Confused on my flopped set??

[Entity]

Raise the flop. Checkraise the river.

[W. Deranged]

You are leaving out the most important thing, which is the number of players you are up against.

Generally, if the hand looks like it's going to be definitely five handed with a possibility to be 6 or 7 (hopefully with some dead money), I'll be seeing the flop with pretty much any pocket pair for any amount.

I should clarify one point. In my earlier post I mentioned our implied odds go up in a big pot. That's not quite true. Since we are paying more, our implied odds will generally go down. We will, though, on average win more total bets in a bigger pot because people hang on longer. Not a huge point but I don't want to confuse anyone (or, more importantly, let anyone flame me for saying something wrong...)

[callmedonnie]

Better yet, here is a hypothetical example. you are in sb w/ pocket fours. MP2 raises. MP3 calls, CO calls, button raises.

You're gettin what, 4 to 1 at moment, almost 7 to 1 if everyone calls, but there is the possibility of a raise. What's the proper way to think about these spots.

[callmedonnie]

[ QUOTE ]
You are leaving out the most important thing, which is the number of players you are up against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am very aware of this. That is why I asked the number of callers in the pot. I guess I could have changed callers to players.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deranged:

He bets this river 100% of the time. A check-raise gives you position and allows you to only call a 3bet here. If he caps your river 3bet here you are likely dead, and if he 3bets your check-raise on the river here, you are likely dead, but you saved a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I lead out is because I have no intention of three-betting the river and want to make sure exactly 1 or 2 big bets goes in on the river.

Given all of the action so far I think playing to get 3 or 4 bets in on this river is probably spewing. Once he raises the river after the board pairs and our basic complete admission to having a set I don't think we're ahead enough to put in a value three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


I had a long discussion with one of the most respected SH players on this board about different river lines. Having the 4th nuts here definitely warrants at least 2 bets going in on the river, and 3 is fine. He would be going nutso with 56 on that board often enough to make a check-raise/call a 3bet more profitable than bet/call.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Better yet, here is a hypothetical example. you are in sb w/ pocket fours. MP2 raises. MP3 calls, CO calls, button raises.

You're gettin what, 4 to 1 at moment, almost 7 to 1 if everyone calls, but there is the possibility of a raise. What's the proper way to think about these spots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is on the "fold" side of the line. The problem is that you cannot guarentee that the pot will be at least five handed. You're immediate odds are too short and you only get to where you need to get to if you can assume everyone calls and you don't get reraised.

The borderline is somewhere a little north of here.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deranged:

He bets this river 100% of the time. A check-raise gives you position and allows you to only call a 3bet here. If he caps your river 3bet here you are likely dead, and if he 3bets your check-raise on the river here, you are likely dead, but you saved a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I lead out is because I have no intention of three-betting the river and want to make sure exactly 1 or 2 big bets goes in on the river.

Given all of the action so far I think playing to get 3 or 4 bets in on this river is probably spewing. Once he raises the river after the board pairs and our basic complete admission to having a set I don't think we're ahead enough to put in a value three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


I had a long discussion with one of the most respected SH players on this board about different river lines. Having the 4th nuts here definitely warrants at least 2 bets going in on the river, and 3 is fine. He would be going nutso with 56 on that board often enough to make a check-raise/call a 3bet more profitable than bet/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly damn close, but I'm pretty confident in saying that on average the third bet is going to be a losing one for hero.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deranged:

He bets this river 100% of the time. A check-raise gives you position and allows you to only call a 3bet here. If he caps your river 3bet here you are likely dead, and if he 3bets your check-raise on the river here, you are likely dead, but you saved a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I lead out is because I have no intention of three-betting the river and want to make sure exactly 1 or 2 big bets goes in on the river.

Given all of the action so far I think playing to get 3 or 4 bets in on this river is probably spewing. Once he raises the river after the board pairs and our basic complete admission to having a set I don't think we're ahead enough to put in a value three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


I had a long discussion with one of the most respected SH players on this board about different river lines. Having the 4th nuts here definitely warrants at least 2 bets going in on the river, and 3 is fine. He would be going nutso with 56 on that board often enough to make a check-raise/call a 3bet more profitable than bet/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly damn close, but I'm pretty confident in saying that on average the third bet is going to be a losing one for hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the case, but if you won't believe that you are ahead more than 50% of the time here I will do a bayesian analysis.

There are 16 comboes of 56o and 56s. Let's weight the offsuited hands since 56o is a weird limping hand. If we discount 50% of the 56o hands, that puts us at 10 comboes of 56, which all play this exact line.

There are 6 comboes of 88/77. However, 88/77 realizes that that there is a straight on the board, so at some point some players will slowdown, especially 77, who also has to worry about 88.

So if discount 1 of the 88/77 outs here, that puts us at 5 hands that are beating us.

This puts us ahead 2/3 of the time, behind 1/3 of the time, which is far more than enough to check-raise the river instead of bet/calling.

You can see that many opponents will just call your bet here on the scary paired board when you are ahead. But there is a 99% chance that opponent will bet if checked to.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deranged:

He bets this river 100% of the time. A check-raise gives you position and allows you to only call a 3bet here. If he caps your river 3bet here you are likely dead, and if he 3bets your check-raise on the river here, you are likely dead, but you saved a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I lead out is because I have no intention of three-betting the river and want to make sure exactly 1 or 2 big bets goes in on the river.

Given all of the action so far I think playing to get 3 or 4 bets in on this river is probably spewing. Once he raises the river after the board pairs and our basic complete admission to having a set I don't think we're ahead enough to put in a value three-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


I had a long discussion with one of the most respected SH players on this board about different river lines. Having the 4th nuts here definitely warrants at least 2 bets going in on the river, and 3 is fine. He would be going nutso with 56 on that board often enough to make a check-raise/call a 3bet more profitable than bet/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's certainly damn close, but I'm pretty confident in saying that on average the third bet is going to be a losing one for hero.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe that's the case, but if you won't believe that you are ahead more than 50% of the time here I will do a bayesian analysis.

There are 16 comboes of 56o and 56s. Let's weight the offsuited hands since 56o is a weird limping hand. If we discount 50% of the 56o hands, that puts us at 10 comboes of 56, which all play this exact line.

There are 6 comboes of 88/77. However, 88/77 realizes that that there is a straight on the board, so at some point some players will slowdown, especially 77, who also has to worry about 88.

So if discount 1 of the 88/77 outs here, that puts us at 5 hands that are beating us.

This puts us ahead 2/3 of the time, behind 1/3 of the time, which is far more than enough to check-raise the river instead of bet/calling.

You can see that many opponents will just call your bet here on the scary paired board when you are behind. But there is a 99% chance that opponent will bet if checked to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the analysis here, and basically already made a similar argument earlier as an explanation for why I expect to win on the river.

My point is that we have to seriously reconsider our weightings of possible hands if we get three-bet on the river. At that point I start to strongly weight villain's range toward 77 and 88 and away from 56.

This is a pretty subjective thing, though, and will be somewhat read dependent.

I certainly think we're way ahead going into the river betting. I think check-raising may well be better because we are so likely to be ahead when the second bet goes in. I just don't like getting three-bet because I don't think that bet will be a profitable one for us.

Another good thing about a check-raising is we may not sqeese out the late position fishcakes.

You're right of course. But the flaw in your logic lies here:

Until he raises/3bets us on the river, we MUST assume that we area ahead, simply because of the range of hands that play like this.

We are essentially ahead 66% of the time when we arrive at the river. The two options are:

bet/call. 3betting is not an option, because once you get raised, he will only cap with a better hand, and once you get raised, you are no longer ahead 66% of the time. This guarantees you 1 bet, and sometimes 2 bets.

check/raise/call. When checked to, he will always bet here. At this point, you are STILL ahead of villain 66% of the time, so raising is perfectly reasonable. When you get 3bet, calling down is a clear option. This guarantees 2 bets, and sometimes 3 bets.

Do you see why option 2 is better?