Free Showdown

No likey.

He's not folding a better hand.
You have limited outs when behind.
No guarantees he won't 3bet.

[thejameser]

[ QUOTE ]
Aside from sucking at life

[/ QUOTE ]

are we running that badly? and oh yeah, call down.

[chief444]

I use it a lot in situations like DMB describes. Say you have something like 99 that you raise in LP. Flop is 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. A loose/semi-aggressive EP opponent that you know will bet a J or draw bets into you on the flop. You just call and it's HU on the turn with a not-so-small pot. I'll raise a blank turn card a lot here and check the river through.

[QTip]

Chief and others:

I've not yet completely read through the post to which Shillx linked, so some of my answers may be there. Here are some of the thoughts I'm mulling over with the fsd play.

I don't think the play should be made when I have to call a 3 bet. Two different reasons I have to call a 3 bet:

1. The turn gave me more outs. I posted a hand like that a while back. I had JJ and raised for a free showdown before I realized that the turn gave me a gutshot. I got 3 bet and had to call. Putting 3 bets in on the turn is just sickening to me when I wasn't crazy about my hand to start with. Then the pot is so frickin big on the river, it's more enticing to call that as well.

2. The player is aggressive enough to 3 bet with a worse hand or draw or donk bet the river after missing or whatever.

Now, in general, I think the fact that I believe this player is betting a draw or a worse hand on the turn seems to make #2 much more likely.

Also, on folding equity, a couple things:

It would seem that folding equity should play a decent role in this play. I just finished a rereading of top, and page 114 is coming to mind.

One thing it seems I should consider more is pot size. If the pot is large, my opponent is more apt to call or make another move for the pot. I certainly don't want to increase the chances of getting pushed out. However, if the pot is too small, it may not warrant me pushing for it to begin with.

Also, it's interesting that if my opponent is betting on the come with a very strong draw, he's calling my raise anyway. Now, it's nice to charge him the max for his draw, but at the same time, I have no folding equity, he may be betting with the best hand anyway, and the river may complete some draws which will now provide him with a good bluffing opportunity.

I need to go finish reading through Shillx's links, but I just wanted to get my thoughts out here to be corrected/improved or whatever.

[Shillx]

This line doesn't make any sense in the hand you describe. In order for a raise to be correct he must...

a) Fold the draw that he is betting.
b) Fold something like A6 + the pot must be bigger then about 8 BB.
c) Fold Jx.
d) Sometimes check/fold the river with a worse hand when he misses.

The only one that could be true here is (d). In general, it is bad to assume that people will give up on the river when they miss (even more so for LAGs). A turn raise/river check from 99 gets about .32 BB of value from a flush draw + 2 overcards. If the villian will always bet the river though, calling the turn/river gets that same .32 BB of value. The reason why it is better to just call (when you plan on checking UI) is because you allow yourself to catch up on the river. It is also better in case he has only a gutshot or a hand like 77. You would rather him put bets in as a 10:1 or 20:1 dog then fold when the pot is still small.

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the play should be made when I have to call a 3 bet. Two different reasons I have to call a 3 bet:

1. The turn gave me more outs. I posted a hand like that a while back. I had JJ and raised for a free showdown before I realized that the turn gave me a gutshot. I got 3 bet and had to call. Putting 3 bets in on the turn is just sickening to me when I wasn't crazy about my hand to start with. Then the pot is so frickin big on the river, it's more enticing to call that as well.

2. The player is aggressive enough to 3 bet with a worse hand or draw or donk bet the river after missing or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are giving up too much if you never make the fsd play when you have to call a 3 bet. Obviously if 2 is likely, then we shouldn't be making this play to begin with - the whole point of the play is that the opponent is passive enough to call and check to us on the river.

As for 1, though, remember that one of the advantages of the play is that you give yourself the option of going another bet if you hit your draw, or checking down if you don't. If you get 3-bet on the turn, it only costs you 1 extra bet since you were going to call the river bet anyways (or else you wouldn't care about getting to showdown), but now you can safely fold. Plus, it only really costs you some fraction of a bet since sometimes your draw will come in (also if you get 3-bet, call, and make your draw, you are likely to get 1 or more bets in on the river, offsetting your costs even more). The true cost here is roughly P(villain will 3-bet) * P(your draw doesn't come in). Again, it really just comes down to how likely villain is to 3-bet - if its not that likely, than its not so important whether or not we have to call it.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, on folding equity, a couple things:

It would seem that folding equity should play a decent role in this play. I just finished a rereading of top, and page 114 is coming to mind.

One thing it seems I should consider more is pot size. If the pot is large, my opponent is more apt to call or make another move for the pot. I certainly don't want to increase the chances of getting pushed out. However, if the pot is too small, it may not warrant me pushing for it to begin with.

Also, it's interesting that if my opponent is betting on the come with a very strong draw, he's calling my raise anyway. Now, it's nice to charge him the max for his draw, but at the same time, I have no folding equity, he may be betting with the best hand anyway, and the river may complete some draws which will now provide him with a good bluffing opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my early post, I don't think folding equity is necessary, it's just nice to have. It's nice to be able to make sure your opponent pays for his draw, while at the same time losing the same amount when you are behind (bonus points when he makes his draw and whiffs a river CR).

I agree with you about pot size - I think when the pot is huge you are probably better off calling down. You don't want to put yourself in a position where you have to fold, and your opponent is likely to get all nutty with all sorts of hands (and in particular will be much more likely to continue his bluff on the river when you miss, so you lose one advantage of the turn raise). When the pot is small, however, it's probably not worth calling down in the first place with a hand that you are unsure of, so the fsd play is probably not even a consideration at this point.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
the whole point of the play is that the opponent is passive enough to call and check to us on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive enough to do this, yet aggressive enough to bet 2 streets into us with something we're beating...

[The Goober]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the whole point of the play is that the opponent is passive enough to call and check to us on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Passive enough to do this, yet aggressive enough to bet 2 streets into us with something we're beating...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep - i don't think this is uncommon at all. In an unraised pot with only a few players, lots of players will bet out the flop with middle pair or a decent draw (as they probably should) and many will follow up with a turn bet if no one raised the flop. The non-aggro ones, however, will usually shut down when they get raised on the turn.

You do have a point, though, in that the turn bet does make it less likely that villain is weak, because at least some of the time he'll go into check-call mode after the flop bet is called. This is why I find that most of my free showdown plays tend to be raise flop, bet turn, check river; or call flop, bet turn, check river. Raising the turn for a free sd is good play to have around, though, I think it just requires a more careful read than two lines that I listed above (hence why I don't use it enough).

[chief444]

If I have the best hand...and I do a lot of the time...I don't see why you think a raise is incorrect if he calls with a draw or something like A6. Just because an opponent calls correctly doesn't mean my raise isn't +EV. I'm not assuming a "semi-aggressive" opponent is always betting the river. They don't always bet. I have two outs so I'm not losing much really those times I get 3-bet and fold. That doesn't happen much anyway. Also, a loose opponent doesn't fold a gutshot to the turn raise. And even if he does, in that situation it's still better than me not raising and letting him see the river for no more bets than he's already put in. So while I agree with you're assessment that (d) is the only likely scenario of the four you gave, I completely disagree that (a) and (b) are necessary for my raise to be correct.

[SackUp]

I'm with Harv. Raise this flop. Protect your hand and help define EP's hand. And if bb wants to call two cold with a gutshot, awesome for him.

I'm going for a free sd when I have something like mid pair and the dude is very likely to be on a draw instead of having the over pair.