review: hand 59

[Greg J]

Bump because I want someone to argue with my river line.

[baronzeus]

Greg: I don't like c/c simply because villains will call with TP or 2 pair but they will check behind if bet to them. And it's very easy to fold to a raise here.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Greg: I don't like c/c simply because villains will call with TP or 2 pair but they will check behind if bet to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps smart ones with trip tends will also. I agree with yr analysis, but I am willing to lose a value single bet on the river here to a smart player.

[ QUOTE ]

And it's very easy to fold to a raise here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a tough time laying down a pot this big for a single bet, and I don't like to put myself in positions when I can make such a large mistake (one way or another). I think I have been getting this concept from reading some of Harrington's stuff (as well as some Sklansky).

Let's say you bet. You are not folding a better hand -- you have no folding equity. Anyone with pretty much any club calls. Who is calling? Someone with 3 Ts? Probably. Who else? There are a lot more clubs out than there are Ts, which in my mind makes betting for value a loosing proposition on average. But, what will checking accomplish? It might initiate a bluff to represent a high club. Or it might make Mr. "I have 3 tens" bet for value, thinking that your checking the four flush board might mean you have no clubs. I have a good shot of getting the same number of bets from from someone with 3 Ts whether I bet or check. There is no sense in taking an unecessary risk.

I check because I don't want to be raised. I check because if I catch a bluff I might get a bet from someone who might not have called my river bet. And I check because if the hand gets checked through it's not that big of a deal (since he likely would not have called anyhow).

I might be wrong -- I have been before and will be again. But I am gonna have to be convinced on this one. Thanks for arguing wth me though BZ -- feel free to keep it up [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (And anyone else too.)

[Shillx]

I would have played this hand backwards.

Check/call flop.
Bet the turn.
Plan on check/raising the river should it brick. Since it didn't brick, I would bet/call I guess. Of all the options, I only hate bet/folding. That line really sucks something bad.

Brad

[baronzeus]

You may be right about the "not folding to a raise" thing against a trickier player. But the danger in having it checked behind is scary. Betting is fun too. And I like money. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Greg J]

I think betting this might actually be less profitable for reasons that I have outlined.

[eviljeff]

I think the only street played right is the turn.

pf call seems pretty bad
where's the 3bet on the flop??
the river is a pretty easy c/c

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think betting this might actually be less profitable for reasons that I have outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll do my best here.

Let's also assume has has a T here. The only reasonable hand here by villain is Tx. And since he limped UTG, let's restrict his hand range to AT-T9.

There is a 25% chance given his hand range that he has made a flush, less if you assume he will only limp T9s and JTs but not offsuit hands.
There is a 15% chance here he has filled up with QT.

So 40% of the time you are behind, 60% of the time here you are ahead. Let's also assume that he will raise with A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] but call the other 2 kickers, and he will raise with a boat. Assuming he bluffs 1 time in 20, 35% of the time he will raise when you bet, and 65% of the time he will call.

Then there is the inducing bluffs theory. For a typical player, this is about the scariest board there is. When opponent is checked to, I think he will bluff the river without a flush 10% of the time at best, will bet a better hand 40% of the time, and will check behind 50% of the time.


In the method where you bet, you gain 1 bet 55% of the time, lose 1 bet 10% of the time, lose 2 bets 30% of the time, and gain 2 bets 5% of the time. This is -0.05SB in EV (assuming you call a raise).


In the method where you check, you gain 1SB 10% of the time, lose 1SB 40% of the time, and gain nothing 50% of the time. This method is -0.30SB in EV.

You'd have to drastically increase the bluffing frequencies to make it +EV.

This may be wrong, I'm a little tired right now. Feel free to correct it.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
And since he limped UTG, let's restrict his hand range to AT-T9.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a somewhat generous assumption to make of a typical .5/1 player at PP, but not unreasonable.

The entire analysis you wrote is predicated on the assumption he has a T. He may not (though the liklihood is high).

[ QUOTE ]
In the method where you bet, you gain 1 bet 55% of the time, lose 1 bet 10% of the time, lose 2 bets 30% of the time, and gain 2 bets 5% of the time. This is -0.05 in EV (assuming you call a raise).

[/ QUOTE ]
You forgot the percent of the time where you bet, he folds a worse hand, and you gain nothing. You can't discount that.


And since I will agree with you that

[ QUOTE ]
60% of the time here you are ahead

[/ QUOTE ]
... well you get the picture.

Let's say you bet and the 60% of the time you are ahead, you get 80% folds, and 20% calls. [.6(.8*0)+.6(.2*1)] This is .12 bets.

The 40% you are behind (to boats or higher flushes) you get 35% raises (which you call), 65% calls. [.4(-.35*2)+.4(-.65*1)]. This is -.56 bets.

Betting nets you -.44 bets.

Checking, you argue, nets you -.3 bets. I won't debate this.

I love this discussion.

EDIT: to clear up an error in writing an equation.

[baronzeus]

The difference here is that I think he has a 95% chance of having a T, and there's only a 15-20% chance TOPS that he folds. In this case, betting is better than folding [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]