Defending my $4-$8 Article

[JTG51]

I'm not taking one side or the other here, I just want to add a little bit.

I think the implied odds of flush draws in low limit games are usually terrible. It's SO rare to get any action once a third flush card comes, unless someone else has a flush. Most typical low limit players freeze up when that flush card hits, and will just check call with all but their strongest hands. Not much in the way of implied odds there usually.

[Ed Miller]

In my abbreviations.. SB = small bet or $4 in a 4-8 game, not small blind. I'm sorry for the confusion.

It is not the same at all. The reason the small blind folds in this case, is because a big blind who raises is frequently showing a good hand and the small blind then re-evaluates his situation and decides to fold.

I think your are off base here. For example... say you limp in the SB with 88 after three limpers and then the BB raises. Say you know for sure that he would raise from the BB with only AA or KK. Should you then call the raise? Yes... you should, even though your hand is badly dominated. You should call it because you have the appropriate implied odds to continue if you flop your set.

Now say you are in the same situation, but this time have limped in the SB with T4s. The BB then raises. His raise still means AA or KK (meaning you are actually less dominated against his hand as you were in the preceeding example). You should now probably consider folding in this case. The reason you fold here is not because you like your hand less now against the raiser... but because your implied odds have been wrecked by having to put in a full small bet.

As a third example... say you limp in the SB with AK (let's disregard the quality of this decision) and the BB raises (and his raise still means AA or KK). You should fold when it comes around to you... and this is because the raise has told you that your hand is hopelessly dominated. So yes... sometimes you fold because you have learned that the raiser has a strong hand... but other times (probably more often) you fold because the implied odds were present to see the flop for half a small bet, but not for an additional small bet even though the pot odds remain the same for both calls.

[Jim Brier]

Good examples but suppose you have a hand like Ace-little offsuit and toss in one-half of a small bet against 2 opponents. The big blind now raises and you know he would only do this with AA, KK, QQ, AK,AQ, or AJ suited. Now you decide to fold because the risk of the big blind having an ace that is bigger than yours has skyrocketed.

One situation where you frequently see players limping in from the small blind and then folding to a raise from the big blind is when the small blind is 2/3 of a small bet like in a $15-$30 game or a $30-$60 game.


I will acknowledge that the implied odds argument mentioned by you and the other poster is perhaps the only valid criticism of the article. But I still think it is wrong to call a $4 raise in a game where you only limped in for $2 with a suited connector having only two opponents one of whom has position over you. Suppose you had only one opponent - the preflop raiser. Would you still call?

[Jim Brier]

Rob if you think you can get 3 big double bets on the river from your opponent in the situation I outlined in my article, then you are right in playing on. But as pointed out by another poster, most players will not bet when they see that flush card come at the river. You rate to get only one bet not three.

[Jim Brier]

One of the fallacies of the "implied odds" argument is the assumption that you will win 100% of the time when you hit when you are not hitting to the nuts. Occasionally, you will find that your opponent is also on a draw and when you both hit he ends up with the best hand. When this happens you lose a lot. In the example given in the article, suppose your opponent is betting a set or two pair and the river is a heart that pairs the board? Now you lose some serious money at the river.

I have never been impressed with the "implied odds" arguments advanced by many because of the fact that you will not win all the time even when you make your hand. My tendency is to discount implied odds because of this fact and focus on current pot odds unless my draw is to the nuts.

[Jim Brier]

You are right about being able to call the $4 raise in the $1-$2 game a little more often than calling an $8 raise in the $2-$4 game because of the reasons stated by you and some of the other posters.

[Ed Miller]

But I still think it is wrong to call a $4 raise in a game where you only limped in for $2 with a suited connector having only two opponents one of whom has position over you. Suppose you had only one opponent - the preflop raiser. Would you still call?

I think the decision whether to call with just the raiser and you depends very heavily on the quality of his play. There are $11 in the pot, and you are paying $4 to call. If he will play differently with an overpair and overcards... and he will lay down overcards on the river if he misses... then I could see calling the raise for several reasons:

1) You know roughly what his hand is, but he doesn't know what your hand is
2) He will pay off with just overcards when the size of the pot does not justify it
3) You can get away from your hand quickly if you are beaten
4) A medium suited connector is about the best hand possible headsup against a big pair

Another important point to make:

It is worth it to limp in (paying $4) in a 4-8 game to play medium suited connectors against several opponents when you don't expect a raise. Why would it not be worth it to call a raise (paying the same $4) in a 4-8 game against several opponents with the pot even slightly bigger preflop? With a hand like 76s, you don't expect to win with just a pair in either case... so it doesn't really matter that someone raised and displayed strength. If anything, you have more information before the flop while getting better immediate pot odds.

The question with two opponents is a little murkier... but it would be almost certainly correct to call from the big blind in a $2-$4 blind game. In the smaller blind case, your immediate pot odds are slightly worse... so it's not quite as clear. But in any event, the appropriate way to view calling the $4 raise is not "like calling a double raise back to you in a $2-$4 game" but rather, "calling one small bet ($4) back to you in a pot of size X."

[bernie]

but if one remembers to discount possible unclean outs, this problem takes care of itself...say you have 4 to a flush on the turn..and you think a guy may have a set...you figure 7 outs instead of 9...pretty simple adjustment...and if youre playing the right hands (strong) you wont be facing a flush over flush very often and be on the wrong end of it...

i like the fact everyone seems to discount effective odds...by talking themselves into not having to face a bet on the turn, when it may be very obvious you will be facing that bet if your card doesnt come....

b

[bernie]

hey jim...

im going to be in vegas this week...26th-28th...i was wondering if i could meet ya if you were playing somewhere?

ill be stopping at the bellagio and maybe the mirage....just as observer though...

ciao...

b

[Jim Brier]

I will probably be playing at the Bellagio over that weekend, so step up and introduce yourself!