Strange Pot - Checkraise that flop

[nate1729]

Thanks for the nice comments.

Ah, the question of whether what will make the rest of the hand "easier" or "harder" to play -- that's one of the biggest questions here.

I often imagine these sorts of questions in terms of a very specific tradeoff:
-Which play has the highest immediate equity?
-Which play allows me to have more equity in the rest of the hand?
-Which of these two considerations predominates?

These questions might seem obvious, but actually asking them to myself in series often clarifies my thinking about a hand.

I am willing to admit that I often have at least a small equity edge in terms of immediate action; T9 has at least a good amount of value against a random hand (BB,) an almost-random hand (Ed,) and a third hand taken from a very wide range (Daniel.)

The problem is that checkraising can cost us lots of money in future action. We're suffering from a remarkable information defecit. It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios in which we'll make fold incorrectly, call incorrectly, and miss lots of value.

It is less common than many people think to sacrifice immediate equity for playing advantages later, but I think this case is extreme: our immediate equity edge is slight if it exists at all, and the reverse implied odds are catastrophic.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that our opportunity to eliminate players is not as great as it seems. The big blind's hand is random, so for the raise to knock him out we need the parlay of {he will play for one bet} and {he will not play for two bets} to come in, which is improbable; Ed isn't folding; and Daniel is capable of lots of strange things. Remember the situation's the same: Daniel needs to fold for two bets but not one to make the play work. (There's also the interesting phenomenon of Daniel's being somewhat likely to make an unsound play that turns out to be Sklansky-correct.)

Again, thanks for participating in this discussion. I hope it continues.

--Nate

Let me just comment on one thing you said:

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that checkraising can cost us lots of money in future action. We're suffering from a remarkable information defecit. It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios in which we'll make fold incorrectly, call incorrectly, and miss lots of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point about the ease of playing the hand on the turn and river speaks directly to this point. Raising will give us information about our opponents' hands: We can be much more certain about the strength of our opponents' hands after we've raised -- in particular check-raised. Check raising ordinarily represents a strong hand (although, in particular at higher limits, the opposite may be true, but let's assume for the moment that, like most opponents, hero's opponents interpret the c/r as a sign of strength). We can therefore be considerably more confident that a bet or raise from an opponent on the turn or river (at least, a turn or river that doesn't improve our hand) means we're beat and that we can safely fold. Which in turn reduces the possibility that we'll make the incorrect, -EV plays you mention.

[Of course, against good opponents, they will understand all of this and adapt accordingly. That's when things get really interesting.]

[nate1729]

Which opponent will be easier to play against? The solid pro will still be a solid pro, the total calling station will still be a total calling station (who only has to call one more bet,) and Daniel will still be wacky, read-obsessed Daniel. I agree that sometimes we'll eliminate Daniel or the pro, but as I've outlined before the chances of this happening are smaller than instinct might suggest.

Meanwhile, there's also plain old reverse implied odds. There's that hand in Hold'em Poker For Advanced Players where Sklansky recommends folding top pair (of aces) - weak kicker when the board is something like A98 with a two-flush and a player bets into you and there are some limpers left to act. This hand kinda reminds me of that one, except I think mine was too good to fold. Remember that "tricky" Daniel is probably more likely to check a good hand than bet it. The pro is very capable of thinking on many levels and realizing what a bad spot I'm in and putting pressure on me. And I could easily not be in the lead, and half the deck terrifies me.

Checkraising is a double-edged informational sword. We'll gain some information, but much less than checkraising normally gives in a 4-way pot, and meanwhile we'll let ourselves be manipulated, all while making the pot too large for comfort.

Thanks again for the reply. I hope you find my thoughts reasonable if not compelling.

--Nate

Absolutely reasonable; somewhat compelling.

FWIW -- I don't believe in reverse implied odds (in almost all circumstances). Better stated, I think people often mis-use the term. In TOP, Sklansky defines reverse implied odds pretty precisely, and, by virtue of that definition, reverse implied odds situations don't arise very often -- and probably not here. Most importantly, the concept assumes you will pay off if your hand becomes less than best (and that you are just calling rather than doing the betting). In most circumstances -- in particular on a board this threatening -- I think that a good player will not pay off. Check raising the flop makes such a fold even easier -- which is part and parcel of my earlier information point.

[nate1729]

Interesting. I agree that I'm using many ideas here, and I wouldn't be surprised if I've confusingly juxtaposed some of them.

I do think, however, that there are reverse implied odds in this situation. I could pay off on many cards (the king that came in the actual hand, for example.)

You are absolutely correct to be careful about which effects arise from paying off second-best hands and which arise from being at an information disadvantage (not knowing if your hand is best in the first place, missing value, etc.)

I'm also not sure that checkraising the flop makes later folds easier. Against this lineup I'm likely to see some strange bets later in the hand; Daniel and the pro are both very capable of making moves, and playing against Ed is always an adventure (though he's passive enough that I could fold where I wouldn't against the other opponents.) Meanwhile, the bigger pot means that I'm more likely to pay off.

Thanks for the good comments. Too bad this situation is daunting from the perspective of practical computation by hand; I've definitely thought about the numbers but I'd like to get them more precise.

--Nate