Stuff I do that I don't like

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
The turn bet is fine. It would be very marginal if you had xx, but since you actually have something you'd be happy to show down, I don't know why you see this as a leak.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was the coordinated board, honestly. If it were 47Q rainbow, and I had the 7 and it checked through the first round I could see betting, because it has a better chance of taking the pot right there.

But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing. And unless the people in the pot are aggressive an 8 or 9 probably isn't betting. So I can't take the flop check-through as 'nobody hit'. It means 'nobody aggressive hit'.

The turn is 1BB to win 1.5BB, so I have to be good 33% of the time. Because the board is higher than middle range (789), the chances of someone having one of those cards is higher than if it had been something like 456. And the chances that it made 4 to a straight for a normal limping hand (like AT, KT) increases, too.

Maybe that's where my thinking diverges from everyone else in the thread. My idea of the bet wasn't 'hey, I think my hand is best' it was made with the intent of taking the pot right there. And the chances of that are slim, due to the nature of the board. So it was ill-advised for that reason.

The flop check-through wasn't enough to convince me that I had the best hand, either. A passive 8 or 9, or a slow-playing top pair (I'm pretty tired of KK being limped, me spiking a Q on the flop and losing 2-3BB). This may sound like MUBS, but lately the monsters have been very prevalent, and slowplaying top-pairs and monster flops is the new black.

KO

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright KO .... now that my brain is hurting from all that... I think i've got a lot of learning to do! [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I guess what you're saying is that in the sb, only one limper, I should tighten up my play with any 2 suited. Basically, if they're not connected, or have no high card value, I should really consider folding.

I know there is no definite answer, but just trying to understand this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The %'s in that are accurate, I don't know how accurate my usage of them were... but remember you never want to put money in the pot without the chance at getting more back (pot odds). Pot odds are generally ignored pre-flop but in some conditions they need to be taken into account (like cold-calling PP's, for instance).

Well, tighten up away from the playing any two suited cards standards, anyway.

If the limper is loose I usually raise to isolate with normal limping hands like A9o. I'll raise with a suited A, too, like A7s, any 2 paints (QJo), K8+suited, etc.

If the limper is tight I'll limp with those instead of raise.

But you need to do more than just follow someone else's list of starting hands. You need to know the why's and what's good to limp with.

With a tight limper you have to worry about being dominated... you have K7s, and a K lands on the rainbow flop... you bet, he raises, what do you do?

With a loose limper you want to have high-card strength and decent kicker, since he may be limping with A5o. You want to be the one dominating. If you think you have a good chance at that, raise it.

KO

[ QUOTE ]
Chances for a 4-flush on flop are about 11% (and 35% chance of it hitting by turn, so 3.8%), chances for 2 pair abour 3, trips 1.5, so 8.3% chance of hitting a hand with this. So I should be getting 11-1.

2 limpers + blinds would make it 7-1, and implied odds could probably make up the rest. That is, hitting my hand and getting 1 player calling down.

But with 1 limper + blinds I'm only getting 5-1 on my complete. That means I would have to make up 3BB without getting out-drawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the real problem with completing with this kind of hand (74s) when there is only one limper is that you might have to fold on the flop even if you have a four-flush.

If you have a four-flush on the flop, one guy bets and the other folds you're getting 4:1 which is worse than your immediate odds of drawing another heart (4.22:1). Even if you could call then, on the turn you'd be getting 3.5:1 so you'd have to fold unless you had another piece of the flop.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a four-flush on the flop, one guy bets and the other folds you're getting 4:1 which is worse than your immediate odds of drawing another heart (4.22:1). Even if you could call then, on the turn you'd be getting 3.5:1 so you'd have to fold unless you had another piece of the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would never fold a flush draw only geting 4:1 instead of getting 4.22:1. Same with the turn.

Implied odds more than make up a .22 difference.

KO

[Taxmanrick]

You're right, I've never thought about odds pre-flop. Thanks for the help.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But so what? You're ahead of any draw, which makes your bet a good value bet against those hands.

Edit: Also, an opponent on a draw is only getting 2.5:1 on a call. Depending on exactly how many outs he has, he may very well be making a mistake to call. You're definitely making a mistake if you let him draw for free.

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But on the turn I'm not folding anyone drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. But so what? You're ahead of any draw, which makes your bet a good value bet against those hands.

Edit: Also, an opponent on a draw is only getting 2.5:1 on a call. Depending on exactly how many outs he has, he may very well be making a mistake to call. You're definitely making a mistake if you let him draw for free.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the check-through wasn't enough to tell me I'm ahead. I can see a passive 8 or 9 checking through.

It seems at 1/2, and even much more so lately, when I make a stab at things like this I get creamed by a big pair, or the flopped straight that didn't bet.

So I'm not putting as much stock in checked-through flops as I used to...

KO

[DMBFan23]

I'll play this preflop when I want to test myself, it probably has a small -EV in a vacumn though.

flop you can bet or not, depending, but the turn bet is a must.

[jrz1972]

There's something in psychology called the "availability heuristic." What it means is that people tend to over-estimate the occurance of memorable events while downplaying the occurance of routine, non-memorable events.

I think you may be running into this in these situations. When you bet the turn and lose to KK or a flopped straight, you think "wtf?!" and remember that event. On the other hand, when you pick up the pot you never give this hand a second thought and you've completely forgotten about an orbit later.

I think you pick this up uncontested far, far more often than you run into a trickily played overpair, a slowplayed straight, or a misplayed top pair. It's just that you remember the later cases and forget about the former.

Seriously, you can make a good case for betting this turn with literally any two cards. I've seen that advice show up in multiple books (I'm thinking Yao and Freeny, but there may have been others as well. Harmon's chapter in SS2 is another possibility, but I would need to review that one). If it would be reasonable to bet this turn WITH NOTHING AT ALL, then it has to be right to bet the turn with a legitimate hand that figures to be good at the moment.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
It was the coordinated board, honestly. If it were 47Q rainbow, and I had the 7 and it checked through the first round I could see betting, because it has a better chance of taking the pot right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it were 47Q rainbow I would bet the flop.