Learning to think on the fly -- a test

[Rococo]

Hi guys,

Several initial thoughts. First, in a 4-handed game, you have flopped an absolute monster. You very likely are taking this hand to showdown, and you shouldn't be too concerned about pot control, even though you are out of position. The goal here should be to develop a plan that gets the money in the pot.

Second, this is not a good board to slowplay.

Third, I don't think that it is necessary, or even a good idea, to bet a standard amount on the flop against each opponent. Varying bets sizes here shouldn't leak too much information because your continuation bets when you miss should vary in size as well depending on opponents and board texture.

OK, on to the specific secenarios.

Scenario 1

This is the one player that I respect. I am inclined to bet somewhere around 3/4 pot to full pot. You should not assume that a call here means that this player does not have a draw because this player is sensitive to implied odds and he knows that he may stack you if he makes his draw on the turn and you have a big hand. Still, I want to charge him if he does have a good draw, so I want to make good-sized bet here. If an A, 9 or [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] hits on the turn, you are going to be in a tough spot. For that reason, I think that it is best, especially for beginning players, to push on the flop if Villain 1 reraises. If you call the raise, you probably aren't going to know what to do if a scare card hits on the turn, and you want to avoid situations where you could make a big mistake like folding on the turn if a [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] hits and Villain has A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]x. Moreover, if Villain is reraising with a hand like K3, KQ or AK, there are a lot of turn cards that could kill your action so best to get it in now. If Villain 1 reraises all-in, this will be a very big draw (rather than a set) most of the time and thus will be an auto call for you.

If Villain flat calls, I lead the turn. Villain is capable of bluffing, but probably won't do it often enough to risk giving a free card on the turn.

Scenario 2

This one is easy. Forget anything fancy and bet 3/4 of the pot (or full pot if you are sure Villain will call). A normal reraise could be a set, but might be a hand like AK. A reraise is unlikely to be a draw from this player, so I can live with a flat call of a reraise, or pushing, depending on whether Villain is the type that likes to put his money in the pot in installments or all at once. A reraise all-in means something very different from this player. It will usually be a scared set, probably 3s. You might be able to find a fold here, but it would be tough.

No matter what Villain does on the flop, I lead most turns.

Scenario 3

This player likes to bet, but I don't want to show a tremendous amount of strength early in this hand, so a big CR is out of the question. Check-call is unnecessarily cautious against this player. I see two viable lines. Bet full pot and push if Villain makes a big reraise. This is fine. The second line is sexier. Bet 40% of the pot or so, and try to draw a big reraise. A smallish bet here is likely to be read by your opponent as weakness (whereas Villain 1 might see it as strength) or maybe a draw trying trying to see a cheap turn. You may get reraised by a lone K, or a draw. Either way, if I underbet the flop, I am not pushing to a reraise.

If Villain calls my small bet on the flop, he probably doesn't have much at all. I probably just lead the turn and call a push unless the turn card is an A. His range is too wide to do anything else.

If Villain reraises my small bet on the flop, a CR all-in on the turn can be a nice play no matter what the turn card is. If it is a rag, Villain may call with top pair thinking that you are on a draw (remember, he likes to pick off bluffs). CR all-in on the turn is OK even if a scare card hits because it will look to Villain like a great card to bluff. In the case of a scare card, I still like a CR all-in better than check-call. Even a LAG can't be expected to bluff the river here, or call a river bet with middle pair, etc.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
Third, I don't think that it is necessary, or even a good idea, to bet a standard amount on the flop against each opponent. Varying bets sizes here shouldn't leak too much information because your continuation bets when you miss should vary in size as well depending on opponents and board texture.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nice analysis, except that in all three scenarios you are leading out for a 3/4 to pot size bet, which could be seen as a default line. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Rococo]

How so. I thought that I was clearly advocating an underbet (which might strike some as counterintuitive on a board with draws) in Scenario 3.

[Guin]

S1: I don't like being in hands against this type of player... at our level lots of donks to pick on instead. So I would PSB + a little ... if raised I would probably fold and figure he hit a set. Note that I play typically as a 23/9/3.

S2: I like these types of players and would lead out with 2/3 psb as if I was on flush draw. If raised I probably min raise to build pot... if turn is a brick I probably 1/2 psb it.

S3: Against aggro I would check and call almost any bet. Probably lead the turn even if flush hit for 1/2 psb. The goal against these guys is usually to get my stack in the middle against them and worst case I can suck out like a champ!

Guin... finding I do well in all scenarios so far except for 3 where the suck outs are going the other way!

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
How so. I thought that I was clearly advocating an underbet (which might strike some as counterintuitive on a board with draws) in Scenario 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you said that the underbet was sexier, that's for sure. I didn't get the feeling from reading it that you necessarily thought that the underbet was the better line because of the chance that villain flat calls.

I'd categorize the underbet in Scenario 3 as "fancy play syndrome" at my level, but at yours it probably works better. I'd underbet in Scenario 3 about 25% of the time.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]


I'd categorize the underbet in Scenario 3 as "fancy play syndrome" at my level, but at yours it probably works better. I'd underbet in Scenario 3 about 25% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't think about underbetting a specific percentage of the time because it is so player dependent. I don't think that underbetting the flop is fancy play syndrome at any level so long as your read on the player is correct. The read is critical, of course, because underbetting is a BIG error against the wrong opponent. What you are really saying is that Scenario 2 is much more common at lower limits, which I agree with wholeheartedly. I underbet in Scenario 2 literally 0% of the time. It is suboptimal against Villain 2 in a vacuum, and I get no deception value because Villain 2 probably isn't paying attention anyway.

My point was to encourage people to think about creative lines based on specific player reads.

Scenario 1: Bet 1/2 the pot. I reraise if reraised, and call it down from there, unless bets get huge, in which case I fold.. If not reraised, I bet 1/2 pot again on the turn.

Scenario 2: Bet 1/2 the pot. Call if raised. Call it down from there.

Scenario 3. I bet the pot on the flop. Unless he pushed, I'm going to the river with this guy.

[aces_dad]

I agree with this, I happily push a turn raise from villian3 after leading for 2/3+ PSB. Occassionally he'll have some strange 3 holding but his propensity towards bluff/raising a potential scare card, with holdings we're almost all ahead of, makes this a good situation for us.

[aces_dad]

Godfather I'm agreeing with you again. This is the villian who could most easily hold a 3 (along with many other holdings we beat so we must bet the turn) and is the least likely to raise with anything we beat. I respect his raise the most here.