Big draw OOP against a possible steal

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
The pot is 5.5sb. Hero is definitely behind at this point but Hero has ~35% (flop to river) equity, without a made hand.

If checked through, Hero is granted (by the current leading hand) his chance to make the best hand for free.

Hero will make his hand 19% by the turn.

19% of 5.5sb granted for free = .19*5.5 = 1.045sb.

Having this checked through is marvellous.

Now outside of callers and bettors the only other options are checking through or everyone folding to your bet.

Everyone folding to you bet wins 5.5sb.
Getting checked through wins 1.045sb.
So everyone needs to fold ~20% to have equal value.
I think in a field of 4 villians this is not likely.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think Wookie already has pointed it out, but this reasoning is flawed. Even if we bet we're having 19% equity. We don't lose our share of the pot by betting. What should be examined is whether or not a bet would be for value. Will we get 2 callers enough? What's the risk of getting raised ending up HU? How often will somebody else bet the flop for me?

I haven't considered a bet in this situation as a must. I consider both options when I'm in this situation, taking into account how loose my opponents are, my relative position to aggressive players and so forth. I think I'm probably more likely to bet this hand in a micro game. Against 4 players not having act yet I don't think our folding equity is huge. I think this bet should be made because we'll often get 2+ callers and that's more likely on a loose/passive micro table. But again, it's more about my reads than what limit I play.

[mvoss]

I think an important point of Entity's posts in the excellent Qtip thread is that we WANT bets to go in on the flop here. If the board texture makes it more likely that someone will bet or raise we should be more reluctant to bet out than if the board texture makes it less likely that someone will bet out.

Since we want bets to go in reads are (as always) also important. If the table is passive we should be more willing to bet out than if the table is aggressive.

At least this is my understanding of Entity's post and if I'm wrong please correct me. I just thought that one point should be clarified; we do NOT want this flop to get checked through.

[ QUOTE ]
I think an important point of Entity's posts in the excellent Qtip thread is that we WANT bets to go in on the flop here. If the board texture makes it more likely that someone will bet or raise we should be more reluctant to bet out than if the board texture makes it less likely that someone will bet out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with everything

[ QUOTE ]

Since we don't hate money reads are (as always) essential.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.
If there is one thing I took from Entity's post is that individual reads and relative position based on those reads are most important playing this sort of hand.


[ QUOTE ]

I just thought that one point should be clarified; we do NOT want this flop to get checked through.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you bet and get all 4 villians to call.

You make (.35*4sb)-1 = .4sb

If the flop gets checked through you get
(.19*5.5)- 0 = 1.045sb

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] getting this flop checked through.



Since I'm the only one arguing for the 'I don't bet this' side. This thread is becoming tiresome.

If it's done nothing but made you and me read the Qtip thread, my time was worth it but I think I can let it die now.

[jaxUp]

After reading through the other threads and thinking about them for the last hour or so, I am in the checking camp. Against all my innate aggressive tendencies, I am in the check camp. However, I have a problem with this:

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet and get all 4 villians to call.

You make (.35*4sb)-1 = .4sb

If the flop gets checked through you get
(.19*5.5)- 0 = 1.045sb

I [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] getting this flop checked through.


[/ QUOTE ]

It is flawed. When we bet and all 4 villains call, we win

(.35*4SB) - (.65*1SB) + (.19*5.5SB)

now, I subtractes .65*1SB because we don't lose our SB every time we bet the flop...only when we miss our flush. Also, this may be flawed as the first two terms are dealing with flop-river, and the third deals with flop-turn. Basically, what I intend to show here is that when we bet the flop, we win money IN ADDITION to the money that we would win when it gets checked through. Of course, this is if we know there will be 4 callers.

[mvoss]

Sorry for prolonging this tiresome discussion. I'm not trying to annoy you, I just want to learn.

First of all I think your EV calculation is wrong as JaxUp already stated. You're comparing the EV of your bet to the EV of the entire hand up until now in the case you check. If I'm wrong here I would appreciate to be corrected.

It's only -EV to have bets going in if it's HU at the turn.

If we follow Entity's advise it boils down to this. Do you think someone else (preferably in EP) will bet this flop if you check? Do you think someone will raise you with no callers between the 2 of you if you bet? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then you should check, otherwise you should bet. This is probably an overly simplistic interpretation of Entity's advise but it's the way I understand it. Please explain to me where I'm wrong.

By the way, how can you agree that we want bets to go in and at the same time be happy to see this get checked through?

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]

If we follow Entity's advise it boils down to this. Do you think someone else (preferably in EP) will bet this flop if you check? Do you think someone will raise you with no callers between the 2 of you if you bet? If the answer to any of these questions is yes then you should check, otherwise you should bet. This is probably an overly simplistic interpretation of Entity's advise but it's the way I understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a *bit* simplistic, but basically right on. We want bets going in, but we don't want to isolate. The general idea is that this flop is likely to have hit somebody (if not several people) enough that they will bet it. I would expect someone to bet here very often, and if that bet comes from EP, then we c/r. You were basically right, I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[mvoss]

Thank you for your explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
...I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually I weren't trying to advocate a flop bet. I should have been more clear about this.

[SlantNGo]

First of all, let's get on the same page as to what the typical 1/2 9-max player is calling with here. He would call with IMO:

Any 7, Any 5, Any Q with J or lower kicker, Any Ace, Any gutshot, Any obvious stuff I excluded (like the flush draw)

He is raising with:

Any Q with K or higher kicker, 2-pair or higher

[ QUOTE ]
IMO you are just as likely to have 1 raiser, as 1 caller.
With one caller, your flop bet was negative EV.
As for the turn, you are now making another neutral to negative EV bet to 'try' to take down this pot. I know people make loose flop calls, but what do you expect villian to call the flop with?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in this case it becomes a semi-bluff. It also depends where the call comes from. If it goes Bet, Call, 3 folds, then maybe firing again on the turn isn't the best idea. If it goes Bet, 2 or 3 folds, a loose opponent holding Ace high here is more likely to call here then fold the turn UI


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I get 3 callers, it was a good value bet. Great.


[/ QUOTE ]
But could you have got more value?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's going to bet the flop for us? If anyone, it's someone from late position, but with loose-passive opponents, this gets checked through a lot of the time when you could have gotten 3 callers.

[ QUOTE ]
1. When OOP, there is no other place from which a bet can come, other than on your left.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bet comes from LP, I consider it on my right, because I can't raise for value without risking to knock others out.

[ QUOTE ]
2. I don't care where the freakin' bet comes from, as long as it has one or more callers before it gets back to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the bet comes from LP, why would it have callers before it gets to you? That's only the case if the bet is from EP, which is unlikely unless I have a read that an EP player is aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]

All I wanted to say with any of my posts is:

In this particular situation, on this particular flop, with this many villians, completely OOP, with a less than nut flush, with no overcards to the flop, in an unraised pot - I don't bet out.


[/ QUOTE ]

With loose opponents I believe this is a mistake. A read that they're not as loose as typical 1/2 9-max opponents or that any one of them is aggressive could very well change my answer. Your fear of this flop being raised is unjustified IMO. I think it gets raised <5% here vs. typical opponents.

[SlantNGo]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make the Queen an Ace and I agree. Here, I don't see how someone in EP will bet the flop. If anything, it will be an LP bet.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think you're probably underestimating the amount of times somebody will bet this flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make the Queen an Ace and I agree. Here, I don't see how someone in EP will bet the flop. If anything, it will be an LP bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, here's the scenarios with the probability I think they happen in brackets

1. we bet and get 1-2 callers (75%)
2. we bet and win right out (5%)
3. we bet and get isolated(5%)
4. we bet and get 3 callers(15%)

so, when we bet we make
1. (.75*1.5SB*.35) + (.75*-1SB*.65) + (.75*5.5SB*.35) =
2. (.05*5.5SB)
3. (.05*2SB*.35) + (.05*-2SB*.65) + (.05*5.5SB*.35)
4. (.15*3SB*.35) + (.15*-1SB*.65) + (.15*5.5SB*.35)

1+2+3+4 = 1.86 SB

5. we check and it gets checked through (25%)
6. we check and EP bets (10%)
7. we check and LP bets (65%)

so, if we check:

5. (.65*5.5SB*.35)
6. (.1*2.75SB*.35) + (.1*-1.3SB*.65) + (.1*5.5SB*.35)
7. (.65*2.5SB*.35) + (.65*-1SB*.65) + (.65*5.5SB*.35)
* for 6 I used 2.75 SB, because I figure it will go bet,call,call abit more than 1/3 of the time there's an EP bet, allowing us to c/r. This was also why I use -1.3SB in the second term.

5+6+7 = 2.09 SB

So, we see that checking yields a higher EV.

potential shortcomings:
1)assumed percentages incorrect
2)future betting not considered
3)we may win the pot on the turn if it's HU
4)I think 35% is too high for our equity. That's how often we hit the flush, but not how often we win. (I think that this balances 3 pretty well).

I encourage others to add some more math to the problem if they see fit.