partypoker 5/10 6max.

currently five handed.

button is ubermaniac donk, but can fold when he knows he's beat, sometimes. there's no real rhyme or reason to when he actually folds, though--often calls down with k-high or bottom pair to a lot of aggression. SB is pretty TAG-ish, haven't seen him bluff yet.

hero is bb with 8c6c.

utg folds, button calls, SB calls, hero checks.

flop Js 8s 8d.

SB checks, hero checks, (because he knows the button will...) button bets, sb calls, hero calls (let's turn raise this mofo, right?).

turn 4s.

SB bets (well, ****.), hero ... calls? ..., button calls.

SB plays so straight up, i have no idea what he'd be betting here that i beat, except MAYBE AsJwhatever. i figure i'd better wait to boat up since i've got some dead money behind me that could literally have any two cards.

river 9h.

SB bets (well, still ****.), hero ... calls? ..., button calls.


five handed, i have no clue how to get away from this even though i'm sure that i'm beat. the only possible hand that SB could have that i'm ahead of would be AsJ, and he'd probably raise that pf. can i fold this river? if not, can i stab my eyes out? well, after i do one, one of you will have to get the other one, cuz i'm sure i'll be a bit shaky.

I have no idea what's going on with this hand other than that you might be seeing monsters in the closet. SB really never bets without having you beat?

If you're that confident in your read go ahead and fold I guess, I would be raising this turn though because I've never come across a player like you're describing

well, my thinking on the call was that if i was indeed ahead, then a turn raise on the SB would knock out the button and give me even money, only getting me reraised if i was in trouble. same thing on the river.

seriously, though, you've never played players that pretty much only bet the relative nuts? what range would you put this guy on right now?

I usually just raise the flop. Too much weird **** can go down on the turn. Maniac checks, SB leads, etc.

I would also raise the turn to charge a flush draw.

the maniac was NOT going to check if checked to, unless he wanted to change his strategy so profoundly that an eclipse would look common by comparison, seriously.

and since i knew i couldn't price out a flush draw on the flop, i waited until the turn to raise since i could make one make a mistake there. when a tight player calls this flop out of the blinds, what do you put him on? he'd raise a jack, i think, to isolate the maniac. he's only just calling something that's either an 8 that has me outkicked or a flush draw (right?), and when it hits on the turn, i think i have to assume i'm behind.

You weren't going to be able to charge on the turn either given the relative position you are in. If the button bets, it'll still only be 1 bet to the sb. When you raise, it'll still most likely be 1 bet back to the sb. I'd have also just fastplayed the flop, they never believe you anyways.

yeah, raise the flop. So how did this end up?

it was spades, indeed. i don't think someone's missed a draw on me in 3 months.


i'm still not sure what a flop raise accomplishes. anything that beats me from the SB isn't going away, and if he is drawing and misses, i am ABSOLUTELY positive the button is betting for me on the turn (he bets ANYTHING that is checked to him in position).

and jay, can't we technically make the SB make a mistake on the turn? we can make him put in 20 bucks for one round, even if it isn't calling two cold, which is a mistake, no? this is something i don't really understand (or agree with) by sklansky's analysis. me and dave would agree that calling two cold on the turn with a draw would be a mistake here, but the order in which that happens shouldn't really matter, right? part of the thinking that goes into a decision to call one bet is the possibility of having to call another by the time the betting's done for the round (harrington talks a LOT about this in his NL analysis, and it should just as well apply to limit play, too). if we think about it as two separate decisions, then it's fine to call one and then call another, but a ROUND of betting is what happens before the next card falls, not just a circle around the table. hence, waiting till the turn to make someone pay 20 for a 16% river (less, since i have boat outs on some of his spades) in a pot of this size is making him make a mistake, no matter how i get his money in on the turn.

i'd really like to talk about that final point with the strat guys. it's something that's always driven me nuts about limit analysis, and i don't think i agree with the way a lot of people approach this kind of thing.

Calling 2 bets on the turn wouldn't be a mistake by your opponent, because it is basically the equivalent of calling 1 bet on the turn from an EV perspective. Look at it this way, he's putting in 2 bets to make 6 bets in the pot total on the turn, if he puts in 1 bet to make 3 bets total for the turn, it's the same thing. He's getting 3:1 on his money regardless of whether he puts in 2 bets or 1 bet. Of course, I'm trying to keep it simple here, but it does change things with more people in the pot and other players potentially folding. Now if even calling 1 bet on the turn is a mistake, then calling 2 bets is going to compound that mistake.

I'll try to demonstrate an example to explain it. For an example, your opponent has a hand that is 20% to win on the turn and the pot is 6 big bets. If he is facing 1 bet, he will be getting 6:1 odds on a 5:1 draw which makes it a call. If he is facing 2 bets cold, he will be getting 3:1 odds on a 5:1 draw making it a bad call.

Now, lets flip it and make it a 3 player pot. There is 5 big bets in the pot after the flop, Player A bets and Player B is once again faced with calling a bet with 6 big bets in pot on the turn and his draw is 20% to hit, so he calls correctly. Then you raise another bet and Player A calls, which gives Player B 10:1 odds to call with his 5:1 odds to hit, which is an even easier call. As you can see, you don't gain anything from an equity standpoint provided your opponent had proper odds to call a bet in the first place and no fold equity was gained either.

i do get what you're saying, but shouldn't you think of it like this:

say the pot is 5BB going into the turn round of betting in a 3-way pot where you assume everyone is calling (at least). let's say 1st-to-act checks, as does 2nd, and the button bets. now, 1st calls, and 2nd raises and the button calls, as does 1st.

overall analysis: 1st to act put in 2 bets to win a pot of what is 11BB (11:2) after turn betting. if there was no raise, it would be 1 bet for 8BB (8:1). let's say 1st-to-act has a 15% equity on the turn, which is closer to what was actually the case. barring implied odds for the moment, knowing that one would have to call two bets during that round of betting would require a higher equity (1/5.5=18.2%) than calling one (1/8=12.5%), and drawing to a flush against a board pair trips actually falls into that gap.

part of poker is anticipating action FOR AN ENTIRE ROUND, right? equity does not change over the course of a round of betting--neither should its comparison with pot odds.

I do get what you are saying and it's the equivalent of waiting for the turn to raise rather than the flop to make more on your hand. If when you say charge, you mean try to extract more value for a strong hand rather than protect your hand, then I'd agree with what you're saying.

The thing is for this particular hand, you risk having it checked through on the turn and potentially lose out on bets you may have made by fastplaying the flop.

As with all things in poker though, nothing is a certainty and you can't 100% pinpoint your opponent on a hand or know exactly how they will act. The point is you can't always make the optimal play, obviously if you can see your opponents cards and know that someone will bet the turn, you would wait for the turn to raise your opponents bet. Likewise, you could just call the bet on the turn against your opponent and fold the river when you don't fill up in the hand you posted.

For the record, I raise the turn. Whatever happens, happens. In some instances I might raise the flop as well, just depends on the texture of the game.

I'm tired right now and don't want to elaborate much more. I'll see if I can have Daniel take a look at this hand and throw his input in there.

I don't want to step on your toes here, boys, but there's a good way to do this....

When you're calling a bet, and not closing the action, you have to estimate how often the player (or players) behind you will put an extra bet in, and how often after THAT some player will put a final bet in (and how often your extra opponents will call/fold). This is almost impossible to do with any accuracy DURING a hand.

This is why post-hand analysis is so impaortant. Take a player's stats, and extraplolate, from those, the odds he'll 3-bet (or cap or whatever), and remember. Sooner or later it becomes second nature. GuyOnTilt (from 2+2) taught me these basics anonymously. In my case, I'd play a close hand (usually a very cose decision, like a huge pot with a set draw, a back door straight draw, and and emercengy flush draw) in a big pot, and look at it later. Did I have the odds to come along and make money on every street? Part of that decision is how often the aggressive 4th player 3 bets, and how often the 1st or 2nd player caps.

You should be able to assign a basic probability to these actions, and decide wheter the play is good or not.

I repeat, this is almost impossible to do DURING a hand, but post-hand analysis can help you whoop more ass

Make sense??

Wamg



EDIT- as for hand analysis, i raise the turn. You can't let a random-spade come along and get you. If your read on the SB is very good, then fold the river if he 3-bets the flop and leads (barring the boat). Seriously. If the SB 3-bets you, he's good almost 100% of the time. He's definitely good enough for you to fold the river when a brick comes off