Different styles for BB defens

[waffle]

If the PFR has the worst hand in position, and you are going to raise him when he bets, betting the flop is -EV. He may not "KNOW" you're going to raise, but the flop bet is still -EV. Calling the raise is NOT a mistake, and I never said it was "even more of a mistake", but the inital flop bet is. A common concept is that your odds may not be as good as they seem if you fear a raise later in the betting round. This idea is what I am getting at. Drawing odds wise, what's the difference between the BB betting 2 SB, and the PFR calling, from the situation where the BB check raises the PFR? 2 bets go in either way, yet you would argue that the PFR only makes a mistake in the first situation.

Basically, every bet that he puts in to the flop with the worse hand is costing him money. So why not c/r?

[Rubeskies]

Naphand,

One important concept I think you're missing is the fact that our opponent will not have 2 overcards or a strong draw like a flush or straight draw every single time. People often steal with tiny pocket pairs, Ax such as A2-6 and Kxs and they are often correct to do so.

So we must take into account the times our opponent steals with a hand like that, you check/raise, and then he calls flop and turn bets incorrectly because he thinks you're bluffing and wants to hit something to show down on you, drawing to something like 3 or 2 outs.

[Fiddler]

Sounds to me like people are forgetting that the stealer with overcards doesn't know that he will be check-raised. Even if he knew a specific defender to always check-raise if he hit any pair at all he is on average betting somewhere around 1.35SB to either fold the defender at once or hit one of his overs on the turn. Draws obviously complicate things more...

[naphand]

I was not missing this, at least in a temporal sense, I was hoping the discussion would develop to include the things you have put down here as they obviously form part of an overall understanding of how to play HU blind defence. I chose a specific example to challenge the CR line as the "best" response. Of course there are other situations that must be considered, I did not want to make a post of Vedic proportions (on the other hand if...and if X does...on the other hand...etc.). You know how the trouble I have with short posts...[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

If we look at different situations and perceive that two or more plays have little difference EV-wise, or if one is clearly better then life is easy. But this is not what happens, in certain spots we need to exercise good judgement. By not discussing specifics we do not develop the depth of understanding of how each play can be used effectively according to our reads or the particular game, or the implications of choosing one play over another. Not understanding the implications of decisions we take at the table is a recipe for stagnation and confusion in terms of ability.

"Taking into account" can mean "take the best average" or it can mean "based on my reads of this player". Not the same thing at all. I was hoping we could avoid a "best average" line and really get into implications... [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[tolbiny]

"If your opponent has correct odds to call, it means he is in a +EV situation when he calls. In a HU pot when one player has a +EV bet or call, where is that EV coming from? How can both players be in a +EV situation? If you can find a game like this then please let me know."

The situation only applies when two players are betting and there is no pot. In this case you are each vying for your share of what is in the pot, so both players can make thoeretically +ev plays. The -ev play that allows for multiple +ev plays by both players is the posting of the blinds.

[ctv1116]

[ QUOTE ]
It should be clear from the above that if opponent has the correct odds to draw you are not taking any money off him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement is incorrect. If you have the best hand on the flop with overcards, you are taking money away from the PFR for every bet which gets thrown in because you have pot equity. On the flop the % next to your name when you make a pair vs. overcards is roughly 70-75%. Even though the PFR has pot odds to call all the way to the river, for those bets that are being thrown in on the flop and turn, you'll be winning 70-75% of the money put in on the flop and turn, which is what you want. While it is not a mistake for the PFR to call your flop C/R and turn bet BECAUSE HE HAS TO CHASE THE DEAD MONEY FROM PREFLOP, failing to force the PFR to throw in money as a 75/25 dog is even a larger mistake because you are not putting in bets when you have the best of it.

I'm pretty sure this analysis is correct, although I have a feeling we may be discussing two different topics.

[naphand]

For the hand in question we have a PFR raisor and a BB defender. The dead money in the pot is the SB. If the blinds were out and two other players were vying for the blind money then what you say would be correct. In this spot there is little dead money, and it will be likely gobbled up by the rake.

[chief444]

Naphand,

I didn't mean to offend you which I obviously did. I apologize if my post came across as condescending. I thought I'd start posting some more in this foum since I've been playing some 6-max lately and believe me the last thing I want to do is start off by offending some of the better posters.

As Tolbiny already pointed out, the pot makes calling as an underdog a +EV call at times for your opponent but that does not mean you don't make money on bets going in on that street if you're the favorite. You're opponent's EV would be higher if he's an underdog and gets to see the next card for free.

Chief

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like people are forgetting that the stealer with overcards doesn't know that he will be check-raised. Even if he knew a specific defender to always check-raise if he hit any pair at all he is on average betting somewhere around 1.35SB to either fold the defender at once or hit one of his overs on the turn. Draws obviously complicate things more...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm just saying it seems to me that the best line here is basically whatever line gets the most money in the pot when you likely hold the best hand. I'm not saying the opponent, those times he does hold just overcards, is playing the hand incorrectly since he doesn't know what we hold. But since we do know what we hold and we know we're pretty likely ahead on this flop choosing a line that gets the most money in the pot seems best. In other words, if the opponent were so aggressive that I was sure he would always raise overcards than betting would probably be better and either 3-betting the flop or check/raising most turn cards if he would bet overcards again.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
Jeezaz, I don't know why I bothered posting again. Perhaps it is better to stick to e-mail discussions, at least that way I don't have to answer posts as desperately stultifying as this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts are extremely valuable and I very much appreciate them. I hope you continue to post here.

Cartman