A sample hand from SSH

[Mroberts3]

I was recently reading SSH for the 3rd time, and I came across a sample hand where I disagreed with the authors’ opinions. Well, I don’t so much disagree as I am uncertain about practically implementing this concept. The hand is on page 163 for those of you with SSH readily available. The example goes like this: you have KK in middle position. Two players limp and the player to your right raises, and you reraise. The button cold calls 3 bets. The blinds fold, and the limpers call. The original raiser caps and everyone calls. The flop is Td 9h 5d.It is checked to the capper who bets, you raise and everyone calls. On the turn, (2s) it is checked to you and you bet with everyone calling. On the river (8s) you bet again and are raised by the button. Everyone folds to you and you call. He shows Jh 7h for a river gutshot that he had along with a back door flush draw on the flop.


OK, now Sklansky and company explain that besides the atrocious preflop call, the button’s play was fine, considering he had decent odds to call for his gutshot and back door flush draw, This I agree with. What I don’t like is how they blame the player with kings for the loss of the pot. Their argument is that he should wait until the turn when the bets are bigger to make raises and protect his hand. While it is true that IN THEORY, a raise on the turn would force the button to make a mistake I believe it is flawed in two ways. 1) The assumption here is that the button would either a)fold and let the hero win the pot or b)make another mistake by calling, and 2) that the hero will have the chance to raise the turn.

As for #1a, we are assuming here that the button is aware enough to fold a 10-1 draw with 8-1 odds, something that is obviously wrong seeing as how he COLD CALLED 3 bets preflop with J-7s. This is clearly wrong, he will certainly call anyway, and the hero will lose a bigger pot.

Now many observant people will say to me Matt, but he is making another mistake by calling and that is what we want. This is true, and I do not dispute this. However, he is only making a tiny error by calling with 8-1 odds for a gutshot. With so many people in the pot implied odds make it more like 9/9.5-10. So we are only forcing him to make a tiny error. But I’m not done yet. ALL of this is paragraph is under the assumption that the hero has the opportunity to raise on the turn. There is no guarantee that the player to his/her right will bet again. Many players would be worried that everyone called their bet and opt to check with a hand like AKs on the turn. If the player does not bet, the hero must and is in the same situation as if he had raised the flop (or close too it) but this time he just gave a free card in a monster pot, which is a disaster according to SSH. (I know many people will say that since you can not protect your hand on the flop anyway that it doesn’t qualify as giving a free card. However, it seems to me that if you forgo your flop equity you are in essence losing a certain fraction of the bets you do not make. I say only a fraction because obviously you won’t win every time.)

What I am trying to get at here is that the button’s ATROCIOUS call preflop is where the hero made his money (and from all the other players with decent but not nearly good enough hands.) It appears that by calling on the flop and raising turn, our hero has only squeezed an itsy bitsy drop of value out of this hand, but in exchange, he offered a free turn card, without a guarantee that he will be able to raise the turn and force other players to make a mistake. Wouldn’t it be just as effective and easier (especially if one is 2,3, or 4 tabling as many 2+2ers do) to play the way the hero did?

I Hope I didn’t make too many enemies with this post, my intent is not to bash SSH, it is my bible, but I just think that the book over thinks this situation too much. Perhaps this play makes more sense at higher limits, or to be more precise tighter games, but in that case we wouldn’t see someone cold call 3 bets with J7s Maybe sometimes luck just plays more of a factor in a hand than we would like.

[DrunkHamster]

This is a very good point I think. Waiting till the turn to protect our hand is not a very popular option around here, I believe for exactly the reasons you outlined. When the pot is that big, protecting our hand is extremely difficult under any circumstances. Any bets and raises are for value at this point, and we just sit there and pray our equity in the pot holds up. It is also risky - if you wait till the turn, and the player on your left bets out, what can you do? The whole field is trapped anyway, so your hand is even less protected. This play is helpful in the right circumstances (which I am still trying to implement correctly) but also often overused at the micros. Just because SSH has a section on it, doesn't mean it is often the best play.

[xenthebrain]

If the pot is really big you want to win it right away. Raising the flop doesn't accomplish that, raising the turn could do that, and if not would give you even more value.

It doesn't matter if hero would have lost a bigger pot to the guy with the gutshot, if he called the turn with two called he would have made a mistake and everytime your opponents make a mistake you gain (it's resultoriented thinking if you say he would have won a bigger pot).

But I think in this example it's really close in value.
Whoever valueraises this flop will make good profit from this hand, too.

[bozlax]

Keep in mind that SSH is designed for the SMALL stakes games usually found in casinos, not the MICRO stakes Internet games that we talk about here. While much of it is equally applicable regardless of limit and location, some pieces have to be adjusted. This is one of those.

[Mroberts3]

I don't think making the micro/small stakes distinction is important. It is how the players play, not the limits. The fact is at this table and this hand someone called 3 bets cold with J7s, so this could be at the 25/50 limit games for all i care. The answer to this problem does not changer based on the limits you are playing.

[hizo1]

[ QUOTE ]
I Hope I didn’t make too many enemies with this post, my intent is not to bash SSH, it is my bible, but I just think that the book over thinks this situation too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if it's Miller/Sklansky's or Shekra's opinion, critical thinking is always a good thing (and not just in poker). nice post.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
1) The assumption here is that the button would either a)fold and let the hero win the pot or b)make another mistake by calling ...

As for #1a, we are assuming here that the button is aware enough to fold a 10-1 draw with 8-1 odds, something that is obviously wrong seeing as how he COLD CALLED 3 bets preflop with J-7s. This is clearly wrong, he will certainly call anyway, and the hero will lose a bigger pot.

Now many observant people will say to me Matt, but he is making another mistake by calling and that is what we want. This is true, and I do not dispute this. However, he is only making a tiny error by calling with 8-1 odds for a gutshot. With so many people in the pot implied odds make it more like 9/9.5-10. So we are only forcing him to make a tiny error. But I’m not done yet. ALL of this is paragraph is under the assumption that the hero has the opportunity to raise on the turn. There is no guarantee that the player to his/her right will bet again. Many players would be worried that everyone called their bet and opt to check with a hand like AKs on the turn. If the player does not bet, the hero must and is in the same situation as if he had raised the flop (or close too it) but this time he just gave a free card in a monster pot, which is a disaster according to SSH. (I know many people will say that since you can not protect your hand on the flop anyway that it doesn’t qualify as giving a free card. However, it seems to me that if you forgo your flop equity you are in essence losing a certain fraction of the bets you do not make. I say only a fraction because obviously you won’t win every time.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are a few points to consider:

1) There are many live players out there willing to see any flop for any price. This does not mean that they see any turn and any river for any price. Players don't like cold-calling two bets on the turn. This doesn't mean they won't do it...

2) You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here about hand protection. When you raise to 'drive out' other hands by giving them improper odds to call, you are hoping they will call! If they fold, they play correctly and save money. If they call, they play incorrectly and lose money. Hand protection puts you in a win-win situation. If villains fold, then you've increased your chances of winning the pot, and hence you win money. If villains call, then you've got villains put in money with the worst of it, and they lose money to the best hand (which is you in this case).

Here's a contrived example. There's a game where you've got $20 in the pot and it's heads up (for simplicity). You know that you are an 9:1 favorite to win. You bet $5 and the other player has the option to call or fold. There are no further betting rounds. If villain folds, you win $20. But what if villain calls (getting 5:1 when he's an 9:1 dog)?

When he calls and you win, you make $25. When he calls and you lose, you lose $5.

EV = (.9)*($25) + (.1)*(-$5) = $22

What's going on? If you're inclined mathematically, here's the same EV, but calculated slightly differently:

EV = $20 + (.9)*($5) + (.1)*(-$25) = $22

You still get your $20 that you 'deserve' if villain folds. But then villain buys into an EXTRA game where he stands to lose money. 90% of the time, you win an extra $5 from him, and 10% of the time you lose $25. So in essence, when he calls, you are wagering the pot against his call when you are a favorite to win.

So you only do better when your opponents make mistakes. I'll repeat the conclsuion: as paradoxical as it sounds you *WANT* villains to call when you raise to drive them out.

3) It doesn't matter that Hero would have ended up losing a bigger pot. That's the results-oriented fallacy. If that same situation were run several thousand times, Hero makes more money when he induces a mistake from from villain than when villain accidentally plays properly.

4) Read the fine print in the footnote. You are risking immediate value on your hand for potential value on a later street. It's a gamble. You may not have villain betting into you on the turn. You don't know that the card will be a brick. Bad things can happen. However, the value you get out a flop raise in that spot (considering the potential flush draw and straight draws) will be smaller than what you can get on the turn if things fall your way. Use your reads (if villain aggressive enough to bet again?) and weigh your options (how many cards are safe?). It's a very complex situation that you won't really be able to resolve perfectly. But the indisputable fact is that the wait-for-the-turn option has a significantly larger potential value than the value you get raising on the flop.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Waiting till the turn to protect our hand is not a very popular option around here, I believe for exactly the reasons you outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not popular around here because it's very often applied incorrectly. Waiting for the turn is best when there are lots of things working against you and the pot is very large. Here's a non-example:

Hero is on the button with black jacks. He raises two limpers and only one blind calls. The flop comes T95 with two hearts. The action is checked to the second limper who bets. Hero calls, intending to raise a safe card on the turn.

Do you see the differences?

Here are a couple "wait for the turn" examples:

JTo - large pot

99 in SB

[Watain]

Well, now i also think it looks a little suspecious in the SSH. At page 166 in the footnotes it says:

"(Even if you fail to get players to fold, waiting until the turn to raise will usually mean a bigger pot when you win it.)"

If you also raised the flop it would mean a bigger pot than not raising on the flop??

[xenthebrain]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, now i also think it looks a little suspecious in the SSH. At page 166 in the footnotes it says:

"(Even if you fail to get players to fold, waiting until the turn to raise will usually mean a bigger pot when you win it.)"

If you also raised the flop it would mean a bigger pot than not raising on the flop??

[/ QUOTE ]
But then it would be more likely that it gets checked to you on the turn, so you couldn't raise anyone...