Different styles for BB defens

[naphand]

OK, you skim read my post. I already stated this above in my ramble.

[tallstack]

Here is my take on the situation you describe, the PFR with 25% equity and he bets and gets check-raised on the flop.

At the start of the flop round there is 2.25BB in the pot. The BB defender checks and the PFR has the choice to bet or check behind. If he checks behind he retains 25% equity in the pot (.5625BB equity). If he bets and is raised then he has the choice to call, fold or re-raise. If we neglect the re-raise then he can fold for 0 equity or call for 25% equity in a pot that is now 4.25BB after his call. His equity after calling is now 1.0625BB. Clearly he should call .5BB to retain 1.0625BB of equity.

If we look at the flop betting as a whole, the PFR put in 1BB and increased his equity by .5BB. The BB defender put in 1BB and increased his equity by 1.5BB. The net result is that the flop betting cost the PFR .5BB. It is in his interest to keep the betting to as little as possible, and he must have made a FTOP mistake by opening the betting in the first place. That said though, his call of the re-raise did take money from the BB defender (relative to folding instead). The equity for the BB defender is 3.1875BB when the PFR calls and would have been 3.75BB if the PFR would have folded.

From the BB defender's point of view it is correct for him to raise since his equity in calling would have been 75% of 3.25BB (2.4375BB). By raising he spends .5BB and increases his equity to 3.75BB if PFR folds or to 3.1875BB if PFR calls. Either scenario makes him money on his raise.

The PFR's call of the raise does cost the BB defender money, but it does not mean that the previous action by the BB defender was a mistake. It just means that the BB defender would have made even more money on his raise if the PFR folded instead. As others have posted, both players having +EV options must be due to the money already in the pot.

I hope that I have correctly analysed this situation, and I am sure that someone will let me know if I haven't. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Dave

[kiddo]

Anyway, the reason I checkraise is because otherwise aggressive guys will run me over every time I check from BB.

[waffle]

In a heads-up pot as you described, you are correct, the rake is going to eat up the 'dead money' that comes from the small blind. How can the PFR make profitable calls then, where does the profit come from? The answer is that the PFR is making back some of the money he put into the pot on previous streets (in error). He is making some money back (which means this individual play is profitable), but he is not recovering his entire original investment (this is why the effective odds show the play to be unprofitable). In other words, even though the immediate odds on a play might be profitable (calling the c/r), it does not mean the effective odds for the play are profitable (checking through the flop as a 20% dog is much better than being checkraised and calling this c/r). Think more about _effective_ odds instead of _immediate_ odds.

[naphand]

So what you are actually saying is, the profitability of calling becomes progressively less with each subsequent bet?

You can argue that making less profit is losing money, and this is true, but less profit is not the same as making a loss. If it is profitable to call, then it is profitable to call. If there were a lot of streets to call on, then the "profit" would actually start to look like "recovering losses made on earlier streets". PFR has two streets to call on when drawing, the Flop and the Turn, and with a flop CR and call on the Turn that is a net loss of 0.75 BB (see other post). Given the blind money and PFR's "hypothetical profit" pre-flop, he is still ahead of the game. Further, taking into account that PFRs flop bet is long-term profit maker, then the Flop "loss" is not a loss at all. We are left with the Turn call as the only long-term net loser (of 0.5 BB), and given the right pot odds, is an easy call for profit.

[Festis]

Kiddo I understand that you feel that you cheacks means that you have nothing. But what do you feel about betting out with pairs, draws and some bluffs and cheackraising you pairs that have kicker that maybe conterfit his outs.

How to play stronger hands must depend alot on how aggressive the other player and how likely hi is to have hit something.

I think this is correct anyway. My only qustion is if you agree that it's more likely to win the pot at the flop if you bet out instead of cheackraising. If this is true then we need to be able to bet out as bluff or with weak hands. And to be able to do that we need to have hands sometimes too.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
PFR is making back some of the money he put into the pot on previous streets...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. PFR did not put bets in pre-flop "in error", he correctly raised with the best hand. He had a hypothetical profit pre-flop due to his equity over defender. The flop changes that, but it does not make his actions pre-flop incorrect. So on the flop there are no "previous streets...in error".

Instead of the blind money, there is now the pot. Pre-flop PFR had the biggest slice, now he has the smaller portion, but a portion nonetheless and depending on the size of the pot, 25% of the post-flop pot may be more than 60% of the pre-flop blinds in terms of $$ and certainly more than 0.5 BB (his flop bet and call of the CR is 1 BB plus defenders CR of 1 BB, for 2 BB total, 25% equity of 2 BB is 0.5 BB).

Effective odds and immediate odds are only relevant where you are considering seeing the River and are facing a flop call (1 SB) and Turn call (1 BB) and looking at the odds of making your hand with 2 cards to come. This is dealt with in TOP/HFAP so I do not need to repeat. Immediate odds are very relevant when you are calling to see 1 more card only, and that is what I used. They are less favourable than effective odds. If PFR is definitely calling to the River, his effective odds are better than his immediate odds, as the flop call is smaller. It may be PFR can see he will not have odds to call the Turn, but can take one more card off. There is nothing wrong with this approach, it is not incorrect at all.

Checking the flop may not look good here, but as a long-term play is is very wrong to check in this spot, and PFR knows this. He is not checking behind unless the board is really scary or he has some very good reason to believe he is behind, unlikely in a HU confrontation.

[waffle]

You are correct, my reasoning w/ "error on previous streets" is faulty. I also agree that PFR is not checking the flop as a long-term play, that'd be stupid. I am just arguing that it is a TOP mistake (it would be a mistake to bet if you knew his cards).

In the case where the BB c/rs the flop:

My statement with effective odds is that you CAN apply it with only one card to come, if you lump the bet and the raise together on the flop. Effectively, the BB is betting 2SB and the PFR is calling the 2SB on the flop, drawing to overcards. Surely you must agree that the PFR is making a mistake, as by paying 2SB to draw to overcards, he is getting the wrong price.

[naphand]

Looks good to me. Went over it twice and numbers look OK.

If PFRs hand pre-flop was ATo and Defender was 97s PFr has a 60:40 equity advantage over the 2.25 BB pot generated, or 1.35 BB. The deal of the cards did massive damage to his position, but not knowing that and subsequently betting (TOP mostake) he is still in position to call the CR profitably. As the flop bet is a long-term +EV move, it is clearly correct (generally, not specifically) for him to bet the flop without knowing Defender's cards.

And so to the Turn...(later maybe).

The real question is how Defender reads PFR. His strategy should be based on getting the most $$ from PFR based on whether PFR folds the Turn, sees the River, will raise the Flop etc. and mentioned in another post.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
With sufficient $$ in the pot for PFR to call and profit from calling, he is not losing money on any given call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is correct. The underdog IS actually losing money with every additional dollar that goes into the pot, even if he has sufficient pot odds to make calling correct. This example will hopefully clear it up.

Lets say before we act on the turn there are 9 big bets in the pot. You have a diamond flush draw with no pair and no outs to a straight. I have an overpair with no diamond. You have precisely 9 out of 46 chance to river a winner (assuming you can't see my cards). I bet, bringing the pot to 10 big bets. You are getting 10 to 1 odds on your call, very clearly enough for a 9 out draw. Despite the correctness of it, you still actually LOSE, on average, .609 of a Big Bet (37/46 - 9/46) when you call. That money goes straight into my pocket. In a 10/20 game you would be better off by $12.18 if I hadn't bet. Your loss is a worthwhile investment, however, because in exchange for losing that $12.18 you gained a 9 out of 46 shot at an 11 big bet reward (assuming I check-call the river if a diamond hits). That 9 out of 46 chance is worth (on average) $43.04. You made a good decision because you net (on average) a gain of $30.86, but you still LOST $12.18 to me when you called my turn bet.

Unless you and your opponent both have precisely 50% chance of winning the hand at the time of the betting round (i.e. there is no favorite or underdog), the underdog loses money to the favorite with every single additional dollar that goes into the pot.

Cartman