A note on the idea of WAWB

[Dazarath]

I was reading some posts and I noticed that some posters are incorrectly using the phrase "way ahead, way behind". I just wanted to let people know so we can all be on the same level here. Way ahead, way behind is used to describe a situation where you are either way ahead or way behind of your opponent's hand range. And I would usually say it has to be close to a 50/50 division. That is, out of the possible holdings for your opponent, the ones that are ahead of your hand have you drawing to a very small number of outs (ie. 2 or 3), and the hands that you are ahead of are drawing to a very small number of outs.

Here's some examples. I understand that some of these are extreme cases, but I'm just trying to make a point.

1) You have 77 on a K72 flop against a TAG raiser. This is obviously not a WAWB. You could say, "hey, if I'm behind, I'm drawing to 1 out, and if he's behind, he's drawing to at best 2 outs, sometimes 0". The problem is, that the hands you're ahead of greatly outnumber the hands you're behind to. If you hate money, then you can take the WAWB line, but against a TAG's raising standards, you're almost always ahead and should play it as such.

2) You have AA against a TAG 3-bettor and TAG capper. The flop comes 444. Don't use the logic, "hey, if I'm behind, I'm drawing almost dead, and if I'm ahead, they only have 2 outs. I'll just call the whole way down". No explanation needed here.

3) Here's a closer situation. You have KK vs a complete maniac. Let's say his stats are 50/30/2. The flop comes AA2. There could be an argument made for check/calling, but I think because his hand range is so large, you need to make sure more than 2.5 BBs go in postflop. If he shows you ace-trash-offsuit, oh well.

4) Here's one with the same flop but a different situation. A TAG raises, you 3-bet KK, and he caps. Let's say his capping range is AA-JJ, AK. The flop comes AA2, same as last hand. This time though, you're ahead of QQ-JJ (12 combinations), chopping with KK (1 combination), and behind to AA/AK (9 combinations). Assuming he will continue to bet all of those hands, the WAWB line should be applied here because a raise will only get 3-bet by a hand that has you crushed, but you don't want to fold because you have QQ/JJ crushed.

[Pog0]

I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn.

While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly.

Examples:
I have played a large number of hands.
I have drank a large amount of water.

Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water.

[HavanaBanana]

[ QUOTE ]
I always cringe when people talk about WA/WB when there are two flush draws out in a multiway pot on the turn.

While we're enlightening the populous, could we all please learn to use the words "number" and "amount" correctly.

Examples:
I have played a large number of hands.
I have <font color="red"> drank </font> a large amount of water.

Basically, if you can attach a number to your unit of measurement, use number, otherwise use amount. You can play 500 hands, but you cannot have 500 water.

[/ QUOTE ]

[cocked&locked]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's one with the same flop but a different situation. A TAG raises, you 3-bet KK, and he caps. Let's say his capping range is AA-JJ, AK. The flop comes AA2, same as last hand. This time though, you're ahead of QQ-JJ (12 combinations), chopping with KK (1 combination), and behind to AA/AK (9 combinations). Assuming he will continue to bet all of those hands, the WAWB line should be applied here because a raise will only get 3-bet by a hand that has you crushed, but you don't want to fold because you have QQ/JJ crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't we only behind to 5 hands here - the other AA, and 4 combos of AK? I'm sure I'm missing something here - set me straight.

[ QUOTE ]
And I would usually say it has to be close to a 50/50 division.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement is divorced from the underlying use of the concept and isn't right or helpful. WAWB is usually (not always, but usually) relevant to a situation where you must decide how hard to push your hand. If you are either WA or WB then you don't push as hard because it means that you will win the least (because your opponent will likely fold to a raise or re-raise) or lose the most.

I don't think the relative likelihood that you are WA or WB has anything to do with it.

[stoxtrader]

well said hock.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
WAWB is usually (not always, but usually) relevant to a situation where you must decide how hard to push your hand. If you are either WA or WB then you don't push as hard because it means that you will win the least (because your opponent will likely fold to a raise or re-raise) or lose the most.

I don't think the relative likelihood that you are WA or WB has anything to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point of the OP is that there are situations where we are clearly either WA or WB, but that the relative likelihood of being one or the other is so high that this dictates our action. When we are likely to be WB (and can't get a better hand to fold), we try to take a free card to improve (assuming a typical situation where we have at least a few outs to improve to a better hand than most of his range). When we are very likely to be WA, we continue to put bets into the pot, knowing that our opponent will call or raise with many of the hands in his range that we are WA of.

The likelihood of having the best hand at showdown is always relevant in making poker decisions, and especially so when we can clearly divide our opponent's hand range into two groups, one where our relative likelihood of being best is very high and one where our relative likelihood of being best is very low. (Of course, we may have to further subdivide his hand range based on how they would react to our different possible actions.)

So I think the OP is correct in pointing out that relative likelihood matters, but he does make a glaring omission that you have to consider what the villain's likely reactions to your actions are when you are WA and when you are WB.

The ideal paradigm of WA/WB is when you will receive minimal action when WA and lots of action when WB. But there are many situations at the table when you might expect to get decent action some of the time when WA (as well as all the time you are WB), and you need to figure out the relative likelihood that you are ahead if you get action before deciding whether to keep building the pot or not. The 77 on a K72 example is an extreme version of this: the standard WA/WB line does not apply because we will get action from so many worse hands, so the relative likelihood of being WB when raised and reraised by our opponpent is still low.

I like what the OP is trying to do, because it hints at the fact that WA/WB is not some special line that applies in certain precise cases, but is just an application of poker reasoning.

[w_alloy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's one with the same flop but a different situation. A TAG raises, you 3-bet KK, and he caps. Let's say his capping range is AA-JJ, AK. The flop comes AA2, same as last hand. This time though, you're ahead of QQ-JJ (12 combinations), chopping with KK (1 combination), and behind to AA/AK (9 combinations). Assuming he will continue to bet all of those hands, the WAWB line should be applied here because a raise will only get 3-bet by a hand that has you crushed, but you don't want to fold because you have QQ/JJ crushed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aren't we only behind to 5 hands here - the other AA, and 4 combos of AK? I'm sure I'm missing something here - set me straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

You arent missing anything, the OP forgot he had KK when working out combinations for AK. He misaplied his own concept. But FWIW i think this is still WAWB because the 50/50 thing is bad advice, as someone esle mentioned.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't we only behind to 5 hands here - the other AA, and 4 combos of AK? I'm sure I'm missing something here - set me straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I miscounted because I'm an idiot. Yes, you're correct.

[Dazarath]

[ QUOTE ]
Your statement is divorced from the underlying use of the concept and isn't right or helpful. WAWB is usually (not always, but usually) relevant to a situation where you must decide how hard to push your hand. If you are either WA or WB then you don't push as hard because it means that you will win the least (because your opponent will likely fold to a raise or re-raise) or lose the most.

I don't think the relative likelihood that you are WA or WB has anything to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I guess if you want to get very exact, the correct action is dictated by what hands your opponent will bet, call, bet/call, bet/fold, bet/3-bet, etc etc.

I understand what you're saying. I was oversimplifying things. This idea though, is basic poker 101 knowledge, and doesn't apply only to WAWB situations. On the river, when we decide to bet/call, check/call or whatever, it's because of the ranges of hands that we think our opponents will different actions with.

An example could be, you're against a LAG with QQ on a Axx, two-tone board. This definitely isn't WAWB, but we take a similar line because we're (most likely) only getting action from better hands.

If my definition is so incorrect, I am open to a revised definition, so that everyone, including myself, can be talking about the same thing when the phrase WAWB is used.