Different styles for BB defens

[Trix]

The idea is that you get 4.5:1 on your bluff. The problem is that the games play differently today and people rarely fold the flop when bet into like that.

[ALL1N]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly in a very small pot, bet-bet is the most EV line on a money invested/returned basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't read all of the posts, but I feel I must clarify this misconception that a line of play in which an opponent makes a mistake must be of greater value than one in which they play correctly. This is just not true.

Simply imagine that on the flop you were allowed to choose to bet 2 small bets instead of 1. If your opponent only has overcards, you're a 3:1 favourite to win the pot, and so you'd be making a mistake worth 0.25BB by not doubling the bet. Clearly it is not worth sacrificing this just to let the opponent make a mistake worth ~0.05 BB on the turn (the value of calling the turn with 6 outs in 44 cards to win 6 BBs - this includes reasonable implied odds of 1.5BB on the river). And doubling the flop bet is the same as checkraising, since we know a bet is coming.

Thus, if we know we're ahead and against a 6-outer which will always bet the flop, checkraising is mathematically preferable.

[helpmeout]

You obviously bet out against a guy who doesnt autobet most flops especially if it is 3way.

Very scary flops its also good to bet out eg 3 flush or 3 straight flops.

I normally prefer to bet out when it isnt raised preflop and I am first or second to act.

[naphand]

Perhaps it is mathematically preferable against some opponents, and maybe looking at the flop in isolation. But CR the flop will get less money in the pot against most types of opponents IMO. Taking the whole hand into consideration, would you rather CR the flop or the Turn, or would you rather 3-bet the flop against an aggressive player? Simply stating that CR the flop is the mathematically correct line to take is also incorrect, or more accurately too narrow-minded.

I am not clear about the figures you quote either. Where does the 0.25 BB mistake come from. By CR the flop you get an additional SB in the pot. You have 75% of the money PFR puts in when you CR, but he has 25% of your bet as well. It costs you 0.25 SB to CR, but your earn 0.75 SB. Ah so! You earn 0.50 SB or 0.25 BB.

But it still may be preferable to use the bet line on the flop, for a 3-betting opportunity, or against an opponent who will CR overs and bet the Turn where you CR or check-call the flop CR the Turn. All these have a greater expectation that CR the flop. Where is the mistake?

The bet-bet line is also the one recommended in TOP/HFAP (quoted above). Why?

NB:
This line of argument is one used (mentioned is SSHE) to justify not raising pre-flop to limit the number of hands that can draw correctly against big pairs etc. We "know" it is correct to raise but the problem is some of us (myself included) do not really "know" how it is a TOP mistake is not better than an equity-based one. When looking at the equity figures we should not forget that calling the CR is preferable to folding, i.e. from an equity point of view it is more correct to call. Trying to reconcile in my head how a call that increases PFRs equity (over folding), which is clearly the worse option, is also one that is losing money. Of course you could say it is losing less, but it is not a losing play with correct odds, not from PFRs perspective.

I think it actually comes down the planning and anticipation. If the defender has a read and plans to CR then he gets extra money in the pot, but if PFR does not anticipate this move then his flop bet is a net winner long-term AND his call is also correct. Of course, if PFR anticipates getting CR then he prefers to check behind. This is the essence of a lot of what we are talking about here. Bets and calls that are correct in isolation, may be incorrect when taken as a whole (i.e. putting in two bets on the flop as a dog) BUT this has to be viewed in the context of the flop bet being a long-term profitable play. So PFR loses some equity on this play in this hand, he commits a TOP mistake by betting the flop, but long-term this play is still profitable so it is still correct, even though it is not...

Oh man.

[naphand]

This is one of issues I am trying to reconcile in my head, and this thread is asking all the right questions. HU spots are easier to analyse than multi-way, and it is more easily possible to see where the principles of poker play and/or TOP affect decisions. This is a classic scenario where the flop bet is a TOP mistake but only some of the time. This move is long-term the best play, but must clearly also depend to some degree on opponent and our hand. However, I think it would be highly unusual to check as the PFR, perhaps against a LAG who always bets when checked to or always CR raggy flops; we 3-bet with hands that hit and take free cards when missing the board (needs a strong read on opponent). As has been pointed out, if we can be pretty sure we will get CR i.e. we anticipate this then checking behind with overs is the better line. Then again, if a LAG will CR bluff with any two-cards we are still ahead on the flop the majority of the time and may be making a TOP mistake by not betting/3-betting (or at least calling the CR).

Some players always peel one card, some fish will go to the River to try and pair up. Some will fold on the flop if they miss, so this is clearly the best play against weak or very tight players. It also has implications for the rest of the hand, against a tricky player who will CR the Turn the flop bet allows us to check behind on the Turn unimproved, so while a TOP "mistake" it buys us the free card. Again this is a highly specific play.

[naphand]

The 25% equity figure is taken from seeing the next two cards, i.e. getting to the River. You are right in pointing out the actual figure for taking one more card is around 13%.

The point of the bet -vs- CR argument is that PFR commits his mistake by betting the flop when behind, but is correct to call the CR. Obviously if defender plans this then he is taking a chunk of both bets going in with the best of it. However, when we reach the Turn ther eis a greater amount of equity at stake, the pot is bigger and the bets just increased. CR the flop and betting the Turn gets less money in than check-calling the flop and CR the Turn. This is a more profitable line and also forces two mistakes from PFR when he plays bet-bet. But this seems irrelevant...

I am still having problems with the following (posted earlier):

[ QUOTE ]
Say PFR bets every street and Defender just calls down? PFR is making a TOP mistake on every street by betting. If Defender bets out the flop and PFR just calls down (calling correctly, assumng the pot is big enough), PFR makes no TOP mistakes as he calls correctly each time, yet the net result is the same. The pot is the same size at SD and each player put in the same money. Why are they different? You can argue that Defender made a TOP mistake by never raising (in the check-calling example), yet his pot equity was the same and the $$ in the bank were the same. How does "profiting from TOP mistakes" fit in with this, when in one case PFR makes 3 mistakes to Defenders one, and the in the other both played correctly? Profit identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this illustrate the irrelevance of TOP mistakes where equity and profitability is concerned? How can a mistake-free hand be as profitable as one littered with mistakes? Clearly this can be the case, so where does it leave TOP? Is the notion of committing TOP mistakes even important? It seems to me that the kind of theory Gary Carson talks of in his book (all poker games start as a battle for the rights to the ante/blinds etc.) is more relevant from a strategical perspective, TOP is just damn confusing as in the example above there is no additional profit from "mistakes" compared to a "mistake-free" hand.

Can someone address this? I think if we are talking strategy and maximum EV plays, we need to clear up exactly what consitututes profitable and unprofitable play from a theoretical viewpoint. TOP does not appear to be helping in this respect.

[naphand]

I agree about using the opponents aggression against them but it is still less profitable to CR the flop than the Turn. With an opponent who will bet-bet the flop and Turn (standard line) you can extract more on the Turn. IF, however, your Turn CR is going to get folded, then the flop CR Turn bet line is clearly better but only IF you anticipate the Turn bet will also be called.

The standard line with (clean) overs is also to raise the flop with position. In which case, against this type of player a bet/3-bet line is preferable to the flop CR.

If your standard line is to CR flop bet Turn, why? What is the purpose of using this line over the others? It is certainly the easiest line to take as, as has been mentioned, most PFRs will auto-bet the flop (correctly) so we can be assured of a CR. But this is not the most profitable line for many opponents, is it?

It seems to me we are better at least trying the bet-bet line against some players to judge how they respond to this. If they auto-raise with overs we 3-bet.

The situation regarding players stealing with complete trash, then even the flop CR is not clearly the best line. If they have trash and we have a pair, they bet the flop we call and maybe they bet the Turn too. If your pair is reasonably good then we might get into a very profitable spot if PFR pairs his trash on the Turn (he will call our CR). With trash we get a bet off them on the flop, but they fold to the CR so CR just wins the pot straight away when we have the best hand and we lose the possibility of extra bets on the more expensive streets.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this illustrate the irrelevance of TOP mistakes where equity and profitability is concerned? How can a mistake-free hand be as profitable as one littered with mistakes? Clearly this can be the case, so where does it leave TOP? Is the notion of committing TOP mistakes even important? It seems to me that the kind of theory Gary Carson talks of in his book (all poker games start as a battle for the rights to the ante/blinds etc.) is more relevant from a strategical perspective, TOP is just damn confusing as in the example above there is no additional profit from "mistakes" compared to a "mistake-free" hand.

Can someone address this? I think if we are talking strategy and maximum EV plays, we need to clear up exactly what consitututes profitable and unprofitable play from a theoretical viewpoint. TOP does not appear to be helping in this respect.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fundamental theorum of poker doesn't say the best hand won't win the most money in any given hand. It just says you make money off of your opponents mistakes, which is true. But that doesn't mean in any given hand you won't win money with the best hand even if your opponent plays an inferior hand without making any mistakes. There are more reasons to bet/raise than just to force your opponent to make a mistake.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're thinking is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really, well I am glad we cleared that up. Perhaps you could take this line of argument up with Mr. Sklansky?

If your opponent has correct odds to call, it means he is in a +EV situation when he calls. In a HU pot when one player has a +EV bet or call, where is that EV coming from? How can both players be in a +EV situation? If you can find a game like this then please let me know.

[ QUOTE ]
...just because your opponent has correct odds to call doesn't mean you aren't making money on the bet and call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what it means.

Jeezaz, I don't know why I bothered posting again. Perhaps it is better to stick to e-mail discussions, at least that way I don't have to answer posts as desperately stultifying as this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're missing something important naphand. Check this thread out and you'll see what it is. I used to think that way as well..and it's bad.

[sqvirrel]

[ QUOTE ]
The 25% equity figure is taken from seeing the next two cards, i.e. getting to the River.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this but many posters are treating our hypothetical that Button has 25% pot equity which he doesn't. It would take a bit of fancy math but to simplify things ou need to consider all likely future bets if you want to calculate Button's draw to the river. Button stands to put in 3sb to try to win an 11.5sb - 13.5sb pot. Button barely has odds to plan to see the river and this doesn't account for all the things that could go wrong.

I think the preferred line if Button plans to see the river is to three bet the checkraise and take a free card. Then it is only 2sb to win a 9.5sb - 11sb pot.

[ QUOTE ]
How can a mistake-free hand be as profitable as one littered with mistakes? Clearly this can be the case,

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not the case. We see players make plays with negative expectations and realize positive results all the time. Over the long haul negative plays are negative plays, but it is by no means linear. We talk about pot ownership, for example in out hypothetical Button owns 13.33% of the pot facing 1sb to call, but he will never win exactly 13.33%. He will win 100% or 0%. Over time though and under identical circumstances he will win Exactly 13.33%. Whether or not he is correct to call is irrelevant regarding his expectation.