Flop

[Lmn55d]

your language is kind of confusing me. Neither raising or calling is really a mistake unless they're compared to each other. In other words both raising and calling has a positive EV in this spot, but one has a higher EV than the other.

The benefit or raising is basically (the benefit of the raise to your chances of winning) x (the frequency that you will be able to get this benefit) - (the cost of raising)(the frequency that it will be costly, ie losing multiple Small bets on flop)

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't need anywhere near 100% pot equity and you know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not and I did not mean to suggest that. I only responded because of your 1 Sb v. 13 SB comparison which I thought was too much. When you give that comparison the numbers are so different that it doesn't look close which I believe it is. Even if you are right and I am wrong and you, on average, increase your pot equity enough to justify raising v. calling th edifference isn't 12 SBs. I know you know that but your post seemed to say otherwise. That is all I was trying to say, not that you shouldn't raise unless it gives you 100% equity.

Here is an example. I am obviously making up numbers but say you have 20% equity on the flop here and a raise will, due to other people folding, sometimes getting a free card, etc. raise your equity to 30% one-half the time. The other half you cost yourself .8 of a SB. Well then raising is better than caling. But it is better to the tune of about .25SBS (50% x 1.3 SBs (increase in PE from 20% to 30%) - 50% x 0.8). Well you should raise but the mistake of not raising is not that great. Still you should raise. Of course, you can come up with assumptions that make PE increase much more and a raise loks even better. Or assumption where the difference in PE is not as great, or in which the cost of raising is higher (i.e., the original bettor three-bets sometimes), and raising does not look as good.

[Lmn55d]

yea this is basically what i was trying to say but said much better.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The pot is 13 BBs already and I want to see a river card even with overcards in all likelihood. I don't need a bet/checkraise in behind me on the turn if it's a J and someone spikes his JT/KJ that were both correctly drawing on the flop for 1 SB. Remember that if I can sufficiently narrow the field, cards like Ks and Js can become bluffing outs for me. Additionally that leads into:
Board texture. Few draws so more likely I narrow the field quite a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have called. And I don't know what's best.

But these are really good arguments for a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as it's dick-sucking time, I'd like to join in by saying that I thought that raising to prevent a turn checkraise is a great idea!

I'm mildly curious about how often overcards are going to fold, though.

[DavidC]

Just throwing something out here.

Someone said that a flop raise screams "overpair!", but to whom? The button and the flop bettor. I mean, everyone else will hear the screams, but they won't really react to them.

Also, someone said:

[ QUOTE ]
Yopu accomodate his plan by raising the field with, what he will assume probabilistically is overcards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd argue that when you raise, the probability becomes more likely that you have an overpair than overcards.

[NickRegino]

I call you have 2 over hit back door nut flush draw, if no H or A or Q comes I just let it go.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read over most of the replies here but this seems like a straightforward raise. If you call you're laying 14.5:1, if you raise you're laying 15.5:2.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we can really look at it this way, because as soon as on person calls, the pot gets bigger, and bigger, and they all sort of reinforce eachother's odds, unless you factor in the possibility of raises and caps...

Given that there are some bad players in this group, I think someone could safely peel a gutshot if they had a strong read that the original bettor wasn't going to three-bet.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, if you raise it's looking like you should check almost any non Ace or Queen turn so you're actually getting a "free" card the times you pick up a draw on the turn and the pot is still multiway.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Any chance you could explain why?

Edit: Maybe take a free showdown, but definitely bet the turn, IMHO.

[ QUOTE ]

I think people forget that if raising is a mistake, it's typically only a mistake by some fraction of a small bet, whereas if calling is a mistake it is potentially one that can cost you the fraction of the entire pot which would have been your increase in equity in that pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]

I want bluffing outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say he calls you on the flop, then donkbets the turn on a K.

Do you raise, then bet the river on basically any card?

What do you think your chance will be of winning in this case?

How about if he calls your raise, then calls a turn bet on a K?

Then what's your chance?

How about if he calls your raise, then you take a free card on the turn and he checks to you on a rivered K. What's your chance of winning with a bet here?

I'm curious.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
dude, we are saying the same thing. You could make a decision that causes you *in a certain instance* to lose 13sbs. This is not the same as a decision with an EV that is 13sbs less than another. You might think it's semantics but I think it's an important distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so let's say raising is a mistake 60% of the time and calling is a mistake 30% of the time. What's the decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those percentages are nowhere near what they would be given your assumptions about the bettor. Raising is almost always a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way you can convince me of this. And I'm pretty sure that you don't believe "almost always" either.

And while the percentages obviously are not what I believe them to be, it should be pretty clear to even the numerically uninclined that they have to be severely skewed toward calling to make one indifferent.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, "almost always" was the wrong choice of words.

But what I was getting at is that while raising is going to increase your chances to win the pot, it most definitely won't be by a lot. When the bettor has you beat, your raise doesn't increase your chances of winning the pot by all that much. Your equity HU against someone with a pair is similar to your equity against the whole field. Your added bluff outs change that somewhat, but not nearly enough to say that calling needs to be correct 6.5 times as often as raising.

Eventually I'm going to break down and hack out some math here, since this discussion has become rather interesting and I'd like to plug in some numbers. So if anyone would like to help me figure out some assumptions that'd be great since there's quite a lot of variables here.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
his point is valid that this cannot possibly be a 13sb mistake. IMO, the pot would have to be in the 100s for this to be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

hehehe...

Why doesn't everyone just become a nit for the next 15 minutes, I'll start...

If the pot was in the 100's of sb's, then everyone would be calling regardless of holdings, and thus, raising should be based on absolute equity, rather than the changes in equity as the hand develops (assuming that everyone realized they couldn't fold). So the difference between raising and calling in that pot would be based on it's merit as a value bet.

Edit: Damn that felt good!