers to make the raise for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Besides the hand not standing up UI, how is two callers (assuming it's two and not one) for a flush draw still for value? Is it just because the pot's large, so try everything to win it ASAP?

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

2 Callers means Hero's fair share is 33% while his equity is ~35%. Certainly we'd prefer 3 callers or more, but this is certainly

[/ QUOTE ]

But if the point isn't to try and win the pot ASAP (maybe it is), with a hand that only has one thing going for it why trade (I don't have the hand up) something like a 15% edge for a small deficit? It just sounds contradictory to me, like trying to eliminate pf callers when you have 33...

Mike

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The 20% chance to hit the turn indicates that you need ~4:1 pot odds to justify CALLING a bet. The fact that you currently have a pot equity edge is what justifies RAISING.

Somebody back me up on this. (Man I hope GrunchCan gets back soon.)


[/ QUOTE ]

35% is the amount of the pot you give up by folding.
Its also your chance of hitting the flush by the river. Using 35% to justify a value bet is playing 2 streets at once and wrong IMO.

Edit - playing 2 streets is wrong because it ignores any turn betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Matt, but I respectfully disagree with you.

You already know that once you reach the turn that you will be able to call profitably whether you hit the flush or not. (You will catch a flush by the river 20% of the time, and the pot will be way bigger than the 4.11 BB's you would need to make a call breakeven at that point.)

The issue at hand is whether you are gaining or losing money on each additional bet you have to put in on the flop. If you "own" 35% of the pot, and therefore 35% of every bet that goes in on this street, you are instantly profiting by every bet and raise you make. (As long as you are only contributing 35% or less of the total bets, meaning you need 2 callers or more.)

Take a look at the example on p.271 in SSH, which is similar but much less ambiguous.

Certainly there is room for debate on the pot equity calc itself, since we are not drawing to the absolute nuts. However, if the question is how many callers do we need to justify a 3-bet on this flop, the answer is unequivocally 2 or more. (Assuming the A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is not in someone's hand.)

[UncleSalty]

No, the point isn't to win the pot ASAP. (That simply isn't going to happen.) You're not trying to knock people out, you're hoping that as many call as possible. All I am saying is that you really only need 2 people minimum to make a re-raise profitable, and I think given the texture of the board and the number of opponents, a 3-bet is how I would play it.

I can see calling to keep customers since all we have is a draw, but it's not the play I would make.

[Mathieu]

You say that this is certainly a 3 Bet situation, but I somewhat disagree. I do agree that 3 Betting is certainly + EV (and better for the aggression factor stats..), but cold calling might be more profitable.

I think that if there is good chance that we will get more than 2 callers if we 3 bet, then 3 betting is most likely better.

If there is a good chance that we will get a free card on 4th street, then 3 betting is most likely better.

But if our raise will make this pot a 3-handed contest on average, and if the free card play is very unlikely to succeed, then smooth calling seems better.

These things depend alot on what we know about the other players. I guess that you implied that typical microlimit players are loose enough to call for 2 more, or passive enough to make the free card play likely to succeed in this spot. I do agree with this, and would often 3 bet in this spot. I would still check my notes though, just in case.

[UncleSalty]

Mathieu:

Fantastic analysis. I agree with you on all counts, and I acknowledge that there are definitely situations where smooth calling is correct. (I probably shouldn't have said it was such an easy 3-bet without reads.)

It comes down to specific reads at the table, and personal playing style. I tend to jam pots when I have any kind of equity edge, but sometimes it will be more +EV to just call. This definitely might be one of those times. (Glad you agree with me that 3-betting is at least +EV though!)

[imported_AAcheckraise]

I have a quick "variance" What if I 3bet and am capped by 1 player (tight AGG) and the rest fold???
Turn:??
River:??

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a quick "variance" What if I 3bet and am capped by 1 player (tight AGG) and the rest fold???
Turn:??
River:??

[/ QUOTE ]

Then, your 3-bet turned out to be unprofitable, and Sh*t happens. On the turn the pot is ginormous, so it's an obvious call due to pot odds.

The river is an easy fold, since you're obviously beat if you don't catch the flush.

[matt42s]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry Matt, but I respectfully disagree with you.

You already know that once you reach the turn that you will be able to call profitably whether you hit the flush or not. (You will catch a flush by the river 20% of the time, and the pot will be way bigger than the 4.11 BB's you would need to make a call breakeven at that point.)

The issue at hand is whether you are gaining or losing money on each additional bet you have to put in on the flop. If you "own" 35% of the pot, and therefore 35% of every bet that goes in on this street, you are instantly profiting by every bet and raise you make. (As long as you are only contributing 35% or less of the total bets, meaning you need 2 callers or more.)

Take a look at the example on p.271 in SSH, which is similar but much less ambiguous.

Certainly there is room for debate on the pot equity calc itself, since we are not drawing to the absolute nuts. However, if the question is how many callers do we need to justify a 3-bet on this flop, the answer is unequivocally 2 or more. (Assuming the A is not in someone's hand.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I've said the wrong thing and have been thinking about this situation weirdly. I knew it would be +EV as long as you had 2 or more callers. What I was doing was trying to work out how +-EV a raise was compared to a call - using flop-turn% as a guideline. Then to make matters worse I've misapplied my own weird idea. Not sure where i got it from in the first place but I'll be getting rid of it now.
Thanks 4 the time you put into setting me straight.