On the Edge - IX

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]


He obviously COULD have any of the two hands you mentioned, but seeing as how he'd already raised 64o, I assumed that 54o would likewise be raised; likewise, 92s in regards to J2s.

His check-raise COULD have been that, I guess, but from what I saw up to that point (and saw after the hand in question, and have seen since, as a matter of fact), in these spots, he check-raises draws and bets out on bluffs and "made" hands.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine enough. I just think you were too quick to dismiss those types of hands and automatically assume you were ahead. If he's as tricky as you say he is, then he's likely to change up his game occasionally as well.

[StellarWind]

If one assumes the reads given are 100% correct (as the author apparently does) then Hero misplayed the hand.

The narrative makes it clear that queen-high is the best hand after Villain checkraises the flop. Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down. His hand may still be good and he has many potential outs. But if the board pairs or a high card hits Hero is in the clear and can raise for protection/value. Obviously this also works well if Hero makes his hand on the turn.

As the hand was actually played folding the river does not merit the slightest consideration because you appear to have the best hand. Most of the time the raise will only succeed in folding out a worse hand. That's actually a very good thing because showing Q6o could be very expensive. A real wake-up call for both the tight blinds and the predictable Villain.

If Hero really has folding chances against an occasional trash four then the river raise may be good. Certainly the pot odds are there for taking a risk. But the author might have at least noticed that the river completes the wheel. Based on the article I would say that 32o is the single most likely hand for Villain to have.

[kidcolin]

I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

What's your plan if he doesn't fire at the river? Bet, I assume?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a very good point and I definitely don't think it would've been bad to do just that. And perhaps it would've been the better play. The reason I didn't go this way is that I couldn't have the river option that I did.

So on the flop, I bet, he CRs, I call, on the turn he bets, I raise, and now he...

(1) folds. Perfect. And this might've happened.

(2) calls. Now there is trouble. I've been thinking about how people sometimes feel "invested" in a pot, and it has psychological ramifications, but it's something like this: some people when they get raised on the turn almost take it as an affront and will call, and then check-call the river (especially in the fear in my article that somewhere along the line he picked up bottom / near bottom pair). If only to get satisfaction to see what I'm raising with. By doing it on the flop, while I'm sacrificing .5 BB (1 SB on the flop vs. 1 BB with the raise on the turn), I don't think you get people as invested as it's much more common.

This has NOTHING to do with my article, by the way, as I didn't make this part of the narrative, even though it was part of my thinking and is in these situations, and I certainly haven't worked out the theory enough to make it fit correctly, but, again, the turn raise is obviously a great play and a lot of times with another situation I would call the flop and then raise the turn, but I wanted the chance of blowing him off his hand IF he caught a piece, and I think (right or wrong) that you get people "invested" sometimes with those turn raises and then they call out of frustration / table image / whatever and then check-call the river.

I could go on ... but maybe you see the point as to why I went my way and not another, as I didn't mind that .5BB since I thought it would increase my chances at the pot.


[ QUOTE ]

What's your plan if he doesn't fire at the river? Bet, I assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

By the way, Despot had a good post above as to another reason to go with my line:

[ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm with SW on this one. Given your read, it makes much more sense to wait and pop the turn then 3-bet the flop. Your equity isn't that great. Waiting for the turn allows you to:

1. Evaluate the turn card. a likely kills your hand, and non-paint non-straight completing cards should give you a little concern.

2. Represent greater strength. The flop call turn raise sets off alarms in just about everyone's head. Now he may have a harder time showing down a hand like 43o. Your flop 3-bet could very well just be overs with a


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This is a very good point and I definitely don't think it would've been bad to do just that. And perhaps it would've been the better play. The reason I didn't go this way is that I couldn't have the river option that I did.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, but this logic is a little fuzzy.

How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did?

[ QUOTE ]
So on the flop, I bet, he CRs, I call, on the turn he bets, I raise, and now he...

(1) folds. Perfect. And this might've happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said that he checkraises draws and bets out his bluffs and made hands. If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all.


[ QUOTE ]
(2) calls. Now there is trouble. I've been thinking about how people sometimes feel "invested" in a pot, and it has psychological ramifications, but it's something like this: some people when they get raised on the turn almost take it as an affront and will call, and then check-call the river (especially in the fear in my article that somewhere along the line he picked up bottom / near bottom pair). If only to get satisfaction to see what I'm raising with. By doing it on the flop, while I'm sacrificing .5 BB (1 SB on the flop vs. 1 BB with the raise on the turn), I don't think you get people as invested as it's much more common.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does this matter? He has a draw. And FWIW, there are many opponents (especially if you have a tight ABC image, which you said you had) that will fold to turn raises. In future articles which seem to be totally based on reads, I suggest that you make a complete outline of his reads, so this won't be confused later when discussing your article.

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, Despot had a good post above as to another reason to go with my line:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry but StellarWind is correct and Despot is wrong.

If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you?

The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

How did you KNOW that you could raise the river when the flop action came out, especially after you 3-bet it and bet the turn? Could you honestly expect him to bet the river so you could "have the river option that [you] did?

[/ QUOTE ]


I didn't. Nor did I say that I did. I said "option": if I raise the turn, he invariably goes into check-call or -fold mode on the river. While maybe not likely, his bet out on the river is far more possible with this line than the other. So it's an "option," not a "likelihood."


[ QUOTE ]


If he has a draw, there is no way he is folding. At all.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agreed. He probably doesn't. But it's not a 100% call. (Close, perhaps, but fold is an option that he might take IF he just decides to give up.)


[ QUOTE ]

I suggest that you make a complete outline of his reads, so this won't be confused later when discussing your article.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a good idea. I notice in the article guidelines they've upped it to 1-2,000 words so, if/when I decide on a new article series for 2006, and if 2+2 likes it enough to publish it, and if it is as read-based, I will be more thorough in this regard (same with the additions I would make to OTE 8-type article with the hindsight of the discussion last month).

[ QUOTE ]

If you 3-bet the flop, exactly how do you plan on raising a scare card turn lead from the villian when almost all players will check the turn to you?

[/ QUOTE ]


You obviously can't raise if he doesn't bet out, but he doesn't always just check, he may bet out (again, it's an option, not a likelihood).


[ QUOTE ]

The second line about calling down with Q-high will only pay off Tony's better hands (i.e. a pair) doesn't make any sense at all. I thought that the fact that he must only have a draw on the flop was the key part to your article. Then how is he suddenly having a better hand then you?

[/ QUOTE ]



Stepping back from the article.

You hold: 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

The board is A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Your hand is basically a drawing hand even if you do have a pair of 6's.

The river is a J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

And now you are facing a bet. Or you bet out on the scare card and you're raised.

See?


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[ QUOTE ]
Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree here Stellar. If Barron's read is that Tony is c/ring a draw, then three-betting the flop is much better. By 3-betting the flop, you can bet any non-heart turn and river, and raise any scare card donk. If you try "calling down" with queen-high, all you're going to do is pay off Tony's better hands as he proceeds to jam any pair to the river. The only way you make money is when Tony jams a busted flush to the river and you call with a better nothing hand. This happens pretty rarely, since Tony may well check-fold the river UI.

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]

The narrative makes it clear that queen-high is the best hand after Villain checkraises the flop. Hero should call the flop checkraise and wait for the autobet on the turn. If a heart or a new small card hits then Hero is in trouble and should call down. His hand may still be good and he has many potential outs. But if the board pairs or a high card hits Hero is in the clear and can raise for protection/value

[/ QUOTE ]

My thoughts exactly.

[poincaraux]

I did some weighted EV calcs for the last article. They were a pain to do, but I think they answered most of my questions. Anyone want to do them here? Like last time, I'm interested in the strength of BVGTs read at various points in the hand and how he quantifies that strength. Tony's range is bigger than Frank's, so maybe someone just wants to do back-of-the-envelope calculations. Or, maybe this hand isn't as interesting as the last one.

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)

Hand 1: 64.7629 % 63.99% 00.77% { Qd6s }
Hand 2: 35.2371 % 34.46% 00.77% { T7o-T2o, 96o-92o, 85o-82o, 74o-72o, 63o-62o, 52o }

--------------------------------

Board: 7h 5h 4h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)

Hand 1: 48.7463 % 44.84% 03.91% { Qd6s }
Hand 2: 51.2537 % 47.34% 03.91% { T7o-T2o, 96o-92o, 85o-82o, 74o-72o, 63o-62o, 52o }

etc.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
I did some weighted EV calcs for the last article. They were a pain to do, but I think they answered most of my questions. Anyone want to do them here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've thought about this a little more, and I don't think that those would be as interesting here as in the last thread. Who knows, though .. it's always interesting to take something like this and see how far you have to perturb hand-ranges/read-strengths before the right play changes.