Different styles for BB defens

[naphand]

Betting the flop is a TOP mistake, and generates $$ for Defender. No doubt about it.

However, as a long-term strategy it is correct to bet this flop without knowledge of Defender's cards. This is why discussions like this are useful, how can a long-term profitable play (betting the flop after a PFR) be a TOP mistake? Well, it is but it shows the limitations of working to the TOP. The flop bet is only a TOP error in this instance (and hands like it), most of the time it is correct to bet.

PFR bets the flop hoping to pick up the pot, or just be called. PFR knows he will be raised some of the time, and also knows he can call the CR profitably with just overcards (as opposed to folding). The real issue is for Defender to read PFR and know how to get the most bets from PFR.

[naphand]

OK I see your take on this. I prefer to think of the "loss" of calling the Turn bet, in the example you give, as an "investment" that pays long-term. That is why I am saying it is not a losing call. Technically on the basis on equity alone and just the call, without seeing the next street, it is losing money. The equity you recieve back is less than your cost as it would be any time you out money in with less than 50% equity. But LONG-TERM that call is profitable, with the right odds.

[cartman]

Exactly. The call is net profitable. It would just be more profitable if you could see the river for free.

Cartman

[tallstack]

[ QUOTE ]
As the flop bet is a long-term +EV move, it is clearly correct (generally, not specifically) for him to bet the flop without knowing Defender's cards.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good point. I am pretty new to the 6-max games, but it seems that it should be pretty much an automatic bet with overs, provided that there is some small chance the defender will fold. This must be particularly true against opponents who rarely check raise, since their check means more and they don't punish your aggression often enough. Against opponents who do check-raise often then can you be as sure that this play is still long-term +EV? I am thinking that the likelihood of a fold is still a very important consideration. It must be situation dependant, but is betting out with overs a standard line against a specific "check-raise happy" opponent? Their initial check on the flop would mean very little, if anything, about the strength of their hand. I am thinking PFR still needs to bet, but I am wondering your thoughts on this.

Dave

[sqvirrel]

[ QUOTE ]
We are left with the Turn call as the only long-term net loser (of 0.5 BB), and given the right pot odds, is an easy call for profit

[/ QUOTE ]

But the call itself is a money loser, it is only profitable in the context of the entire pot. As has been pointed out elsewhere Button much prefers a free card on a draw. Every new dollar going in to the pot reduces his expected profit from the hand.

A problem I am having with this thread though is the assumptions. As outsiders we can easily calculate each players' odds of winning but taken from table view it is much different

Given the checkraise on the flop it is debatable if Button should call at all, if he is positive that BB has at minimum a hand that beats him. Not accounting for rake there are 7.5sb in the pot at this point. Button has to pay 13.33% of the pot to see another card (bear in mind that accounting for rake this percentage is higher). Oddly enough he has exactly a 13.33% chance of hitting one of his six outs, if they all are clean, but that's a big if. The only thing that justifies the call is implied odds, knowing he will be able to collect 2-6 additional sb if his draw hits. But this is also assuming that BB doesn't have something that already beats Button's potential pair, or in some way counterfeits it.

Now I think the call is still the clear play here, but it is somewhat skinnier from Button's perspective than 'my six outs are good'.

If Button does call the flop bet and misses on the turn then it is a clear fold. He is looking at another BB to draw to a 5.25BB pot. Button would have to pay 20% of the pot to draw to a 13.6% chance of hitting. Even if he can count on 2 more Big Bets from BB and if he can count on being good if he hits (a stretch) he is still paying slightly more (13.9%) than his equity to draw.

Edit: I think a much more honest approach to this hand from the Button's point of view is to discount his outs, somewhat depending on flop texture. Ragged flop middle cards taken more seriously than a two suited flop like 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] . Button should also account for potential redraws up front. Even if he hits his overcard draw and is ahead, BB still has an 11% to redraw which is huge. Additionally Button should account for the potential that BB is defending with something like K8 and on an 8xx flop counterfeits his own KT. Won't happen often, but it will happen often enough. I would guess that at minimum Button should discount his outs by 1 except on the most draw happy flops and forge ahead with his decision from there.

Regardless it is much murkier than playing with 25% as a draw since it simply isn't correct.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
My only qustion is if you agree that it's more likely to win the pot at the flop if you bet out instead of cheackraising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against most players in my 10/20 game u have to bet turn before they fold if they are the PFR. This is even more true if u, as u prefer, bet liberally after defending your blind.

People autobet flop after raising preflop, u must use that, if u bet 2 much into them u are not using this enough.

Of course u got to mix it up, but if u always shows down a good hand after cr flop any decent players will start to fold much more and then u have to start to cr with worse hands to punish and then suddenly u are not betting a lot of flops after all.

[helpmeout]

I just glanced through all the posts.

I pretty much checkraise everytime except when I have a very good hand.

The main reason you checkraise is because part of the steal means they have to autobet the flop. To steal they dont need high cards they can steal with 75o or T3s. They wont have overcards everytime, sometimes they will steal with a small PP or suited trash even just connectors.

Thats why its called stealing. So when you hit something you have to charge them extra for autobetting the flop.

You checkraise, when they have a trash hand you get an extra bet out of them. If you bet out they fold saving themselves a bet, but you dont charge them for stealing.

If they have overcards and call your checkraise they are usually making a mistake because you still have redraws and possible reverse domination.

Agaist a very aggressive player I'll sometimes just call and CR the turn or even just calldown depending on the board.

[drudman]

This is becoming one of the great threads in HUSHtory. Thanks for putting in the time to analyze and debate, and please keep it up.

[Festis]

Ok fair enough, you go with the 2+2 standard defens, cheackraise to charge the mximum when you are ahead.

But then my first question comes up again. Why does HFAP recomend that you must bet out alot to "preserv this higly profitable play".

There are 2 ways this could have an explination. Either Sklansky and Malmuth was wrong or the play works alot better against the players they are used to. The later is the case in the loose section of the book.
So against what type of player is it correct to bet out and
witch typ is correct to cheackraise?

[Trix]

[ QUOTE ]
Our CR may get extra money in the pot, but it does not force our opponent to make a mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn´t a mistake to put 2 bets in with a weak draw in a small pot ?