Improper odds for the fishies

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd read SSHE as it explains this stuff really well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read SSHE, 5+ times as a matter of fact. I love the book, and feel it is the best SS book ever printed, but one of my only few criticisms is that at times the book seems to assume your opponents are of the thinking type and also understand the principles illustrated in the book.

As a side note, there was one hand quiz that I wanted to discuss a while back. I don't have the book in front of me now, so I'll post a new thread about this when I get home.

Are there any guidelines to quoting a book here as long as I give due credit?

[Greg J]

You raise an intersting point. Is it better to let them make a mistake, or give them a chance to make a HUGE mistake? It depends on whether they will make the bigger mistake. Here is a hand from memory I posted several months ago.

I am in the BB with 83o. There are four callers and the sb completes.

The flop: 6 Q 3 r. SB checks, and I check intending to fold to any bet, but it's checked around.

3 bb pot on the turn: 8. SB bets, and I call, getting 2 more callers behind me. They were probably already making a mistake by calling. I didn't want to totally blast them out.

River is a brick. SB checks, I bet, get two callers and MHIG.

Most of the time raising this turn will just result in blasting out the field, even against loose passive types (plus there is the rare occasion where I'm behind to SB, which opens me up to a 3 bet).

EDIT: This kind of situation is not the norm. Usually when you have the best hand it's best just to bet/raise.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd read SSHE as it explains this stuff really well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read SSHE, 5+ times as a matter of fact. I love the book, and feel it is the best SS book ever printed, but one of my only few criticisms is that at times the book seems to assume your opponents are of the thinking type and also understand the principles illustrated in the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why you put emphasis on thinking players versus non-thinking players so much. Let's take an example and what it means for each of the players -

Say you have TPTK and the pot is 10SB. There's a bet right in front of you and you raise so it's 2SB to your opponent behind you who has a gutshot draw (needs at least 10:1 to stay with proper odds). Say

a) opponent is thinking-type. Raising forces your opponent to fold while he would stay for 1 bet. Folding him out is a good thing because it increases your chances to win this pot which is worth taking down right now.

b) opponent is non-thinking. He calls your 2SB without the improper odds. This is good for you as well because of your pot equity. You get more than your fair share of the money going into this pot with your hand, you don't mind so much if you get callers. Note, if your opponent folds, it's like scenario a.

Notice if we don't raise the outcome isn't good. Both opponents can call profitably which hurts you in both cases. You haven't increased your chances to win by folding out thinking opponents nor have you taken advantage of your pot equity against non-thinking opponents.

[bravos1]

Here is a hand from a few weeks ago which really got me thinking about this.

dealt 97s in BB, 4 limpers, SB completes and I check
6 SB in the pot

flop comes 852r giving me a gutshot to the nuts and a very weak BDFD, so ~5 outs or so, discounting my BDFD a bit. SB checks, I check, UTG bets, and ALL call.
12 SB in pot

turn comes 6 completing the rainbow. SB checks, I check (looking to CR UTG's bet), but it gets checked around to the button who bets. Now it gets interesting. SB raises which admittedly caught me by suprise. I pondered for a second trying to decide if I wanted to try and get the remaining 3 to over call 2 bets and hope that the button popped it again, or just 3 bet right there. I 3-bet figuring that the other 3 would probably fold anyways facing 2 bets, so lets go to war w/ the button and SB.

So, I 3-bet, UTG calls [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img], MP1 calls [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img], and MP3 folds.

Wow, I did not expect that. Button and SB only call.

River comes Q, and the SB leads out again, I raise, UTG folds, everyone else calls.

I show, everyone else mucks. I pulled up the hand because I was RELLY curious to what everyone had. Button flopped a set of 5s, SB has 34s for 3rd nut straight, and MP1 had A8s (wow, just wow). UTG muttered in the chat window about AA never winning for him (hmm, I wonder why? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img])

[davelin]

I'm not sure why this hand has you scratching your head regarding giving improper odds to opponents. You have the nuts on the turn and are maximizing your value by raising given this table. If your opponents weren't total idiots, then it would be a closer call between 3-betting the turn or going for the overcalls. But at this table it's a simple answer.

In situations regarding improper odds, there's a different way of thinking going on when you have a monster hand or have hand that needs protection.

Why all the frowny faces when you're getting all those calls on the turn? Turn those frowns upside-down bro.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a hand from a few weeks ago which really got me thinking about this.

dealt 97s in BB, 4 limpers, SB completes and I check
6 SB in the pot

flop comes 852r giving me a gutshot to the nuts and a very weak BDFD, so ~5 outs or so, discounting my BDFD a bit. SB checks, I check, UTG bets, and ALL call.
12 SB in pot

turn comes 6 completing the rainbow. SB checks, I check (looking to CR UTG's bet), but it gets checked around to the button who bets. Now it gets interesting. SB raises which admittedly caught me by suprise. I pondered for a second trying to decide if I wanted to try and get the remaining 3 to over call 2 bets and hope that the button popped it again, or just 3 bet right there. I 3-bet figuring that the other 3 would probably fold anyways facing 2 bets, so lets go to war w/ the button and SB.

So, I 3-bet, UTG calls [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img], MP1 calls [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img], and MP3 folds.

Wow, I did not expect that. Button and SB only call.

River comes Q, and the SB leads out again, I raise, UTG folds, everyone else calls.

I show, everyone else mucks. I pulled up the hand because I was RELLY curious to what everyone had. Button flopped a set of 5s, SB has 34s for 3rd nut straight, and MP1 had A8s (wow, just wow). UTG muttered in the chat window about AA never winning for him (hmm, I wonder why? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

what about this hand specifically made you think about this thread topic? I'm having a bit of trouble tying the 2 together.

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn those frowns upside-down bro

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct as well. Best case scenario is all call and BTN caps.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
You have the nuts on the turn and are maximizing your value by raising given this table. If your opponents weren't total idiots, then it would be a closer call between 3-betting the turn or going for the overcalls. But at this table it's a simple answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, at this point I did not know that the table was full of a bunch of clowns! 4 limpers plus the blinds is fairly common (I find goot tables) and nothing was real out of line until I 3-bet. I'm not sure I agree with the 3-bet being as obvious for value if you feel that the other 3 would call 2, but not 3. Surely I did not have this type of read, but it would be interesting to maybe run the numbers. If they would call 2, but not 3, that's 6BBs (you would expect to get back 1-3 of these depending on if the original better called 2)

[ QUOTE ]
In situations regarding improper odds, there's a different way of thinking going on when you have a monster hand or have hand that needs protection.

Why all the frowny faces when you're getting all those calls on the turn? Turn those frowns upside-down bro.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Like I said, this hand started me thinking differently in regards to overcalls primarily regarding the A8 play. I started worrying less about overcalls and just started "value" raising more hands. The results will be hard to quantify because when a person folds you don't know if it was the raise or bet that "really" folded them out or if they would have overcalled. BTW, those weren't frown..LOL, just somewhat shocking/confusing regarding their play. I need to get used to the fact that no matter how much one plays, they will continue to see something new everyday..

[DRD66]

[ QUOTE ]
1) may make a thinking player fold. good.
2) when players call with incorrect odds it is a winning play(for you).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If they suck out that's fine...we still made sklansky bucks on the play.


[/ QUOTE ]

This should become a standard term, IMO. I like making sklansky bucks, but I LOVE cashing them in a few orbits later.

[kiemo]

[ QUOTE ]


So, I 3-bet, UTG calls [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], MP1 calls [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img][img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], and MP3 folds.



[/ QUOTE ]

I changed the smiles for you