Limit thinking?

[gulebjorn]

In this thread in the small stakes NL forum, there is a discussion about protecting your hand when you are holding trips and there is a flush draw on the flop.

I suggested to at least raise and perhaps go all-in on the flop, depending on stack sizes. Someone replied: "Well, you do want him to call, just not with proper odds to chase."

My response was: what happened to "win the big pots right away"?

And BobboFitos replied: "that = limit thinking"

So, here's a few questions that come to mind:

- is that, in fact, limit thinking? I'm not saying it isn't, i'm just not sure.
- if it is, what would be the right strategy? Bet enough to give him bad odds, but not so much it will drive him out? What do you do when a scare card comes on the turn? (it did, in this case)
- When is your goal to take the pot down on the flop? When do you want to be called?
- Which one of the proposed strategies (try to take it down on the flop vs. value betting) would increase profit and variance?
- if you bet and want to be called, is that in fact value betting? I just called it that, but now i'm thinking a value bet is always on the river... i'm not sure anymore.
- what are the odds, in a heads-up, raised pot, when the flop comes two-suited, that you are up against a flush draw?

I'm posting this in the poker theory forum because i think the hand itself has been evaluated, but i'm trying to get a grip on these general concepts as they apply to small stakes no limit holdem.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: I've never played limit poker, so i have no idea of what would be the right strategy in this situation if it was limit. I suspect it would be betting and raising though.

[gomberg]

[ QUOTE ]
is that, in fact, limit thinking? I'm not saying it isn't, i'm just not sure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is because the reason for that statement (win the big pots right away) is that your future bets will make it incorrect for most hands to fold, so when they do, you're happy. In NL, this is not necessarily the case. Remember - you want your opponents to make mistakes... mistakes being calling when they should fold and folding when they should call. If the pot is $1000 and you only have $200 on the turn. You push in w/ a good hand and hope for a fold not becuase the pot is big, but because he has odds to draw to a flush, etc. If you have $500 left and push in, you now want him to call even though the pot is big with flush draw on the turn, as he is getting 3:1 pot odds w/ probably 8 outs, which you'll give him any day of the week. If he wins, that's poker - you'd still rather have him call that bet every time you make it.


[ QUOTE ]
if it is, what would be the right strategy? Bet enough to give him bad odds, but not so much it will drive him out? What do you do when a scare card comes on the turn? (it did, in this case)


[/ QUOTE ]

Well - this is a complicated answer. You have to put your opponent on a range of hands. I usually add in some extra money if I'm out of position w/ a great hand because a scare card helps the person with position more than you. So bet enough to make it a decent mistake for him to call if he has a suspected draw. If the scare card comes, you're going to have to not pay off the draw but try not to be bluffed out too often. This is just a matter of experience, reading bet sizes, etc. So in general, remember that you want your opponent to make a mistake, so give them the opportunity (bet big and hope for the call, or check-raise all-in, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
When is your goal to take the pot down on the flop? When do you want to be called?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, theoretically it's about making your opponents make mistakes. If you have a bluff, you obviously want to take it down. If you have 1 pair out of position, again you probably just want to take it down - mainly because you won't know where you're at and can be blown off the hand later against scare cards / aggressive betting.

[ QUOTE ]
Which one of the proposed strategies (try to take it down on the flop vs. value betting) would increase profit and variance?


[/ QUOTE ]

Making your opponents make mistakes increases profit. Blowing people off 2nd best hands decreases profit (greatly) but does reduce your variance. Remember to always have a good bankroll (around 15 should be good) so that you don't have to worry about variance. Reducing variance should not be too much a consideration in a cash game given bankroll is healthy and you're not to far above the cap against bad players.

[ QUOTE ]
if you bet and want to be called, is that in fact value betting? I just called it that, but now i'm thinking a value bet is always on the river... i'm not sure anymore.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes - you're betting for value when you want to be called - even against a live draw.

[ QUOTE ]
what are the odds, in a heads-up, raised pot, when the flop comes two-suited, that you are up against a flush draw?


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be able to figure this out if you pay attention to your opponents.
1. Figure out how they play draws (aggro, passive, etc.)
2. Also know their preflop play - hence will they call a decent raise with a suited connector. It's not too hard to put people on hands based on this type of analysis and you can have the flush draw in the back of your head, but if it's more likely they have a pocket pair or a high ace, then it's less likely they'll have a flush draw.

ok, enough rambling - hope that helps.

[gulebjorn]

Great reply, thanks.

I think, for me, this is the core of the problem:

[ QUOTE ]
If the scare card comes, you're going to have to not pay off the draw but try not to be bluffed out too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

The perfect poker player, who could see his opponent's cards, read his mind and know how the deck is stacked, would never pay off a draw and never be bluffed out.

The perfect calling station would never be bluffed out and always pay off a draw.

The perfect weak-tight player would never pay off a draw and always be bluffed out.

Now, since i'm probably closer to the calling station or weak-tight than to the perfect poker player, i'm not sure i can make money off these value bets. I mean, i cannot lose money when i take the pot on the flop. I can, however lose money when making those difficult decisions if i keep my opponent in the pot...

Who would lose the least in this situation, when having to play the hand from the turn on? The (theoretical) perfect weak-tight or the perfect calling station? Could we extrapolate a "safe" strategy from this experiment, for the times we have to make a tough decision?

At what point would the "trickier" play of value betting become more profitable than just taking it down? What poker skill would you need to keep your opponent in the pot, but not get yourself in trouble with it? Take the example of the KK tread i was referring to. The only reason he did not get in trouble, was because his opponent didn't try to bluff him and didn't have the spade either.

[gomberg]

I don't have time for a full reply - but think about the opponent you're betting into. Your answer lies there. Is he tough, bluffing a lot, putting you to tough decisions at the correct frequency? Then push him out of the hand if you can. Does he bluff a ton? Then value bet him and call him down. Does he rarely bluff? You know the answer then - value bet him. It's the ones who bet with the right frequency you've got to be afraid of.

Against the typical online low-limit NL player, I'd say most of them bluff too much, so inducing bluffs and making long calls is +EV in my opinion.

[ianlippert]

I do play a lot of limit online, and I will say one thing about flushes, they rarely ever have them. I always bet into 3 suits, sure once in a while you get burned, but since its limit you dont get burned that much by calling an additional bet. You can usually tell if you pay attention. If the third suit comes and there is a raise and reraise, you should probably fold.

From another thread someone posted the odds of someone having a flush draw. 4 opponents, 2 of a suit on the flop, odds of any of your opponents having the flush draw when you have none of the suit is 19.3%. So when there are two suits on the board the odds of someone having a flush draw AND getting it by the river is something like 6.5%, nothing to be scared of.

[xxxxx]

Somebody checks the flop, you bet, he calls. He checks the turn, you bet, he calls. Rag, Third of a suit comes on the river. He bets. He made his flush. I don't care if there is a 5.8% chance. He made his flush.

[Malachii]

Or he missed his straight and is playing phantom poker... but I digress.

[royaltrux]

This is a gross generalization. I guess I could see what you're saying in microlimits, but on the whole you are losing money if you play this way.

[JaysonWeberFCP]

And BobboFitos replied: "that = limit thinking"

He's right, in a NL Cash-Game if you're positive someone is on a flush draw from the flop and there is $50 in the pot.

Giving them purely a flush draw they have a 36% chance of hitting that flush card by the end of the hand.

So with $50 in a bet of $20 would be -EV for him to call in the long run, but close enough that he might call it. If you push in $50 he's probobly going to fold (if he's a decent player).

So by doing this, if you get that call everytime its +EV for you in the long run, the winning big pots right away isn't always the smartest play.

Most notably in a cash game.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Somebody checks the flop, you bet, he calls. He checks the turn, you bet, he calls. Rag, Third of a suit comes on the river. He bets. He made his flush. I don't care if there is a 5.8% chance. He made his flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. But if I have been leading all the way, and a third suit comes on the river I am going to bet again. If I get reraised then I go from there. Its the same as flopping a high pair of jacks, getting no resistance, and then a queen comes on the river. You arent going to slow down here. Flushes are just one more that could possibly be out.