On the Edge Part VII

[Gamealot]

Some things I am wondering about this article:
1. The premise about the implied odds validating the raise seems to be lacking the analysis to prove it...yes the player hit the implied odds here but only because the cards came out just about perfect. Btw I am not talking about the implied odds once the reraise is done - that is straightforward. The murky waters here (for me at least) are the implied odds at the MOMENT of the reraise. We can include the cards that give the near nut flush in this category of winners, but what about all the other cards that dont? And the ones that give you that top pair and then you get to guess about your kicker - which according to the players own read is very likey not good? When you play all those eventualities out is the reraise profitable? Not so sure...perhaps David Slansky will read this and crunch the numbers hehe
2. The analsysis given would apply to most any two suited conectors (given different flops that lead to draws) and the advice seems to boil down to "put chips in early so you have pot odds to draw later" which in the long run can't possibly work out because at the moment of the reraise into the intial raise and all those callers - the cards your holding are behind and the fact that others are behind as well doesn't change that. The concept of driving out the other rabble even though you are behind because it improves your odds of beating the leader doesnt seem to apply here - you have a K high with a shot at the nuts - if you knew exactly how those cards were going to fall (the way they actually did) you would want to bring everyone along because its more money you are going to take (from more players) when you hit the nuts (thinking here the expected value of all the extra hands that pay you is better than the ones that would have folded but stayed in and chopped the pot with you - which turns out in this case to be only another KQ which probaly doesnt fold at that point anwyay once they are in).

The point being here that this hand is going to either hit the nuts or near nuts or be a loser, and it really doesnt matter how many other hands are in play. If this is indeed the case then the best approach if you feel like gambling is call...if you get enough callers you can justify an implied odds gut shot draw after the flop otherwise run. But thrwoing your chips in blind BEFORE the flop so you can justify the gut shot (or flush) seems like a loser over all the hands that play out.
3. But if it does make sense and I have missed somethign then something like J-10 suited down to even 6-5 suited has the same value; heck if the raiser has AK you even got more live cards! Your still in it for the draw...I suppose as you go lower someone else might hit the better draw but you need to contrast that vs the likelihood that all that raising drove out the low cards which are your competition. And this brings us back to realizing that we are just plain playing loose calls doesnt it?

Just some thought hey I'm no expert probably missing some big points here....

[BeerMoney]

I think if I played this hand, I would look back at it and say, "wow, look what I got myself into preflop"...

[BarronVangorToth]

For reference, I did quote p. 83 from Small Stakes Hold 'em right at the top of the article... There is a listing right there of what you should and should not play in what situations given what conditions in front of you.

I wish I can give a better reason as to why I will raise in this position with this holding given the actions in front of me OTHER than what I'm about to say: it says so in SSH.

I'm FAR from a poker expert, I just apply what I read from the experts at 2+2.

Did I MISapply here...?

Perhaps. I don't think so.

Pre-flop: it's a raise according to SSH.

Obviously, the river is about extraction.

So the question comes down to the flop and turn and whether my analysis as to whether I have the correct odds, given the situation, the pot, my knowledge of the players, etc etc, makes this correct.

Would this MONSTROUS pot make it worth it...?

If you did this 1,000,000 times with them doing that, do I make money...?

Would you...?

The flop and turn we can debate - but when it comes to pre-flop, this is TEXTBOOK Small Stakes Hold 'em.

The question is (one that I posed to another poster in another thread about this article) - why do some people NOT like the raise with KQs in this spot when Ed tells us to raise?

A year ago, I would've probably folded pre-flop, as I was very weak tight.

NOW ... while my variance is higher, my profits are insanely better in 2005 than 2004, as I've been studying these fringe hands more and more and trying to maximize them when they come up.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[9cao]

Given your reads of the players being very agressive and having premium hands I think this is a terrible play.

You didn't consider a redraw on the river when you considered your pot/implied odds on the flop.

There is a reason your opponents paid you off on the river................

[BarronVangorToth]

On the turn I didn't have to worry about the redraw -- either I hit and would have the nuts OR I'd just wasted more bets...

On the flop, with two cards to come, do you really think that was a closer decision than the turn?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

That's the best point brought up so far. SSH presupposes you're facing mostly bad opposition. A 3-bet with this hand against 1 good player and 3 or 4 weak cold callers is fine. The first raise could be a hand that doesn't dominate you, and you almost certainly have a better hand than all the cold callers.

In this particular situation, that first, strong cold-caller should have you worried to death. KQs sure plays well multiway, but have no doubt about it, it is a top pair hand first and foremost. It helps multiway because even if you're dominated or facing an overpair, you have backdoor draws to save you some of the time.

Now you're facing a raise and a cold-call from two players who might have you TOTALLY dominated. You also know they're aggressive, so unless you get a really favorable flop (you didn't), post-flop is going to be a bitch. And it was.

Say for instance, the flop was K J x, with one diamond, instead. You'd be priced into seeing the turn, due to that very same pre-flop raise, most likely for a cap, even though you're drawing extremely thin.

This raise might've been slightly EV, but if you're going to follow a book's advice, make sure you consider the situation you're about to use it in.

[9cao]

I just think that given your reads preflop you have no reason to belive that this won't be capped on the flop. UTG capped this preflop so why don't you think he has AA? Therefore, you are putting in 2 BB for 18 BB getting only 9 to 1. I think that the redraw on the river would negate any implied odds that you are getting.

So no, the flop wasn't a "closer" decision.....it was a clear fold as was preflop, in my opinion.

[BarronVangorToth]

Pre-flop is a sticking point for many -- but why is it, given SSH p.83?

Do you think said advice doesn't apply?

Why? Why not?

Folding this pre-flop is a clear error in my view as this is a profitable Group 2 holding, especially considering how big the pot already is when it gets to me...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

Just because it's in SSH doesn't mean it's the God-given truth.

I already voiced why I think it's closer between a call and a 3-bet than you might think. You have two very strong, selective, aggressive opponents in the pot in EP. Your hand is in a lot more trouble than if it was only 1 strong player.

Also, as an aside, if you KNOW it's getting capped by UTG, would you still raise? If you know he'll cap AA, KK, AK, and QQ, do you still raise?

By the way, I don't think the redraw negates the implied odds (though it obviously reduces them), given you can get away from your hand on the river if it's more than 1 bet to you.

[Gamealot]

I think the post by kidcollin complements my thinking - I think the call was an error based on your knowledge of the opponents. Your read of them has you facing better overcards - either flat out better overpair or them having an Ace kicker if you hit one of yours. That reduces your hand to a junky suited connector which might as well be a 5-6 as much as a K-Q. And it's a loose call (actually raise lol) that you hit and got a great pay out on - by hitting one of four cards on the river!

If your read of the opponents was "they play small stakes and don't know much more than jack about poker" than that changes the situation to me because you can get some mileage (at least sometimes) by hitting top pair and having it hold up. Perhaps that is why the book gives that advice. Your opponent is playing tighter (smarter?) than small stakes generally does, and thus small stakes guidelines dangerous.

Perhaps. Again, I'm no expert.

To answer your questions above, if I read the guy as having AA,KK,QQ, or AK, AQ, with callers some of which are aggressive and seem to know what they are doing and I am holding K-Q suited, I am folding. Nice cards, bad terrain. I can find a better spot to fight, later.

If I read the table as yahoos tossing money around and I feel like gambling, sure I'm in but I am a caller preflop and postflop unless I hit top pair and it checks to me. Or, in tourney play which is where I play most of my games, if I have an M below 3 I will probaly go all in here just cause I am desperate otherwise I am folding since I wasnt first in vigorous and read the player as a high value raiser.

And I admit I might very well be leaving some money behind the long run but my comments back to the original post still seem pertinent - I can't see where the value comes if you look at all the possible flops (ie the long haul) given your read of the raiser and some of the callers.