Overplayed?

[elysium]

hi coil
ever notice how often tommy is involved in check-arounds after he checks with a hand he doesn't intend to check-raise? this is so because solid opponents create weak/ passive conditions whenever they are involved in a hand. if you are up against one these very solid types, you don't go charging in like a bull if your hand can improve. there is usually a better chance than usual that if the solid checks, the opponents between you and the button will also check. this is true even if the opponents from you to the button are unknowns. the unknowns in the higher limits can tell when a player in the field is getting respect.

on the flop, you should check for a free-card that will allow your suited A to improve. if your A or K wasn't suited, then you should bet to try and get heads-up.

the raise on the turn is correct. solid opponents will rarely 3-bet in this spot without the A of suit with a completed flush on board. this brings us back to why checking the flop is correct. there is a reasonable chance that a card will come off that will enable you to go for the fold without the risk of getting raised. if checked to, you would check it along, opting to improve. what will more than likely happen is that the solid will bet, giving you a chance to make a drive-out raise. but if it's checked to you, you shouldn't bet because now the button will likely call or raise which ruins your ability to get tactical because his involvement provides a mathematical safe haven in which you can safely avoid a nasty fight and instead allow the river to bring in the heavy munitions. well, that doesn't happen. the BB bets out, and you raise to take it down right there. and that is correct.

oh boy, goofed. forgot the button folded on the flop. i'm leaving the hypothetical button proposition in the thread here so that you can see how, should the BB fail to bet, you revert to a mathematical solution rather than making a play for it, since you are not in position to give making a play against the button's action a higher ev event than allowing an ev positive evolution to the nuts. you are ahead of numbers in both instances, it's just that had our hypothetical button bet when you checked, the mathematics of ev are so positive that keeping the numbers tweeked supersedes any play made designed to fold-out. that's not the case here though. you're heads up. the ev+ is there, but it's not optimal. you have a hand that might be ahead of your opponent's a sub-optimal number of times, so how your raise impacts your ev is uncertain, and there is some chance your opponent has the same hand that you do without a redraw. furthermore, there is some chance that he will call with a couple hands that you can beat.

when you are playing a very solid opponent and you are in position with a made hand, you terminate the battle on the river unless you will 3-bet a possible check-raise. he will fold many hands that you beat, but will check-raise only with hands that can be reraised by second nut type. you aren't getting value therefore when you bet into this opponent after he checks. he won't call. these type opponents are notorious for laying it down on the river when beaten. and no, you do not try to fold-out on the river when only a hand that you beat will fold. the only reason to bet at your strength would be for value. we hear a lot about what value bets are. lots of speculation. well you can stop speculating. a value bet is any bet that will be called. do you think your bet will be called? then you have a value bet. if you make a value bet but your opponent folds, you may have thunk it was a value bet, but as it turned out, your hand had no value. the weight of your chips had value though of exactly one pot. however, in order to extract this value, you had to do the manual thing and physically lift and by some crude manuever or other physically propell or manuever the chips across the betting line. you therefore made a value play. we say made a play. 'i tried to make a value bet, but my opponent folded.' not 'i made a value bet, and my opponent folded.'. this guy's going to fold so many hands that you beat, on the river you do not have a value betting opportunity with high enough expectation. it's ev-.

do you understand why you do not have a value bet against this opponent? is it clear now that on the river, in this situation and against this opponent type, unless you have a second nut type hand, you are lacking the proper minimum number of possible hands that you can beat and with which your opponent will call? what is the minimum number of hands? i don't know, but i'd like to think that figure would be higher than the ones he will call me down with that i can't beat, by like 1 3/4 to 1 or so.

if you make what you think is a value bet, and your opponent raises, your value bet terminates and no longer exists at the point of the raise. well, that's not entirely true. it actually goes dormant. if you call the raise and your opponent shows down a hand you beat, that doesn't bring your value hand back to life. when you called the raise, your opponent didn't have a sufficient number of hands that you beat that he would call you down with had you instead reraised. or he had too many hands that you couldn't beat that he raised with. both concepts are the same. both remove any betting value from your hand. you might have pot odds to make the call, but that doesn't restore your value bet. in first position, if you bet out on the river into your opponent because you are getting great pot odds, you do not have a value bet. if you doubt this, ask, 'when i bet but before my opponent acts, do i want him to call (will he call?) or do i want him to fold?'. obviously, anytime you are getting great pot odds, you don't want your opponent to call. his call lowers your pot odds. whenever you are getting great pot odds, you want your opponent to fold 100% of the time. therefore, 100% of the time you must physically make some manual hoisting manuever designed to extract the value of one pot out of a bets worth of chips. you are making a play hoping your opponent folds 100% of the time.

on the river here, you are not getting correct pot odds to make betting correct because the pot odds you are getting by betting don't improve over the pot odds you are getting by showing down. the risk of diminishing pot odds also needs to be considered, and in this example, the risk of diminishing your pot odds is greater than the risk enhancing them. this is why you should only make value bets from LP on the river, unless a bet will enhance your pot odds due to the liklihood of folding your opponent out while not suffering a raise or reraise. if you don't plan to call the raise, that would lend toward the side of the scale favoring betting. in this hand, you plan to call his raise. that tends toward not betting.

this is why, from last position, you should not bet unless you are willing to 3-bet a possible check-raise. the 3-bet of course would be a resurrected dormant value bet, now full of life again.

[andyfox]

"on the flop, you should check"

I strongly disagree with this. Why let J-T and the like get a free card here?

[andyfox]

I think you gotta call and expect to lose most of the time. You're getting 13.5:1 (or so).

I don't think you overplayed your hand. Since he check-raised the flop, and appears to be a solid player, a 5 is not likely. It's a bit worrisome when the K of trump appears on the turn and he still bets, but I think his most likely hand is still a pocket pair between K and 5.

Good seeing you again.

Regards,
Andy

[Steve Giufre]

Elysium,

If you think Coilean was correct to raise the turn, then why don't you think he has a value bet on the river? Do you think the BB is calling the turn because he has a spade in his hand, and is planning on laying down if he doesnt improve? I think if you feel Coilean's hand is strong enough to raise the turn, then I don't see how you dont think there is value to betting the river. If BB has a pocket pair with a spade, 77-JJ, I think he is gonna pay off the end bet since the pot is so large, and because of the number of moves that are made in that game. My first thought was that the BB had a pocket pair, and would probably bet and fold to a raise on the turn. But when he calls the raise, I would expect him to pay off on the river, unless he holds 67 in which case he check folds when he misses. But looking at the flop play, it sure looks like he's trying to limit the field, so i think 88 is a little more likely than 67. Either way I'd have called the river.

[skp]

Undoubtedly, this post has a nugget or two in it but it sure would be nice to see a Coles notes version of it..heh

[elysium]

hi andy
coil avoids the check-raise by the over-pair while allowing his hand to improve. but wow andy. i haven't heard from you for a while. i must be getting good at this (lol). he's got a big over-pair. coils A can pick-up some fire power. there's some possibility of getting a turn fold if the solid checks the turn.

i would agree andy that if coil didn't have a possible improvement to this particular situation; a solid draw to the nuts, getting checked to on the turn; then the merits of betting rather than allowing the improvement to occur make sense. here though, against the back-drop of the solid's scarry check, whew.....everyone got on the band wagon about J.A.'s post in which he has TT on a similar board and gets raised on the turn. everyone advised that he fold. there, i was unaware that his opponent was passive and rarely raised without the goods, but folding even then seemed o.k.,...i would fold in that spot....but there just seemed like there was some doubt about this J.A. opponent's passivity. J.A. must have had a clue. he called him a 'bad' opponent.

this one here is worse, though; worse even than J.A.'s assuming a passive. unless i have a hand with little hope of improvement, i keep outside the solid's reach. coil is stepping into this guy. i don't like it andy. the river in this one is....whew. andy i'm trying to kick these 2+2 'ers in gear. did you see josh w.'s post? andy, often i think i post here just so that i myself can improve my understanding about this game. i'd estimate that 99% of everything i post is stuff i make up as i evaluate the hand. i write it, reread it, and it sticks. at the table i had difficulty stopping myself from betting on the river in spots that i shouldn't have been, so i posted when to bet and when not to many, many times. but i still see that everyone is still betting whimsically hither and yon, not only at the river, but throughout the entire hand.

i have a lot of difficulty against solids occasionally. the difficulty comes when i attack at their strong points. you develop a sense for when to attack after a while. coil is attacking this solid on the solid's home turf, and the solid wallops coil throughout this hand.

i want better conditions in this spot andy. i've learned that avoiding conventional strategy against EP solids when they are roosting on their home turf, and selecting a better setting to do battle, brings home the money. but this example, although hard to see at first, is a prime example of solid opponent situation in need of unconventional and very cautious strategy.

[Steve Giufre]

I think I have to go back and get my degree before I read anymore of Elysium's posts. Either that or I have go back and unlearn anything I picked up whle I was there. I'm not sure which.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Coilean:

My only comment is that in the higher limit games many players are use to being semi-bluffed on the turn when a scare card comes. If that's the case, they are much less likely to fold which means that you should be less likely to try this sort of play. Of course if you never make this type of play you become to predictable. So you need to pick your opponents well.

Now I wasn't there and of course would be unable to make an on the spot decision here. But this might be something you want to think about in the future.

best wishes,
Mason

[J_V]

[ QUOTE ]
I raise despite a nagging feeling that I should just call

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Coilean:

My only comment is that in the higher limit games many players are use to being semi-bluffed on the turn when a scare card comes. If that's the case, they are much less likely to fold which means that you should be less likely to try this sort of play. Of course if you never make this type of play you become to predictable. So you need to pick your opponents well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking about something similar to this the other day. I've played in that 80 game maybe a dozen times, and it seems there are far more moves in this game than there are in the Commerce 30 or 40. However, everyone in that game is so paranoid about being bluffed, most players routinely pay off with thier decent hands when raised on a big betting steet.

Everybody seems to want to send the message that they wont be pushed around. So why is it that the number of moves in this game remains so high even though the average player refuses to lay down? I would think the value of semi bluffing the turn in this game should go way down, because the other player seems to be very aware that he will be getting raised by a worse hand quite a bit of the time. But they keep right on doing it. It dont make no sense.