Question on/Disagreement with example from TOP chap 20

[lunchmeat]

I was studying chapter 20 (Inducing and Stopping Bluffs) of T.O.P. and the hold ‘em example on page 195 left me shaking my head. In the example you hold 65s, the board is K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and you are bet into by a single opponent who uses correct bluffing strategy. Sklansky recommends raising here. His rational is that if the opponent calls the raise “with, say, a pair of kings or a four-flush, he will certainly not try to bluff you out on the end. On the other hand, if he reraises or calls and then bets on the end, you should usually throw your hand away. You know you are beat since your opponent would be afraid to bluff you after you have suggested so much strength.”

O.K. I understand… I think. But to my novice mind calling the turn and river bet seems like the superior option. First of all, calling two big bets costs the same amount as raising the turn and checking down on the end. But by calling you always get to show your hand down, whereas by raising you are susceptible to folding the best hand for the same amount of money it takes to show it down. Even if calling pays off only 1 out of 100 times, that’s still a decent sized pot you otherwise wouldn’t have won.

Secondly, if the fourth heart comes on the river, you’re faced with the same decision whether you have called the turn or if you raised and got called. In both cases you must seriously consider folding if bet into (or, at least, I seriously consider folding in this situation), but you lose less money if you fold after calling on the turn than if you fold after raising.

A third reason to call is that you still have 4 cards that can improve your hand. Let’s say the bettor has the flush on 4th street and you raise. Your opponent is likely to reraise, which makes you fold. By calling you still have a chance to improve to the best hand, and when you do catch a five or a six on the river the opponent holding the flush is likely to call, or even reraise, your raises.

A final reason I prefer calling is that if the opponent is bluffing and you raise, he is likely to fold, thereby donating 1 big bet to your favorite charity. But if you call your opponent might be tempted to fire another shot on the river, with the end result of his doubling his charitable giving.

I’m assuming Sklansky was talking about limit hold ‘em in the example (he doesn’t specify), but I can see how raising is the better play in a no-limit game. I also see how calling would be a bad option if there was more than one opponent in the pot (he specifies only one), or if the example was 3 hearts on the flop instead of the third heart coming on the turn. But if the example is limit poker, as I suspect, then calling seems to be the correct play. If I’m wrong here let me know… but if I’m right, making Sklansky wrong, I don’t think it unreasonable to demand “Lunchmeat on Calling” to be the next book released by 2+2.

[rigoletto]

First of all, calling two big bets costs the same amount as raising the turn and checking down on the end.

Yes the cost is the same, but by raising you make more money when you're ahead and when you hit your boat.

Secondly, if the fourth heart comes on the river, you’re faced with the same decision whether you have called the turn or if you raised and got called.

The point of raising the turn is that most opponents will only bet out on the river if you are beat (i.e. if the 4th heart comes on the river the opponent has a hard time betting into you on the rive without the Ah or possibly Qh).

Your opponent is likely to reraise, which makes you fold.

You don't fold - you have the odds to call to see if you improve on the river. When you don't improve you loose 1 BB compared to calling down, but when you improve you win at least 3 BB more. This combined with the times you get called down by top pair, the times you catch a semibluff (who will pay you off on the turn) and the fact that you prevent people from taking shots at you in the future (and makes it more likely that you can pull of some extra bluffs yourself) makes the turn raise worth while.

Note that this is concerning an opponent with optimal bluffing strategy - which is likely to be a solid player. Against tricky and very agressive players your suggestions can be very valid.

[crockpot]

i agree with this analysis. TOP transformed my game, but this was the one lesson/example that i never understood.

in a game where the betting limits change i could certainly understand this play being correct. but with the same size bet on the turn and river, i think there are only two real advantages to this play: it will probably cause him to fold a small heart if he has no pair, preventing him from drawing out on you if a fourth heart rivers; and if he calls and you fill, you'll win an extra bet if your hand is good. (of course, it is entirely possible he would have bet into you on the river anyway, which somewhat negates the second point)

if you're reraised on the turn i think folding is the correct play. you have at best four outs, and the chances that your opponent has some of your outs dominated (by KK, K6, etc.) are not that bad.

i understand the principle that you can stop bluffs by representing strength, but it just seems to me like this is one example where you should encourage him to bluff rather than risk getting driven out.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, calling two big bets costs the same amount as raising the turn and checking down on the end. But by calling you always get to show your hand down, whereas by raising you are susceptible to folding the best hand for the same amount of money it takes to show it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky's way you will almost never fold the best hand on the river. Your way you will sometimes have to fold the best hand on the river unless you just want to become a calling statiion.

The point is that if you opponent is using an optimal bluffing strategy it is costing you money, so you want to move him away from the optimal strategy.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, if the fourth heart comes on the river, you’re faced with the same decision whether you have called the turn or if you raised and got called. In both cases you must seriously consider folding if bet into

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Sklansky's way you must fold if bet into. He says that if you are trying to stop a bluff then you must fold when bet into. If you think your hand is worth a call on the river than you shouldn't try to stop a bluff.

[crockpot]

i don't disagree with any of your points, but they do not explain how this play gains you any money over simply calling on the turn and river. all they do is show that if your opponent is the type to bluff aggressively even if you show strength, you will be forced to fold the best hand.

[MaxPower]

This is somewhat simplified but when your hand is best you will win slightly more than 1 BB by calling and 2 BB by stopping a bluff. When your hand is a loser you will lose 2 BB either way. So you win more by stopping a bluff. I've ignored the chances of you improving to simplify things.

In reality though you can't just call down every time. If a K, 2 or heart falls you have to consider the size of the pot and the chances your opponent is bluffing. So if your opponent is bluffing correctly you gain even more by stopping bluffs.