Should i have taken a different line of play?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
i would tend to put UTG on AK or AJ or AT, less likely other hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean UTG1. UTG would've likely raised preflop with these. I also overestimated his view of my image at the time, obviously. Which is why AJo kinda suprised me. He did not come across as someone who would jam this with me in. I was not alone on the table in being suprised when he turned that hand over. Then there was a conversation on the other side of the table, with MP, about what i had that i'd play like that.

People were getting a little more cautious when i was in, in general. Even though i wasnt winning during the session.

[ QUOTE ]
if i haven't said it, i would say it now. i don't think the flop check is terrible, i just think it isn't a good play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have to check back through the thread, but i think you said it was 'horrible'. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Or maybe that was the other 7 responders who disagreed.

b

[bernie]

Given the implied odds possible, no lower pkt pair is making a mistake calling a bet on the flop. Nor is anyone with a K.

[ QUOTE ]
assuming you are in the lead, the rest of the hands are severely behind, why not let them pay now??

[/ QUOTE ]

Since they may be 'severely' behind, this could be a case for letting them catch a lesser hand/long draw on the turn which may cause them to make a mistake of calling turn bets.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
You are forgetting the impact of their effective odds on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's nice to see someone else bring this to the fray. I was holding off. Not sure why.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
many people will check straight draws and flush draws on the turn here in a big field facing potentially strong hands (4 bets each pre-flop as an indication of hands out there).


[/ QUOTE ]

I was very sure this turn was not going to get checked through. I would've been suprised if it got checked to me here. Which i also factored in in my decision to play to the turn. If these were weaker players who would go into their shell that much, then i'd much more be looking to bet the flop. I wasnt the only aggressor preflop. Remember, i also didnt put the last raise in, so my flop check looks like i missed my hand. Like i 'might' have AK. Or maybe TT/JJ if they're thinking along those lines. They would expect me to bet a high pair in this spot on the button. Wouldn't you expect that?

If you didnt know my hand through the flop, what are you putting me on? How about after the turn?

I expected UTG1 to bet out though, not UTG. Since he's the one who had the last aggression.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the turn bet as being neutral EV. The flop bet is +EV by a mile, which is why I'm in favor of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn bet isn't neutral EV, it's positive. A raise is even more positive.

[ QUOTE ]
but if it's a hand like AJ that picked up a gutshot, this is going to be another near neutral EV call for him, so the benefit to you isn't really that he folds, but that he put in 1 big bet with no gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone picks up a flush draw the gutshot is a 3 outer. If someone bets and i get to raise, their effective odds are blasted quite a bit by putting 2 bets in on a big street. Would the AJ likely call the initial bet if they 'knew' there was a possibility of being raised behind them? Even if a guy had a 5 outer, he wouldnt want to think of paying 2 bets here.

The idea is to make hands fold that may draw out on you, hopefully by making them coldcall, or blasting their odds if they decide to call.

Since we're concentrating on the AJ guy. We know the guy had AJ, what if he had AK? You're not making much off him by betting the flop, then betting the turn. He's right to call a single bet in both cases.

On the flop, even the 7 has odds to call a single bet for a 2 outer + b-door draw with his A being a non-out.

Also notice, i got the max money in, collecting an additional 1.5BBs, when i had the best hand and paid $0 when i was beat.

Im not debating the point of a flop bet being -EV, it's not. Im debating that there are multiple approaches to a hand. Sometimes ya miss and get jacked. Like i did. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

That's one of the things you risk when you play to the turn like this. You cant ever be so sure the turn will be an absolute blank before you try it. Or you never will try it.

b

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the turn bet as being neutral EV. The flop bet is +EV by a mile, which is why I'm in favor of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn bet isn't neutral EV, it's positive. A raise is even more positive.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're absolutely right. I should've said that a bet on the turn is neutral EV for your opponent, therefore it makes no difference to the hero whether or not he calls. So going out of your way to avoid giving him the opportunity to call one bet on the turn doesn't significantly affect your results.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is to make hands fold that may draw out on you, hopefully by making them coldcall, or blasting their odds if they decide to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's correct in theory. But say your opponent needs 100-1 odds to make a call correct, and is getting exactly 100-1 to call (he's going all-in with a call, just to simplify). Even though the pot is enormous (100 bbs!), it would make no difference EV wise if he called or folded. Trying to force him to call 2 cold with have zero effect on our results.

[ QUOTE ]
Also notice, i got the max money in, collecting an additional 1.5BBs, when i had the best hand and paid $0 when i was beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not against the play itself at this point, only one of the justifications for making it. Inducing a bluff gains almost as much as betting out on the flop, so it has something going for it. At this point I'm more interested in the merits of the checking to destroy my opponents odds play, which I think is very much overvalued.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I should've said that a bet on the turn is neutral EV for your opponent, therefore it makes no difference to the hero whether or not he calls. So going out of your way to avoid giving him the opportunity to call one bet on the turn doesn't significantly affect your results.


[/ QUOTE ]

We may be misunderstanding each other here. Any additional bets the opponents have to put in the pot is -EV. It's positive for me. They do not have the right # of players to jam this and gain money on each bet going in.

Going out of my way to get him to possibly put in 2 big bets on 1 street, cutting the effective odds for the street, does affect your results.

[ QUOTE ]
But say your opponent needs 100-1 odds to make a call correct, and is getting exactly 100-1 to call (he's going all-in with a call, just to simplify). Even though the pot is enormous (100 bbs!), it would make no difference EV wise if he called or folded. Trying to force him to call 2 cold with have zero effect on our results.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is different than an all in situation. If he had to call 2 cold, or just 2 bets in general, his odds would be cut to around 50(+)- 1. All in blows his implied odds to make the call worthwhile.

[ QUOTE ]
At this point I'm more interested in the merits of the checking to destroy my opponents odds play, which I think is very much overvalued.

[/ QUOTE ]

Overvalued? Probably. Unusable? No. There's a time to do it. You just have to be comfortable with the risk that a free card presents. Fearing giving a free card isn't the best reason 'not' to try it. You'd never try it otherwise.

b

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
We may be misunderstanding each other here. Any additional bets the opponents have to put in the pot is -EV. It's positive for me. They do not have the right # of players to jam this and gain money on each bet going in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because betting the turn is +EV for you doesn't make calling -EV for your opponent. If he's getting 10-1, and his hand is exactly 10-1 to improve, (and he can't gain another bet on the river for whatever reason), it's neutral EV. Therefore, once you bet, you should be 100% indifferent as to whether or not he calls.

If you cut his odds in half, and he gets 5-1 on a 10-1 shot, if he plays it properly he folds and you gain nothing vs. allowing him to call 1 bet with neutral EV. If he is capable of making a mistake and calling without proper odds, then cutting his odds in half would have an affect.

[ QUOTE ]
This is different than an all in situation. If he had to call 2 cold, or just 2 bets in general, his odds would be cut to around 50(+)- 1. All in blows his implied odds to make the call worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's obviously different to some degree, it was only meant as a way of simplifying the situation, since implied odds are hard to quantify. You're right that cutting his odds in half make the call majorly -EV for him, but if his odds are exactly what he needs to call, nothing more and nothing less, it makes no difference to you if your bet is called in this first place.
[ QUOTE ]
Overvalued? Probably. Unusable? No. There's a time to do it. You just have to be comfortable with the risk that a free card presents. Fearing giving a free card isn't the best reason 'not' to try it. You'd never try it otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me disagreeing with the play has nothing to do with being afraid of a free card.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because betting the turn is +EV for you doesn't make calling -EV for your opponent. If he's getting 10-1, and his hand is exactly 10-1 to improve, (and he can't gain another bet on the river for whatever reason), it's neutral EV. Therefore, once you bet, you should be 100% indifferent as to whether or not he calls.

If you cut his odds in half, and he gets 5-1 on a 10-1 shot, if he plays it properly he folds and you gain nothing vs. allowing him to call 1 bet with neutral EV. If he is capable of making a mistake and calling without proper odds, then cutting his odds in half would have an affect.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know he has the pot odds to call. It's each additional bet he has to put in that hurts him, effectively. If he calls 1 bet, then the raise later on, that's where the effective odds are now blown for him. He not only has to gain 5-1, but 5 double bets, effectively, not 5 single bets. Make sense? Not sure if i presented that right.

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that cutting his odds in half make the call majorly -EV for him, but if his odds are exactly what he needs to call, nothing more and nothing less, it makes no difference to you if your bet is called in this first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's calling an extra bet, then his hand is relying on implied odds a bit, which he would have none to gain since he's all in.

[ QUOTE ]
Me disagreeing with the play has nothing to do with being afraid of a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasnt singling you out, just making a general statement about some echoes in the thread about giving the free card.

Fun thread! Thanks for the discussion, guys.

And WOW! No insults were flying, no pissing contests!!!! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

It's nice to know it's possible. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

b