Me vs. Matt Flynn

[mythrilfox]

ML4L posted a hand awhile back against Matt where he had TPTK with AK. Matt check-raised him on the flop and Mike raised him back.

Matt folded, but what if he pushed? Mike said he'd have called. I don't think your thinking is too far off, but it just depends on if they're as aggressive as Matt is and how many times you've seen them pull this in the past.

Just don't let this thinking skew you into making bad calls against solid players.

[cero_z]

Hi Matt,

Something that should've been painfully obvious before just occurred to me. Based on the reasoning in your post (no matter what the card, you had a license to take it away), your all-in on the turn is a huge mistake. If it's correct to bluff no matter what card comes off, I don't think it can be right to move all-in with a hand that's way ahead. So if any card other than a 6 or K came off, pushing is the move. But with trips, he's got 2 outs or less, as you recognized. I suspect this was one of those where as soon as he made that weak turn raise, you knew you were taking the pot away, and then failed to adjust when the miracle came off. I do that [censored] too, and it really pisses me off.

[ML4L]

Hey cero,

[ QUOTE ]
Something that should've been painfully obvious before just occurred to me. Based on the reasoning in your post (no matter what the card, you had a license to take it away), your all-in on the turn is a huge mistake. If it's correct to bluff no matter what card comes off, I don't think it can be right to move all-in with a hand that's way ahead. So if any card other than a 6 or K came off, pushing is the move. But with trips, he's got 2 outs or less, as you recognized. I suspect this was one of those where as soon as he made that weak turn raise, you knew you were taking the pot away, and then failed to adjust when the miracle came off. I do that [censored] too, and it really pisses me off.

[/ QUOTE ]

While the all-in on the turn may or may not have been correct, it was not NECESSARILY incorrect just because Matt intended to move in on the turn even if he didn't improve.

From a simple perspective, Matt's decision on the turn had he missed would be along the lines of "Do I have a greater than 50% chance of taking the pot away from my opponent's superior hand if I bet (assuming an all-in to be pot-sized)?" Again, this is overly simple; you also must factor in things like the times that he will improve to beat JJ when called, the times his pair of 6's is good, etc. But, we'll just assume that to be the criteria for the sake of my point.

Now, his (simplified) criteria for betting the turn once he has improved is "Does the chance of Wayfare making a big call with an overpair plus the equity that I gain when I make him fold his two-outer exceed what I would gain by checking behind?" Then, if the decision is to bet, Matt must decide the amount which maximizes EV, which may or may not be an all-in. For the example, we'll assume that all-in maximizes Matt's EV. This isn't too much of a stretch, as any reasonable bet pot-commits both players, so all the money goes in anyway if some is bet. An exception might be an uber-small bet that Wayfare just can't fold to, but then you run the risk of Wayfare not having JJ and giving whatever he has the proper odds to call the turn bet. So, I think all-in is probably fine.

So, if there were a situation where Wayfare's calling frequency here were less than 50% yet greater than 0%, it might hypothetically be correct to move all-in on the turn regardless of whether Matt made his hand or not. Then, factoring in the meta-game implications (i.e. if Matt wants to pot the turn there with nothing, he needs to do it with his made hands), I think that Matt's move was reasonable.

As to your general point of getting so caught up "I have to steal this pot" mode that you bet the wrong amount when you do luck out and make a hand:

Yeah, I agree. I do the same thing sometimes (see Hand 1 of my overbet post).

ML4L

[ML4L]

Hey cero,

[ QUOTE ]
When I feel I'm up against a thinking, aggressive player like you, and I've played my hand like Wayfare up to that point (usually because I sometimes slip back into a default mode that contains some of my old lines; a symptom of multi-tabling), I expect you to try that, and I'm very inclined to call you with a hand as big as JJ. Is this just suicide?

[/ QUOTE ]

The simple answer is that, no, this isn't "suicide," i.e. there are places for calls like this against aggressive players. As a general rule, though, there are a few reasons to avoid calls like this. One is that a "good" aggressive player is rarely bluffing you as often as it feels like he is (unless he thinks that you are incredibly weak). Two is that, when he is bluffing, he usually has many more outs against the hand that you call with than you have outs against his hand when it is better (i.e. JJ here is drawing to two outs, but if Matt had even a gutshot, he would be drawing to twice as many). Three is that, if a good, aggressive opponent knows that you are capable of big calls, he is going to have a field day with you. So, I'd only be inclined to make a call like this against an overly-aggressive player who underestimates you and will continue to do so after you make the call.

The better solution is to keep yourself out of spots like this. Although, from what it seems to me, when you play, you are more often the bully-er than you are the bully-ee, so you already know most of this... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

ML4L

[Matt Flynn]

the 6-handed games play much more aggressively, so people adapt.

some players adapt quickly. against them you fire early, not late, and reduce your firing rate on later streets. plus i increase my annoyance raises. of course when you have a hand you should pound the pot.

matt

[Matt Flynn]

cero in a "real" game i would've bet less and often bluff with less.

mostly we were just having fun and slinging chips.

matt

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
cero in a "real" game i would've bet less and often bluff with less.

mostly we were just having fun and slinging chips.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in a 'real' game, what would your bet have been on the turn?

I made such a nice argument out of hypotheticals, and you had to go and ruin it with reality... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Mike

[Matt Flynn]

i would've bet whatever you recommended in your post. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

depends on how much i thought he'd call with an overpair. probably would've erred on the cautious side and bet 20x. he might come over the top or call then bet the river. i bet small again on the river. hard to resist that. all them pot odds.

if you really think he'll lay down there you can check the turn.

matt

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
i would've bet whatever you recommended in your post. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

depends on how much i thought he'd call with an overpair. probably would've erred on the cautious side and bet 20x. he might come over the top or call then bet the river. i bet small again on the river. hard to resist that. all them pot odds.

if you really think he'll lay down there you can check the turn.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so then I presume that you bet less when you miss too? If the turn is an offsuit deuce, you go with half-pot again? How often do you fire another barrel when you have the other guy in the spot that you had Wayfare?

The reason that I'm wondering is because I feel like unless you are checking behind on the turn a lot or making him pay more when you have/make a hand, then your opponent might have a pretty easy check-raise/call-down from a prior probability stand-point. Assuming that he knows math and/or has the balls, which fortunately for you, eliminates about 95% of the online population... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Mike

[Slappz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter what card comes off on the turn -- if it ain't a jack, I'm probably not playing. The fact he had the best hand is incidental.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep. it did not matter what card came off. i know what you have; you don't know what i have; and you've shown a lack of commitment.

[/ QUOTE ]



So after the checkraise, if he led into you on the turn and you hadnt improved against his overpair then you would be done with the hand?