Wait for the turn for more equity or not?

[chief444]

I really don't mind check/calling the flop here and leading a favorable turn card which includes about 2/3 of the deck.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
If the bet comes from the immediate left of hero I think check-calling the flop and leading the turn may well be better from a pot-manipulation point of view, in that certain overcard hands will not be getting the odds to continue drawing on the turn if the pot is smaller, and you will have a clearer idea of your equity on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a check-raise on the flop increases the pot size from, say, 6 BB to 8 BB, only AK now has the odds to call. Since there was no raise pre-flop, we don't really need to worry about that (plus AK without a spade probably won't call anyway and AK with a spade definitely will call and definitely will have the odds to call).

We should wait for the turn to raise if we will be able to exploit a bigger pot equity edge on the turn. Certainly, we will HAVE a bigger edge on the turn if a scare card doesn't fall, but that doesn't mean we'll be able to exploit it. The time to use a play like this(waiting for the turn) is when we've been bet into and expect to be bet into again. That way we can make people pay one small bet when we have a small edge and two big bets when we have a big edge. Since we are not even remotely certain we'll be bet into again, we don't have that opportuntiy-- in fact, you suggest leading the turn, regardless. We have the choice between one small bet at a small edge and one big bet at a large edge or two small bets at a small edge and one big bet at a large edge. Obviously the latter is better.

By the way, I misread the action slightly in my first reply, but I stand by my point that we shouldn't wait for the turn.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't mind check/calling the flop here and leading a favorable turn card which includes about 2/3 of the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm having a difficult time understanding why the pot-size (which is not small BTW) + your relative position + your holding + a draw heavy board = not wanting to take a good opportunity to protect your hand.

Please explain.

[chief444]

Because the fourth flush card ruins your hand with or without the raise. An ace sucks with or without the raise.

I don't think a raise is bad at all. I think it's fine especially given the description of UTG+2. But considering too that you have a caller in between now that's got something I don't think calling and seeing the turn for 1 SB is bad either. I think it's close.

[27offsooot]

call and donk any non spade, ace. Fold to most turn raises.

[mdob]

It doesn't matter if calling or raising the flop is close or not. Like you say, it is. What matters is that we have an equity edge on the flop; we should exploit it.

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if calling or raising the flop is close or not. Like you say, it is. What matters is that we have an equity edge on the flop; we should exploit it.

[/ QUOTE ]
An equity edge is one of the concerns we have when considering a bet or raise. However, the only time it is the sole concern when considering a bet or raise is when we hold the stone cold nuts. In this situation, we need to weigh our equity advantage vs our future equity advantage (which will drastically increase if the next card is a blank) vs the number of people in the pot vs the number of cards to come vs the number of bets in the pot vs the texture of the flop. You can forgo small edges in equity if you can exploit a larger one later, and that's what we're considering here.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
You can forgo small edges in equity if you can exploit a larger one later, and that's what we're considering here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it makes sense to forgo a small edge to exploit a larger one later. Where I disagree is if in this hand we will be able to better exploit our larger edge later by waiting. If we check-raise, we're planning to lead a safe turn. If we wait, we're still planning to lead the turn. It only makes sense to wait if that then allows us to raise instead of bet; that's not the case here.

I said this a bit earlier, but I think it sums up my argument well, so I'll repeat it: we're deciding between one small bet at a small edge and one big bet at a large edge if we wait and two small bets at a small edge and one big bet at a large edge if we don't wait. The second option is better.

I'm a bit confused on how it's a foregone conclusion that we have an equity edge.

I can see at a minimum, three players will see the turn and if I'll ultimately win more than 33% of the time then I have an equity edge.

But how do I know I'll win more than 33%. Certainly there is the possibility that someone has a made flush, a set or two pair. So were I have the problem is in knowing if I indeed have an equity edge. Knowing that sure helps in deciding how to play the hand.

[chief444]

You're assuming we have an equity edge. The reason it's close is we have top pair OK kicker on a monotone flop. We may not have an equity edge. If the turn is a blank then we do against the opponent's hand ranges.