19 replies to this topic

[KDawgCometh]

http://forums.cardpl...pic.php?t=16121go to the link. Jayson and I post there. Jayson used to post there a lot before he joined the good side :wink: (or more correctly Daniel decided to open up a forum). BOth of us commented on this hand, and laughed. So I'd like some of us to take a look at this hand and comment on it here. DOn't read Jayson and I's responses before youpost in here, though I bet you'll see what is wrong with this hand. Make the comments in here

[wrto4556]

There is nothing wrong with this hand.The limp preflop is fine as is the cc on the flop.Sure, we may be against a bigger flush but it's unlikely and given that 2 players like their hand, we can get multiple bets in on the turn (as much as 4(2 from each player)).Why are you two advocating he fold a flush draw getting 3.5-1?

[amarillotg]

:shifty: i play it the same. please don't flame me.

[amarillotg]

after going over the hand again i think its probably proper to fold the flop at least. the raise could be a free card play by a bigger flush draw which wipes the implied odds of making the flush.as for the call pre-flop its something i usually do with 2 suited cards but i've been thinking lately that i might be a little to liberal with this tactic. i like the points you make Kdawg.

[wrto4556]

Folding this flop is wrong.

[MrNiceGuy]

I didn't read the responses on the other forum, but I think the flop call is okay (I wouldn't raise though).You're getting 3.5-1 on your money, and you're only 4-1 to hit on the turn, but you're 2-1 to hit by the river; and as long as you call the flop, the pot will be big enough that you'll be getting proper odds call a turn bet, so I think you should use the "by the river" odds on the flop.It's not the nut flush draw, so if it was close to break-even odds-wise, then I think folding would be better. But there's enough of an odds advantage here to make the call - plus there are implied odds, as wrto pointed out.

[KDawgCometh]

MrNiceGuy said:

I didn't read the responses on the other forum, but I think the flop call is okay (I wouldn't raise though).You're getting 3.5-1 on your money, and you're only 4-1 to hit on the turn, but you're 2-1 to hit by the river; and as long as you call the flop, the pot will be big enough that you'll be getting proper odds call a turn bet, so I think you should use the "by the river" odds on the flop.It's not the nut flush draw, so if it was close to break-even odds-wise, then I think folding would be better. But there's enough of an odds advantage here to make the call - plus there are implied odds, as wrto pointed out.

The problem I have with it is this. You are essentially paying 2 big bets(flop and turn), with horrible implied odds too. I don't really like the complete as its only three handed, so the implied odds you're getting by completing with any two suited don't fully work as you won't have enough people to pay you off. So immeadately he's calling 3.5-1 to chase two cards, but he's really paying an extra bet also for the times he misses the turn. So at best if the other guy stays in he's getting 5.5-2. I have never been a fan of making complete with any two a hard fast rule in a short handed pot, as you really don't have the good implied odds you'd want for your 1/2 bet there

[wrto4556]

Keith, take your training wheels off. And you shouldn't be thinking of the turn. The flop is what's important. We are getting barely insufficient immidiate odds with good implied odds. What makes you think our implied odds are bad? Just because we *may* be out-flushed? That's weak, imo.

[MrNiceGuy]

KDawgCometh said:

The problem I have with it is this. You are essentially paying 2 big bets(flop and turn), with horrible implied odds too. I don't really like the complete as its only three handed, so the implied odds you're getting by completing with any two suited don't fully work as you won't have enough people to pay you off. So immeadately he's calling 3.5-1 to chase two cards, but he's really paying an extra bet also for the times he misses the turn. So at best if the other guy stays in he's getting 5.5-2. I have never been a fan of making complete with any two a hard fast rule in a short handed pot, as you really don't have the good implied odds you'd want for your 1/2 bet there

Ok, I read your posts over there, and I think you guys do make a good point - in determining whether to call based on "by the river" odds, you should consider potential future action.Here, the worst case scenario is that the opponents are maniacs who will get into a raising war and put extra bets in on the flop and/or turn. Then calling the flop might be dangerous. But barring that, the most likely worst case is that the bettor folds, and the raiser bets again if the turn is a blank. Even in that case, though, you're getting 8-4 on the call, which is equal to your 2-1 odds. And I think the potential implied odds outweigh the potential reverse implied odds.Regarding the preflop completion - this was four-handed (not three-handed), with the BB in. I agree with you, KDawg, in not always completing with any two suited - I would generally fold hands like 62s, 32s. But I wouldn't call a middle one-gapper "any two suited" - there's a lot of straight potential there (not as much as for connectors, but it's not bad - I posted my flop calculations here: http://www.fullconta...9207&highlight=

[MrNiceGuy]

wrto4556 said:

Keith, take your training wheels off. And you shouldn't be thinking of the turn. The flop is what's important. We are getting barely insufficient immidiate odds with good implied odds. What makes you think our implied odds are bad? Just because we *may* be out-flushed? That's weak, imo.

FYI - If you make a flush with suited hole cards, the odds of any given opponent having also been dealt two of that suit is only 2.6%. (In practice, I wouldn't use this number, since people are more likely to play suited cards than unsuited cards, but it gives the idea - with few opponents having seen the flop, I wouldn't worry about it until the betting strongly suggests that you should).

[KDawgCometh]

MrNiceGuy said:

[But barring that, the most likely worst case is that the bettor folds, and the raiser bets again if the turn is a blank. Even in that case, though, you're getting 8-4 on the call, which is equal to your 2-1 odds. And I think the potential implied odds outweigh the potential reverse implied odds.Regarding the preflop completion - this was four-handed (not three-handed), with the BB in. I agree with you, KDawg, in not always completing with any two suited - I would generally fold hands like 62s, 32s. But I wouldn't call a middle one-gapper "any two suited" - there's a lot of straight potential there (not as much as for connectors, but it's not bad - I posted my flop calculations here:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-forums/viewtopic.php?t=9207&highlight=

but you are getting absolutely no implied odds really. As, if you hit your flush card on the river, yoiu won't really be able to extract anymore out of the other bettor as they will normally check it through, or bet/fold. Betting out might get you a call.. That is also with you calling the flop and turn, as you can eaisly expect to fold the river w/o a flush. I just don't think that there is eough in this pot to really warrant much continuation here with the amount of people involved.

[KDawgCometh]

wrto4556 said:

Keith, take your training wheels off. And you shouldn't be thinking of the turn. The flop is what's important. We are getting barely insufficient immidiate odds with good implied odds. What makes you think our implied odds are bad? Just because we *may* be out-flushed? That's weak, imo.

son, the training wheels have been off for a while, and you know that. I always consider what my full odds are for a chase, along with whatever implied odds I may get from that chase. I don't like the PF complete at all, I want another player in to really do this

[wrto4556]

Quote

I don't like the PF complete at all, I want another player in to really do this

That's a no-no and you know it. If it was 32s or 83s I would be with you. But here, a pair of eights with good postflop play has +EV.Also, a straight draw, two pair, a pair of six', a flush draw, trips...all things that can win us the pot whether we improve or not.

[KDawgCometh]

wrto4556 said:

Quote

I don't like the PF complete at all, I want another player in to really do this

That's a no-no and you know it. If it was 32s or 83s I would be with you. But here, a pair of eights with good postflop play has +EV.Also, a straight draw, two pair, a pair of six', a flush draw, trips...all things that can win us the pot whether we improve or not.

that one's a real stretch UI and you know it too

[Makata]

I was getting ready to reply and say how I thought calling the flop was horrible, but I decided to bust out my new program Poker Stove which someone forcefully reccommended to me in another thread, and found some very, very interesting results.6:heart: 8:heart: on a flop of Q:heart: T:heart: 5:diamond: wins about 42% of the time against 2 random hands. If the turn is a heart (I used A:heart: ) he wins just shy of 92% of the time. When you figure that these 2 hands are usually going to be better than "random" the %'s could drop a bit, but it still seems overwhelmingly obvious that calling is correct.If the turn is a non-scary blank (I used 2:spade: ), 6:heart: 8:heart: drops to about 24% against 2 randoms.Although in practice, I would probably still fold in that position due to my own play style, in terms of pure math it is correct, though I'm sure in reality his win % was probably alot closer to 30 to 35%, especially considering the raise either means the player has a hand he wants to protect (TP+) or has a higher flush, or possibly straight draw.

[the_stein]

KDawgCometh said:

wrto4556 said:

Quote

I don't like the PF complete at all, I want another player in to really do this

That's a no-no and you know it. If it was 32s or 83s I would be with you. But here, a pair of eights with good postflop play has +EV.Also, a straight draw, two pair, a pair of six', a flush draw, trips...all things that can win us the pot whether we improve or not.

that one's a real stretch UI and you know it too

The flop call is debatable, but the preflop complete isn't.Everything that wrto said about calling preflop is right. if the flop is 699, that's a good flop for you... well thinking this over I guess post flop play is what makes it +EV, although I would call this every single time, I can see how someone could play bad after a flop of 8kq, or 6ace10... eh I'm rambling nowI would complete that everytime in the sb, and it depends on my opponents if I call this flop (will they slowdown if a flush comes, could they fold to a raise, etc.)

[highstackpoker]

How can you possibly advocate folding 68s getting 5 to 1 Immediate odds preflop? Thats an absolutely horrible play if you fold there. Granted it's against only two other opponents, there are still significant implied odds compared to the pf odds. $1 to call where with the right flop you can win $20+...not a snowballs chance in hell would any winning limit player fold in this spot (not saying youre not or anything...you know what i mean) hell, Keith i guess they call you, I call this with 68o, much more so with 68s. As far as the flop action goes, a fold here is again...TERRIBLE! It seems as if you don't realize that the guy is effectively getting immediate odds on the flop of 4 -1...its not like the lead bettor is going to fold...and while he does 3 bet sometimes that doesn't really matter as long as each individual decision is made correctly. So...getting 4 to 1 odds on a flush draw on the flop isn't good enough because there MAY be a higher flush draw out? and the redraw? The chances of you making your hand and then getting outdrawn to a 4th heart on the river is very small, like 3%...im not gonna sweat that in a cash game. So...you'll make your flush 19% of the time on the turn, just shy, by 1% of the perfect immediate odds of breaking even...and you're suggesting folding? This would only make sense if you could make a strong argument that would suggest there are no implied odds...but even if he were to win just 1 extra bet on the turn, it would turn this into a + EV play...what you're afraid of, and the magnitude of which you warrant it, isn't very realistic.Good luck at the tables.

[cdddc75]

I think Krampy's only mistake was not betting the flop.Folding that flush draw on the flop would be silly.

JaysonWeber said:

Now we do a little math, what are the odds of hitting your Flushdraw? 36% right? So you need atleast 1-4.1. You are getting 1-3.5 BB's on this call, you LOSE money everytime you call here. you LOSE even MORE money everytime you raise.

Odds of catching flush = 35% after this flop. With two others in the pot, you still call two bets. Easy, easy, easy call that would have been easier if he was only calling one back after betting out the flop.

[JaysonWeber]

If you bet pre-flop you're getting better pot odds, I have no problem with that, That isn't the play... I see this the way he played it preflop as =EV at best... Meh

[cdddc75]

So did we ever decide what was actually wrong with this hand?Even my suggestion of betting the flop is a nitpick at best.