Loose games - raising drawing hands on 3rd street

[ProfessorJC]

Has anyone else done any maths on this subject?

Making the pot big on third street against pairs when you hold a flush draw seems to improve your implied odds significantly, because the pairs will get locked into trying to make two pairs, while you still have access to lots of good folds on 4th street and 5th street.

With even one overcard to go with your live flush draw, I believe it is clear to reraise a big pair, if the field is loose. With no overcards, you need to be almost certain you will preserve a 3+ way pot to make the play.

I admit to having done some computer modeling to get to this conclusion. Does this marry with, say, Ray Zee's feel for the game?

[Andy B]

By definition, raising reduces your implied odds. Live three-flushes usually have more than their share of equity, though, so they are frequently worth raising in spots where most players wouldn't. By "computer modeling" do you mean that you wrote a program to figure this stuff out, or did you go to someplace like twodimes.net and do some analysis there? I think that if you play around with enough different scenarios, you will see that live three-flushes frequently have too much equity to just limp with.

[ProfessorJC]

By definition, raising reduces your implied odds.

Not necessarily - and this is my point.

By raising on 3rd street (which may be slightly EV negative if there was no betting on 4th-7th streets) it is possible that you improve your implied odds, because you get more callers on later streets because of the bigger pot.

Imagine a three way pot. Your live three flush, a pair of KK and a pair of 99. With only a single bet going in on 3rd street, the 99 makes a loose call on 3rd street, misses twice and folds on 5th when you catch a flush draw. Potentially, because you raised on third, he can no longer correctly fold on 5th when you catch a flush draw, and consequently you have 2 opponents instead of only one opponent while drawing on 5th and 6th streets BECAUSE you raised on 3rd street.) It cost you one bet when you had to fold on 4th or 5th (50% of the time), but it gained you a big share (40% or so) of the additional action granted on 5th/6th due to the bigger pot.

I believe in certain situations (opponents who play loose on 3rd but correctly later) some flush draws may be plus EV to raise, yet minus EV to call.

Imagine a game where a Q raises, a K reraises and it's your go. There's an "elephant" behind you, likely to come along for 2 or 3 bets if he's going to play at all. You hold a live three flush. Raising here (if the Queen will come along) leads to a marginal plus EV scenario. Calling is worse, even though you only win about 22% in a 4 way pot.

[patrick dicaprio]

well i hope it was right because when i played stud this was a standard play for me.

Pat

[Andy B]

In your specific example, Kings vs. Nines vs. your three-flush, if you raise, you are getting more money in at a point where raising has a negative immediate expectation. The Kings have a large edge, you're a little less than even money, and the Nines are sucking some serious hind tit. Some of the times that you would have won, your hand will be in the muck because you'll have to fold when it doesn't develop. The Kings will almost never fold what would have been a winning hand. I find it difficult to imagine that tying on the Nines increases your implied odds. If he's calling a raise from a King in what is likely to be a short-handed pot with only a pair of Nines (I'm assuming three-handed pots are the norm in this game), he's probably a loose player, and doesn't need to be tied on anyway.

Raising in a five-way pot, where people are likely to have much worse hands, does significantly increase your expectation. You're getting more money in with a hand that should win siginifcantly more than 20% of the time, even if someone does have a big pair. It should tie people on which is, I think, a secondary benefit, and not an insignificant one at that. I don't think it increases your implied odds, though.

In order for raising to increase your implied odds, the amount you collect later in the hand has to double (or triple or quadruple if you're talking about a completion). I don't think that this will be the case very often. The pots will certainly be larger, and the amount you collect on later streets will increase, but not double. Raising increases your expectation. It does not increase your implied odds.

In the Q vs. K vs. whale vs. your three-flush example, I don't see how three-betting turns a negative EV situation into a positive one. You're going to have to get more specific to sway me on that one. And I'm not afraid of a little math. If I need help, I can call my kid sister.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that if you play around with enough different scenarios, you will see that live three-flushes frequently have too much equity to just limp with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is particularly true in games where the completion (first raise after the bring-in) only doubles the bring-in, especially if you are the first raiser and there are already several limpers.

If the completion is considerably more than double the bring-in, such as the $5 bring-in 20-40 game, you should be less inclined to raise with a draw, as your raise is more likely to drive people out, which you don't want.

Reraising a probable big pair is inadvisable if there's a good chance people will drop (which many will do when it's double raised behind them). Also, the big pair is likely to pop you again if you reraise them, and they would of course be correct to do so.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
In order for raising to increase your implied odds, the amount you collect later in the hand has to double (or triple or quadruple if you're talking about a completion). I don't think that this will be the case very often. The pots will certainly be larger, and the amount you collect on later streets will increase, but not double. Raising increases your expectation. It does not increase your implied odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely agree here.

[ QUOTE ]
In the Q vs. K vs. whale vs. your three-flush example, I don't see how three-betting turns a negative EV situation into a positive one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also agree on this one. A loose player calling raises with nines doesn't need the pot to be bigger to be given a reason to keep on chasing.

al

[ProfessorJC]

It's an interesting quirk of my model, I think. Your replies have helped me clarify what is going on.
My model assumes a bet on each street, and has my opponents only calling on 4-6 street with sufficient pot-equity to justify it. On third street, I've been modeling opponent play explicitly. In a real game probably the 99 will keep playing on 5th street in an once-raised pot (a theoretical error) or will fold on third to a re-raise. The third street re-raise does tie him on on 5th street (he is correct to chase on 5th street in the bigger pot) but he has to make a poor play to get there.

Thanks for all your comments.