Check raising a flush draw

[edge-t]

I've been playing TAG(actually: Weak-tght) for about 6 months now. Have about 30K hands over a few levels. I'm no where as good as some of the players here, but I'm improving as I move along.

Recently, I've been loosing up my hands a little and increasing my aggression selectively(as some of the forumers suggested). One thing I'm not sure if I'm doing right is checking raising a flush draw. Here's an example

You have 100BB, so does Villain. $1/2 blinds NL cash.

You're on the button(T8 diamonds), 2 limpers, you call on the button and SB completes, BB checks.

Flop($10)
Ts 4d 2d

SB, BB bets out $7, 2 limpers folds to you... Hero??? RAISE(My bad, corrected!! ) to $21. SB folds. BB either...

1. 3bets, we fold
2. call - we know that he's on top pair, firing a second barrel on the turn might get him to fold
3. He folds and we pick up the pot.

What would make this play profitable?

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

i don't think i've ever checkraised on the button before.

for the sake of replying i'll assume we're SB.

the only problem i have with this is that it looks like you have exactly what you have. now if you're playing at a table full of idiots who aren't paying attention, fine, but most decent+ players will look at this situation, think, "what could he be check-raising with in a limped multiway pot like this" and put you almost squarely on a draw, because little else is feasible.

Overpair - would have raised preflop.
Set - probably would have led flop.
Reasonable made hand (TPDK etc) - probably would have made a probe lead on flop.
Anything else - would have check-folded flop.

like i said, i don't mind this at a table full of idiots, and check-raising does have it's advantages like free card possibilities (although in a limped multiway pot it's not unforseeable that someone has a better flush draw than you), but i'd much prefer a bet-3bet line if i had any respect for the players in the hand, simply because it's a far greater representation of strength (opponents can now certainly more feasibly add sets to your range, for one thing), and hence you're more likely to get people to fold *and* take down a bigger pot when you do.

 

[edge-t]

i don't think i've ever checkraised on the button before.

My bad... corrected .

 

[aliengenius]

I think that it depends on your table image and the nature of you opponents (hopefully weak-tight for this play).
Anyway, I have to disagree with DM that it is "obvious" what you have here, especially if you fire another bullet on the turn. Check raising is a pretty big sign of strength, especially in NL where you don't need to do it to protect your hand (unlike in limit, where you sometimes need to go through betting contortions in order the change someone any kind price). A set is definitely within your range.
Playing a flush draw aggressively out of position is tough, but in the right circumstances the move might be worth it.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Anyway, I have to disagree with DM that it is "obvious" what you have here, especially if you fire another bullet on the turn.

The main problem here is that a lot of the time you're not going to get to the turn, so we can't really use possible turn actions as an indication of anything. If villain assigns a large range of our hands to 'flush draw' based on the action thus far, he's obliged to 3-bet the flop as (a) he stands to take down a nice pot there and then, or (b) we will make an incorrect call/shove.

I agree that aggressively playing flush draws OOP can sometimes work, but it's best saved for HU raised pots (where you know a bet from villain is more likely to be a c-bet *and* by going for a c/r you're only risking giving a free card to one hand as opposed to four), not 5-way limped pots.

 

[joeeagles]

Check/raising a flush draw is fine to do in HU pots, as long as you don't play it like that every time and become predictable, also, as long as you don't check/raise only draws but other hands too, that's the key. Doing it OOP is actually a great move sometimes because you will take the pot down right there if your opponent's bet was a c-bet, besides the added bonus of scaring him and fold top or middle pair. I don't think it looks exactly what you have, actually the check/call OOP looks more like a draw, but again its about playing it differently every time and keeping your opponents guessing.

It can be successful but it has its cons also. If you don't hit on the turn you almost "have" to fire again and it can become expensive.

Can't really answer the question if its profitable or not because it depends on table.

 

[aliengenius]

I think I missed something somewhere....

The main problem here is that a lot of the time you're not going to get to the turn, so we can't really use possible turn actions as an indication of anything. If villain assigns a large range of our hands to 'flush draw' based on the action thus far, he's obliged to 3-bet the flop as (a) he stands to take down a nice pot there and then, or (b) we will make an incorrect call/shove.

I guess I just don't follow this line of reasoning, I can't really understand () how you think someone is going to (shove) reraise with something like top pair/tk after they are check raised...

I agree that aggressively playing flush draws OOP can sometimes work, but it's best saved for HU raised pots (where you know a bet from villain is more likely to be a c-bet *and* by going for a c/r you're only risking giving a free card to one hand as opposed to four), not 5-way limped pots.

This is dead on-- you probably are usually relegated to a passive check/call (if you think the implied odds are there), or check/fold when out of position against multiple opponents.

 

[edge-t]

The way I thought was: Check raising usually signals to the opponent.

"Hey, I have a set/two pair or better."

That's the reason why I check raised. If the Villain calls, we can be sure that he's most likely on top pair. Firing on the turn might get him to fold, if he's a weak tight opponent.

Checking raising in this instance, we still have outs. 9 for flush, 4 for two pairs. I think it might be profitable, if we can get the villain to fold slightly less than 50% of the time.

I'm not really sure if my reasoning is correct.

 

[joeeagles]

The way I thought was: Check raising usually signals to the opponent.

"Hey, I have a set/two pair or better."

That's the reason why I check raised. If the Villain calls, we can be sure that he's most likely on top pair. Firing on the turn might get him to fold, if he's a weak tight opponent.

Checking raising in this instance, we still have outs. 9 for flush, 4 for two pairs. I think it might be profitable, if we can get the villain to fold slightly less than 50% of the time.

I'm not really sure if my reasoning is correct.

In your specific example I think the check/raise is profitable if he folds less than 50% of times, I'm not running any numbers on it but its pretty intuitive. You'll have at least 12 outs, and 14 if he's calling with an overpair. So lets say he folds 30% of the time. The remaining 70% of times (when he calls) you're expected to win about half of those, maybe a tiny bit less, but intuitively it sounds profitable.

In my first post I said I couldn't tell if its profitable or not but I was speaking in general, not in the specific example in OP where you have a pair. In your example you're 44% to win if you're up against aces and opponent has Ad, and 40% to win if he has AT with ace of diamonds (and I believe, but I might be wrong, that this is worst case scenario), 45% to win if he has AT with no diamonds. Even counting the times you're up against a better flush draw (which means he doesn't have any pair at all but it could be 2 diamond overcards, ex. he has AK of diamonds) you're 51% to win. So its pretty intuitive the play is profitable even if he folds 30% of times. Maybe someone can run the exact numbers.

 

[joeeagles]

Edit:


I was wrong, worst case scenario is he has a set of tens, in which case you're 28% to win.

I don't think it changes anything about profitability though.

 

[edge-t]

Edit:


I was wrong, worst case scenario is he has a set of tens, in which case you're 28% to win.

I don't think it changes anything about profitability though.

Hmmm... I don't know how to run the numbers, but like you put it, intuitively speaking, I felt that it was profitable when I made that play(quite a few times). most of the time, I got them to fold, rivered my flush a few times and folded on the river/checked it down a few times. I don't have the exact numbers, don't know how to filter pokertracker...

Anyway, I hope someone can help me run some numbers or at least teach me how. ... Just wanna be sure.

 

[edge-t]

Here's some calculation from Pokerstove:

Board: Ts 4d 2d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 60.250% 55.40% 04.85% 53202 4656.00 { Td8d }
Hand 1: 39.750% 34.90% 04.85% 33516 4656.00 { TT, 44, 22, ATs, KTs, QTs, JTs, T2s+, ATo, KTo, QTo, JTo, T2o+ }

We're not in such a bad shape afterall. Worst case scenario, he has a set. but I think if Villain has a set, he'll 3-bet us, and we can safely fold(unless he's trappy, but we have outs for that).

 

[joeeagles]

Anyway, I hope someone can help me run some numbers or at least teach me how. ... Just wanna be sure.

I don't have any programs to run the numbers. Cardplayer.com has a calculator where you get win percentages. So for your case you put your starting hand and the flop, and then put in different starting hands your opponent may be calling/raising you with and the % comes up. That's where I got those percentages in my post. In your example, the times he calls/raises you're very close to 50% with almost any hand he has except a set, where the set of T's in the worst case scenario.

BTW, cardschat should have a texas holdem calculator, how about it mods?