SSHE hand, page 150 - Page 2

#11 10-25-2005, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Not in the case of this hand. The only outs that you might clear is the button's, since they are the only one who hasn't acted. It's highly doubtful that sb, bb, or the limpers will fold to one bet since they have already put money into the pot on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct as it pertains to the Flop bet, but when you open on the turn.....

Reqtech · #12 10-25-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not in the case of this hand. The only outs that you might clear is the button's, since they are the only one who hasn't acted. It's highly doubtful that sb, bb, or the limpers will fold to one bet since they have already put money into the pot on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct as it pertains to the Flop bet, but when you open on the turn.....

[/ QUOTE ]

A case can certainly be made for a turn bet clearing out some overcards, yes. But not on the flop which is what I was addressing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Pyromaniac · #13 10-25-2005, 04:18 PM

thanks, y'all, for the replies. This is helping. Felipe, which post are you linking to? It's not working for me.

A followup question based on Ed Miller's original example, with the rest of the flop action:

Hero has A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in MP.

Two players limp. Hero limps. Button limps. SB raises. BB and all limpers call.

J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] flop.

SB bets. BB folds. Both limpers call. Hero raises. Button folds. SB reraises. Both limpers call. Hero calls.

...

So now my question is, Why just call the reraise? Why not make it four and cap it? The SB is staying in and the limpers are looking like they're both staying in (it was 2 back to them), so it's still 3 to 1 money here, right?

Because

a) the SB's reraise makes us think we should slow down?

b) There is already 12 BB in the pot (says Ed) and putting more in will give just about anyone odds to chase on the turn?

c) The action suggests that we have less outs than we might think?

Pyro

#14 10-25-2005, 04:29 PM

Three more bets went in on the flop in an already huge pot. You are raising for

* value because the SB & 2 limpers will call another bet.
* force button to fold (buy the button)
* free river card

Reqtech · #15 10-25-2005, 04:31 PM

You're putting in 25% of the money, and straight odds to make your flush on the turn is 9/47 = ~20%. So you don't have the pot equity to raise anymore, which is why you call.

SB shows no signs of slowing down. If you cap the flop, there's still a good change he leads out, and the limpers are probably going to realize that you will raise and go to war, so they'll probably fold giving even less pot equity.

You call the 3-bet because you still have the pot odds. You don't cap because you no longer have the equity.

gharp · #16 10-25-2005, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]

So now my question is, Why just call the reraise? Why not make it four and cap it? The SB is staying in and the limpers are looking like they're both staying in (it was 2 back to them), so it's still 3 to 1 money here, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Did you read the footnote at the bottom of the page 150?

"Raising again, especially if it is a cap, is also a strong option. You have position, a big draw, and three players calling. Your raise is probably for value, and it also might earn you a free card on fourth street"

So the answer to your question is that raising again is fine. One reason to slow down would be to collect extra big bets by having the SB bet into you on the turn or river when you hit your flush. I can see arguments for both here.

Pyromaniac · #17 10-25-2005, 04:59 PM

doh! obviously not [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

gharp · #18 10-25-2005, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You're putting in 25% of the money, and straight odds to make your flush on the turn is 9/47 = ~20%. So you don't have the pot equity to raise anymore, which is why you call.

[/ QUOTE ]
This ain't right -- when you're calculating equity in this case, you use the odds from flop->river, since you know your nut flush draw is going to give you the pot odds to make it past the turn. You have 35% equity here (approx. flop->river odds), so you still have an equity edge over the three other players.

Your equity edge doesn't change just because someone else reraised. But if the reraise had forced out the limpers and you were now heads up with the SB, you'd be in a situation with 35% equity but you'd be putting in 50% of the money. In that case, you should just call.

Reqtech · #19 10-25-2005, 05:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're putting in 25% of the money, and straight odds to make your flush on the turn is 9/47 = ~20%. So you don't have the pot equity to raise anymore, which is why you call.

[/ QUOTE ]
This ain't right -- when you're calculating equity in this case, you use the odds from flop->river, since you know your nut flush draw is going to give you the pot odds to make it past the turn. You have 35% equity here (approx. flop->river odds), so you still have an equity edge over the three other players.

Your equity edge doesn't change just because someone else reraised. But if the reraise had forced out the limpers and you were now heads up with the SB, you'd be in a situation with 35% equity but you'd be putting in 50% of the money. In that case, you should just call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess this is where I get confused with pot equity. So you're saying when calculating equity, you should consider it to the river instead of just to the turn? If so (and hopefully some agreement by a big hitter or two [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) I wholeheartedly agree. For some reason I've been thinking of equity in terms of me hitting to the turn.

My point about my equity changing is because there was one player who folded. (if we're talking about calculating odds to the river, that point is moot as well)

gharp · #20 10-25-2005, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess this is where I get confused with pot equity. So you're saying when calculating equity, you should consider it to the river instead of just to the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]
In general, yes. (I think it needs to be such that the pot odds allow you to see the river, but I can't even think up a scenario where you could have enough outs and players to have an equity edge, but not have odds to get past the turn.)

[ QUOTE ]
If so (and hopefully some agreement by a big hitter or two [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]) I wholeheartedly agree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't hit big enough for you!? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You could also read the explanation in SSHE around p.36. That guy hits pretty big.