This one might be interesting

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

Clark beat me to a response but basically I would've responded to your post that with each new street will come a re-assessment of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think treating each street in a vacuum can possibly be the best way to approach limit holdem.

[skp]

Well, I think that you and Clark/schneids are saying the same thing but coming to different conclusions on the flop play (which is understandable because IMO there is no clear cut flop play).

IMO, you are "playing poker" from the get go. That is, in considering whether to call the flop, you are looking at what is likely to occur on the turn given various cards coming off. That's how poker should be played.

In taking that into account, you might say fold the flop while Clark/Schneids/me would say call the flop and see what happens because from our point of view, it's too early to predict with a high degree of accuracy that our 1 sb call on the flop will turn out to be a negative EV play.

We have reached different conclusions on a close decision. That's all.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

We have reached different conclusions on a close decision. That's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think at any point I said we should fold. I just didn't think most of the analysis on the call side was being done very well.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clark beat me to a response but basically I would've responded to your post that with each new street will come a re-assessment of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think treating each street in a vacuum can possibly be the best way to approach limit holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I've misunderstood Mason I'm pretty sure he advocates there being situations to approach postflop play with this type of one-street-at-a-time mindset.

Mason, are you out there?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Clark beat me to a response but basically I would've responded to your post that with each new street will come a re-assessment of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think treating each street in a vacuum can possibly be the best way to approach limit holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the pot's big sometimes you need to do it, especially in multiway situations where your equity can dramatically increase or decrease based on one card and your equity (in this case 3-4sbs) is too great to fold. I don't know how one could possibly approach this hand any way other than one street at a time unless one knows both the turn card that will come and the opponents' reaction to that turn card.

You may have the best hand, you have outs if not, so you take one off and see what happens. I fail to see why one needs to be prescient in order to continue after the flop.

[skp]

Well, perhaps not 'prescient' but I certainly would be more inclined to call on the flop if the PFR was prone to check the turn quite regularly with overcards. I may also call if the PFR will always bet the turn even with just overcards. But if it's a guy who makes 'poker decisions' as opposed to auto-betting or auto-checking, then I may be less inclined to call the flop (although here I would call as you have enough going for you even if you are up against a not so predictable player).

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
When the pot's big sometimes you need to do it, especially in multiway situations where your equity can dramatically increase or decrease based on one card and your equity (in this case 3-4sbs) is too great to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Paluka here on this. I would certainly call on this flop, but I don't think that Clark is estimating the equity properly here. Just saying that you're ahead 30-40% of the time here doesn't mean that you have 30-40% pot equity... esp in a spot like this where you could easily be up against a combined 15-20 outs if you are in fact ahead on this flop. The pot here is certainly big enough to take one off for only 1 bet, but thats because you're getting 10:1. If your equity truly was 3-4SBs, then you're sayin that you could call 3-4 bets (if the raisers were total LAGs who could raise with any hands that the loose fish here calls with), but I think it would be a pretty clear mistake to even call 2 bets here.

don't you have to look at equity in temrs of how often you'll end up with the best hand? Esp when there's loose players who aren't very likely to fold before the river. Of course you can fold before the river if a bad card hits, but shouldn't a hand like this be considered more of a draw to a weakish hand, sort of like an overcard draw... since you're drawing to make a pair that might win, only here you have a lot more outs (nonscary cards), but your not drawing to a very strong hand. I don't know exaclty how you would translate this into a number of outs, but I'm sure that you could do this fairly accurately if you looked at each of your possible "outs", and then estimated the chances that you'd be ahead when they hit. You'd have to estimate this in the same kind of way as having a backdoor draw, since sometimes you'll fold on the turn, and other times you'll hit the blank, and pick up a stronger draw, so you'll have to put in at least another BB to draw to this hand that will now actually have much closer to the 30-40% equity. Based on the number of opponents, and range of hands they could have, it'd be possible to determine a decent estimate for your number of outs in this spot. Of course if there was a greater chance of gettin the PFR to fold with a CR like this , it would require that you need far less outs in relation to the pot. Just as you could make looser calls to backdoor draws if you feel you'll have a good chance of pulling off a successful semibluff on the turn.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that Clark is estimating the equity properly here. Just saying that you're ahead 30-40% of the time here doesn't mean that you have 30-40% pot equity

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, and I got sloppy with my word choice.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
I don't think that Clark is estimating the equity properly here. Just saying that you're ahead 30-40% of the time here doesn't mean that you have 30-40% pot equity



That's true, and I got sloppy with my word choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I know that you certainly understand pot equity, and I know that it was just a gramatical error mostly, but I was more confused when you went took this:



[ QUOTE ]
I'd put it at close to a 35% of us being in front, maybe more.


[/ QUOTE ]

then seemed to reason that being ahead 35ish % necesarrily implied this:

[ QUOTE ]
But giving up 3-4sbs of equity by folding for 1sb because it's not an easy hand to play is just not the optimal way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

and:

[ QUOTE ]

When the pot's big sometimes you need to do it, especially in multiway situations where your equity can dramatically increase or decrease based on one card and your equity (in this case 3-4sbs) is too great to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again... in this spot its a meaningless arguement that I"m making in the sense that it won't change your choice, but its only b/c in this case the pot is SO BIG in relation to a single bet. However, it seems that thinking that you can just take %chance your ahead, then use that as your pot equity could be problematic in other situations where the pot isn't quite so large (or if you have to call multiple bets)