fuzzy thinking?

[jen]

"Betting costs you nothing unless the crazy guy has you beaten, so given that you're likely ahead of him, how can betting be bad?"

limon thought that crazy guy had him beaten; he was trying to push crazy guy off of a small pair.

In any case, I think the turn bet is bad.

First, the turn bet can only be good if old man was holding a hand that limon could beat. I think this in itself was unlikely. Old man called 40 pre-flop. The only hands that limon might beat here were A8s or QdJd. Alternatively, the old man could have had an overpair, pair+open-ended, set, pair+flush draw, etc.

Second, if crazy guy had a better hand, then limon should have taken a free card to beat him since (a) crazy guys don't like to let go of medium strength hands, (b) limon had a number of outs to beat him, (c) there was no side pot, (d) there was someone already all-in.

Third, if crazy guy had a worse hand, then the only way that betting would have been profitable is if crazy guy would've hit his six-outer (in actuality three-outer) on the river and limon had all-in beaten. Since a check on the turn would've produced a dry side pot, there would've been little chance of getting bluffed out of the pot.

I may be the only dissenting vote, but I would've checked the turn.

[tewall]

[ QUOTE ]
limon thought that crazy guy had him beaten; he was trying to push crazy guy off of a small pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I got confused on this point. He thought he could get him off a better hand, not that he had him beat. Given the whole context, however, I don't think he (limon) would have been surprised if he had crazy beat.

[ QUOTE ]
First, the turn bet can only be good if old man was holding a hand that limon could beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't right. Whether the old guy has limon beat or not is irrelevant. All that matters is how limon does viz-a-viz crazy.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, if crazy guy had a better hand, then limon should have taken a free card to beat him since (a) crazy guys don't like to let go of medium strength hands, (b) limon had a number of outs to beat him, (c) there was no side pot, (d) there was someone already all-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of these don't matter. What matters is how likely crazy is to call limon with a better hand, or that limon is actually ahead.

[ QUOTE ]
Third, if crazy guy had a worse hand, then the only way that betting would have been profitable is if crazy guy would've hit his six-outer (in actuality three-outer) on the river and limon had all-in beaten.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't right. If crazy is behind and calls, limon profits by that.

The turn bet is bad if crazy is more likely to call limon with a better hand than he is to either (inclusive) have a worse hand or fold a better hand. What all-in has doesn't matter.

[tewall]

Actually it's not quite this simple. An additional reason for checking is to guard agains the possibility of being check-raised. However, this possibility was covered elsewhere in the thread.

[Matt Flynn]

"Flop is 7d 9d Tc. crazy guy bets 250 fold to me i decide to cal hoping to attract another flush draw or straight draw to call"

limon what's your stack % threshold for pressing? Your call makes $780 and you with $1700 behind. Once it gets up to a third of my stack I'm usually ready to take it down with a draw hand I'm willing to go all-in with. Here I would've made it $800 or $900 to go.

"turn is 4s (brick) crazy guy checks, I decide there is a good chance crazy guy has a small pair and old dude is on a draw and if i can get crazy guy to fold i might win with ace high. so i bet $500"

Once at the turn, checking feels much more confortable to me. Even if your read is perfect you don't know that crazy guy will fold. Painful when you get called by pocket threes. Plus you'll feel obligated to push all-in on the river - really painful to get called by pocket threes then. Seems a setup for rewarding the crazy guy for being crazy. Plus I have no idea what old man has and really don't want to get check-raised.

Matt

[Indian Ocean]

You should of folded on the flop.

You didn't. that's fine. I Like the Turn bet very much.. good bet.

[jen]

> First, the turn bet can only be good if old man was
> holding a hand that limon could beat.

>> This isn't right. Whether the old guy has limon beat
>> or not is irrelevant. All that matters is how limon
>> does viz-a-viz crazy.

You mentioned this in your initial post which I don't agree with. If limon is beaten by the old man, then even if he gets crazy guy off of a better hand, limon still has to hit his hand to win. So lets say that the old man shows limon his hand (and limon knows he's behind) before limon makes his turn decision -- are you still saying that a bet is still correct here when there's no side pot?

> Third, if crazy guy had a worse hand, then the only
> way that betting would have been profitable is if
> crazy guy would've hit his six-outer (in actuality
> three-outer) on the river and limon had all-in beaten.

>> This isn't right. If crazy is behind and calls, limon
>> profits by that.

Certainly, but I'm assuming in my argument that crazy guy is unlikely to call a hand that doesn't beat ace high. The turn bet was designed by limon to make a better hand lay down.

In addition, limon loses $$$ if he bets crazy out of the pot and they both end up hitting (an ace for example or a Qd) on the river.

> The turn bet is bad if crazy is more likely to call
> limon with a better hand than he is to either
> (inclusive) have a worse hand or fold a better hand.

Sure. Considering limon's hand is ace-high (so beating limon is not too difficult and calling with a worse hand is unlikely), then I'd call this turn decision bad. And actually, I don't think it's particularly close.

[tewall]

[ QUOTE ]
You mentioned this in your initial post which I don't agree with. If limon is beaten by the old man, then even if he gets crazy guy off of a better hand, limon still has to hit his hand to win. So lets say that the old man shows limon his hand (and limon knows he's behind) before limon makes his turn decision -- are you still saying that a bet is still correct here when there's no side pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's ahead of crazy, then betting is correct, regardless of what the old man has. If crazy folds, limon may improve to win the pot. If crazy calls, he's a favorite to win the side pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Considering limon's hand is ace-high (so beating limon is not too difficult and calling with a worse hand is unlikely), then I'd call this turn decision bad. And actually, I don't think it's particularly close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say he has a probability of being behind crazy of 3/4, and crazy is 4/15 (about a fourth, but adjusted for happy math) likely to call. That is 2/10 P where P is the size of the pot (assuming he bet the pot, which I think is right, or close) for the negative side of the ledger. Now what's on the plus side?

The plus side is P * (p1 + p2) * 11/15 where p1 is the probability that he is ahead (and stays ahead) of the old man and p2 the probability that he improves to a hand that beats the old man. p2 is about 1/8. Let's say limon is 50/50 on his read that he's ahead of the old man. The the above comes out to a little less than 1/2 P, so the bet would be profitable even not taking into account the times that he actually is ahead of crazy.

These numbers can be played around with, but I don't see how they can be so far off as as to make it "not particularly close", unless you assume that limon's read was way off.

[Ulysses]

Exactly. That's in large part how I thought of this initially.

One wrench in the equation comes from the likelihood of crazy checkraising you all-in and the likelihood of him doing that with a worse hand than yours, hence my initial question to limon. That adds a few more variables to consider, but I still agree w/ you that saying this is "not particularly close" seems odd.

I also disagree w/ part of jen's premise. She points out that the old man called 40 pre-flop and puts some stock in that when putting him on a range of hands - and puts him very narrowly on only two possible worse hands in this spot. However, this is a "very live" game playing "very wild." 7 people saw this flop for 40. I put very little stock in the fact that he called 40 pre-flop. Post-flop, he is getting over 3:1 to call all-in on a 7d9dTc flop. In addition to the hands jen mentions, I think he could do easily do this w/ any flush draw, a hand like Ac8c, any JQ, a hand like KcJc - I could go on.

[jen]

Hey tewall, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I just don't see this as correct.

"If he's ahead of crazy, then betting is correct, regardless of what the old man has."

Of course limon's bet is correct if he's ahead of crazy, but limon doesn't know if he's ahead or not.

The part that I disagree with is this:

"Whether the old guy has limon beat or not is irrelevant."

This implies that the old man could show limon his cards before limon makes a turn decision and the displayed cards wouldn't affect limon's play. Limon doesn't know whether he's ahead or behind crazy. He sees the old man's cards. If limon is ahead of the old man, then there is some value (of course there's a question of how much value) in betting the turn in the hopes of getting crazy to fold a better hand. If limon is behind the old man, then there is no such value. I don't see how old man's hand can then be considered irrelevant, particularly given that this is the strategy that limon was pursuing.

[Math numbers...]

Here are my problems with the fuzzy math:

1. I believe the 4/15 number is much higher. That is, when limon is behind (crazy has a pair or better, he will likely call).

2. There is no accounting for the times that limon gets check-raised.

3. There is no accounting for the loss when limon and crazy both improve but crazy was pushed out of the pot on the turn.

4. I think limon's read of being ahead of the old man is much less than 50/50 (seven players saw the flop, old man called a raise preflop, old man pushed on the flop -- with no tag line that old man was a crazy player).

5. And also... you haven't subtracted the amount that limon wins even if he doesn't bet and it gets checked down from your second number! The first number represents the negative costs of betting; the second number should represent the positive costs of betting (i.e., the amount *over* what limon would win if limon had checked it down).

Given those modifications to your math, the numbers against betting wouldn't be close.

[Ulysses]

3. There is no accounting for the loss when limon and crazy both improve but crazy was pushed out of the pot on the turn.

Related to this is one of my favorite scenarios. When a little diamond comes, before you can figure out how much to bet, crazy goes all-in on a bluff.