hypothetical situation.

[WVHillbilly]

Ok, thanks I'll check it out when I get home. Quick question was the hand in the book a lower pp (therefor increasing the likelihood that the turn might beat us)?

 

[Tygran]

Yeah it was TT in the book instead of JJ. I don't think there would be much difference in approach though between TT and JJ here although there is a difference.

 

[dj11]

So, am I to take it you guys are willing to call any reasonable bet (+/- 1/2 pot) from villain here and if so doesn't that imply you will c/c the turn with no scary cards showing yet still unimproved? And the river as well?

For me, I would rather be pushing this hand at the flop, than getting dragged through this hand. More often than not, a c-bet takes this down. When it doesn't, it usually ends up with a reraise from villain, which none of the folks here would call, except as a total bluff. Rumor has it there are one or two bluffers running rampant .....

 

[switch0723]

Quite a big difference equity wise Tygran. We are prone to another overcard, and are no behind another hand in villains possible range (jj) and ahead of 1 less (TT)

Not necassarily DJ, we can fold turn and river following further aggression as we can narrow villains range to a hand that beats us.

By betting we either win pot as it is, or lose a bigger pot that we put extra chips into. By check/calling, we stand to win a bigger pot than winning by betting, or lose a pot that is the same size as the one we lose if betting.

 

[Tygran]

I agree there is a difference in equity (nothing to debate there), I never said there wasn't, but how different are you going to play TT vs JJ in this situation is my point?

I don't think it would be much different. If we go with Harrington's 80 bet/20 check on the flop with TT then JJ if anything would be what..slightly more tilted towards checking? But not a ton more.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Actually the difference is fairly significant. If we assign the villain a top 20% range our equity with JJ is + given the above flop (~52%) but with TT is a little less than 47%.

 

[Tygran]

Actually the difference is fairly significant. If we assign the villain a top 20% range our equity with JJ is + given the above flop (~52%) but with TT is a little less than 47%.

I get this, and I'm not trying to be stubborn here.

Harringtons example and advice with the TT was quoted above. I didn't think it through completely when I choose to post this with JJ instead, and my main motivation was to differentiate the hand slightly so it wouldn't immediately jump out to those who have read HoC.


Our equity is better with JJ. So instead of debating TT vs JJ equity which really isn't even debatable as those are cold hard numbers, maybe talk about what you would do different with JJ vs TT, if anything, in this spot?

what % do you lead out on the flop? what % do you check? do you always call the bet back at you? I think the answer is a very clear yes you call if you check it, with JJ or TT. Moreso with JJ than TT even but all the time with both.

Or to ask the question in a slightly more focused way, if we go with 80% bets/20% calls with TT to lead out on the flop as our baseline... Do you adjust these numbers and if so how with JJ?

 

[WVHillbilly]

Well, as I've said, I would check-call a lot more than Harrington recommends. I'd like to think that I'd cbet a little more with smaller pairs but I'd really have to dig through PT to determine if that's true.

 

[zachvac]

So, am I to take it you guys are willing to call any reasonable bet (+/- 1/2 pot) from villain here and if so doesn't that imply you will c/c the turn with no scary cards showing yet still unimproved? And the river as well?

For me, I would rather be pushing this hand at the flop, than getting dragged through this hand. More often than not, a c-bet takes this down. When it doesn't, it usually ends up with a reraise from villain, which none of the folks here would call, except as a total bluff. Rumor has it there are one or two bluffers running rampant .....

no. Unless we have additional reads we can fold to a turn bet. We are investing the same amount but as mentioned the ranges have shifted vastly. If we follow your line, our cbet loses that extra flop bet that worse hands make. What happens when we bet and are flat called? Then we check turn and get bet into? I punish a lot of people who try to take your line that way. I'll flat call the flop in position with marginal holdings against players who cbet a lot and then bet at the turn if they check it. Most of the time it works. I don't mind when people I'm playing against do it, it's free money for me. Taking the C/C line on the flop just could easily be a slowplay or it could be a hand like we have. Our opponent can't double barrel this too often against us with a worse hand and as mentioned the river play is read-dependent, with my default play probably calling if he checked the turn.

 

[aliengenius]

Ok, I'll argue the other side. I have to agree w Harrington, I bet this flop most of the time.

What does a cbet accomplish here? He will only fold a hand that we beat, so if we cbet we're allowing our opponent to not make a mistake. On the other hand, if we check he can make a mistake by betting with a worse hand/bluff. Since we "win" when our opponents make mistakes and since checking is the only way to induce that mistake here, checking must be the correct play.

If we know he won't bet without an A, check-folding is the obvious play but since he'll sometimes bet with a hand worse than ours check-calling this flop should yield the best value.

The whole idea of wanting to "induce a bluff" when I have a marginal hand seems so foreign to me. Why would I want someone to make a play at me when I'm in a position where I will probably fold too often?

One of the very first concepts I learned in poker was "if you are going to call, then you are better off being the one who bets".

I am very happy to take this pot now, even if I get a middle pair to fold rather than make a play at me. I would rather be the one forcing my opponent to make a decision, rather than him putting me to the test (even at the expense of some equity).

Sorry DJ I think we get more info by check-calling than cbetting and we risk the same # of chips.

Which line tells us more about our opponents strength (assume a blank turn card):

1) Cbet, opponent calls, check turn, opponent bets - (Is he really strong or does he think we've given up after a cbet and he can steal?)

2) Check flop, he bets, we call, check turn, he bets - (In this scenario he's been the aggressor twice so I can give an him more credit for the A and fold)

In the cbet scenario our opponent has taken 1 passive action (calling the flop cbet) and 1 aggressive action (betting the turn when you checked).

In the check-call scenario he's taken 2 aggressive actions and should more often than not be credited with an Ace.

I don't think check-folding here is a huge mistake but I do think check-calling should make us more $$ overall.

As to the gaining information question, as pointed out already:

His range for betting when we check is (usually) larger than his range for calling a bet.

This is the whole "gap" concept: you need a stronger hand to call than to bet or raise. So your bet should give you MORE information than a check-call, as his hand is (theoretically) stronger, even though the action is a 'passive' instead of aggressive one.

standard wa/wb flop play

I think the whole "wa/wb" concept gets carried way too far. In fact, in this case, it isn't even applicable, since there are bad cards (overs) for us on the turn (even more so w TT).

no. Unless we have additional reads we can fold to a turn bet. We are investing the same amount but as mentioned the ranges have shifted vastly. If we follow your line, our cbet loses that extra flop bet that worse hands make. What happens when we bet and are flat called? Then we check turn and get bet into? I punish a lot of people who try to take your line that way. I'll flat call the flop in position with marginal holdings against players who cbet a lot and then bet at the turn if they check it. Most of the time it works. I don't mind when people I'm playing against do it, it's free money for me. Taking the C/C line on the flop just could easily be a slowplay or it could be a hand like we have. Our opponent can't double barrel this too often against us with a worse hand and as mentioned the river play is read-dependent, with my default play probably calling if he checked the turn.

So what happens when you run into a hand like AT, who c-bets the flop, then checks the turn for pot control after you float ? He has now "induced a bluff" from you with a much stronger hand than JJ or TT.

 

[zachvac]

So what happens when you run into a hand like AT, who c-bets the flop, then checks the turn for pot control after you float ? He has now "induced a bluff" from you with a much stronger hand than JJ or TT.

Yep, that's the downside. That's why I qualified it as against players who cbet close to 100% of the time. If your cbet% is close to 100% it means your range is not affected by the flop and your range on the flop is the same range as what you would raise preflop with. The majority of these hands are not hands that will call a turn bet. That means my play against someone who cbets almost all the time will yield a profit. This is similarly why we don't want to be cbetting 100% of flops. In fact imo we should be cbetting the top and bottom of our range. The middle-strength hands like TPWK/mid pair/pair with an overcard I will often not cbet simply because I don't want to build a pot and it has showdown value (hence most of the hands I fold out with a cbet would lose to me at showdown anyway).

Obviously it depends on reads though, if he folds close to 100% to cbets I'll cbet this just because I know it'll fold out the overcards that can outdraw me. My main point though was that cbetting 100% of the time is a bad move and easily exploitable. I think in general one of the biggest mistakes I've seen from decent players online is cbetting too much. It's easily exploitable and if we cbet both our big hands and bad hands we still are not readable (ie when we cbet they don't know if we hit or not) but we gain a lot more value with our JJ type hands like this.

 

[WVHillbilly]

I think the whole "wa/wb" concept gets carried way too far. In fact, in this case, it isn't even applicable, since there are bad cards (overs) for us on the turn (even more so w TT).

I'll agree and I think I may have indeed misused the term in this thread. After using Pokerstove against a top 20% range JJ was barely ahead. TT was behind. So I guess what Harrington and you are saying is that the lower our equity is in the hand the more we should be cbetting in these situations (basically bluffing that we have the Ace). I think what Tygran is trying to get at is what's the right mix of cbet to check-call for these hands and how much does it change as our equity changes?

 

[F Paulsson]

This is the whole "gap" concept: you need a stronger hand to call than to bet or raise. So your bet should give you MORE information than a check-call, as his hand is (theoretically) stronger, even though the action is a 'passive' instead of aggressive one.

Well, yes, but no.

The gap concept applies to him in this case. He needs a better hand to call with than to bet with, therefore if we have to put in $5 on the flop, it's better if he bet it, than if we did. See what I mean?

 

[dj11]

We got sidetracked here. OP stated villain was unknown. Against unknowns, fancy play results will be unknowable.

With this marginal hand, and a called PF raise, a more straightforward approach, of c-betting is called for. And in this case folding to resistance of a significant nature.

IMO

 

[aliengenius]

Well, yes, but no.

The gap concept applies to him in this case. He needs a better hand to call with than to bet with, therefore if we have to put in $5 on the flop, it's better if he bet it, than if we did. See what I mean?

Right, that's how I meant it: HE needs a better hand to call. But I don't follow as to why that makes it better for him to be betting in the context of gaining information.

As I said, I'm willing to sacrifice equity here in order to end the hand with the pot. I DON'T want a smaller middle pair betting the at me and putting me in a guessing situation where I just want to see the river as cheaply as possible. In other words, I don't want to induce bluffs with a marginal hand such as this.

 

[zachvac]

Right, that's how I meant it: HE needs a better hand to call. But I don't follow as to why that makes it better for him to be betting in the context of gaining information.

As I said, I'm willing to sacrifice equity here in order to end the hand with the pot. I DON'T want a smaller middle pair betting the at me and putting me in a guessing situation where I just want to see the river as cheaply as possible. In other words, I don't want to induce bluffs with a marginal hand such as this.

And why not? Your hand beats 100% of bluffs. Look at it this way, let's group the hands into 2 groups, one is hands that beat us, aces, sets, 2-pair, etc. other group is hands we beat.

#1: if we take the cbet line we (a)win the pot, or (b)he floats us, steals on turn, or he (c)pays us off thinking he could be good and plays for pot control

I think that (a) is by far the most common scenario and that (b) and (c) will cancel each other out


#2: If we take the cbet line we lose our bet 100% of the time, because either way if we're called I'm assuming we're done with the hand.


#1: If we take the C/C line we (a) win the pot with no more bets, just as (a) above, whether we check down or bet a later street, (b) he double barrels us and we lose the bet, same results as (b) above and equally unlikely. (c) We induce a bluff and win a bet.

Note that the difference in the 2 lines for #1 is that (c) in the C/C line is SOOOO much more likely than (c) in the cbet line.

#2: if he bets the flop, we lose a bet

So #2 is the same. If we're beat we pay the same amount of money, one bet, whether it's from us or him. For #1 though, when we are winning, our opponent will put in much more money if we just check and let him bluff at it. Note that the increase in value comes from the gap concept, that our opponent needs some kind of a hand to call a cbet, but not any hand to bluff after we show weakness. This is a tougher hand OOP than in position no matter which way you look at it, both ways the river decision if we get a checked turn is going to be borderline. If you cbet then check the turn and river did that flop call really guarantee you're beat? If you check/call the flop and then check the turn and river does that mean you're beat? I'd be inclined to call river bets in both scenarios simply because of the weakness we've shown on the turn and river (since we're OOP and have to act first on the river). If you think cbetting is the correct play please tell me which part of my logic you disagree with. It's definitely opinion, and I'm making estimates. Just wondering what the difference is in my estimations and the estimates made by the proponents of cbetting here.

Also, I agree that always checking this is bad, but I think our default play, especially against an unknown, should be to C/C. A cbet isn't terrible, and it's not bad for a play to mix it up, so no opponent can rule out a middle strength hand when you cbet, but with these kinds of hands I definitely prefer the C/C line as the default line that we take the vast majority of the time.

 

[dj11]

Sorry zach, but your logic makes little to no sense to me.

 

[zachvac]

Sorry zach, but your logic makes little to no sense to me.

really?

 

[zachvac]

ok let's look at an extremely similar hand. Yes it's a tournament, but it has a ton of relevance. I was railing aloevera in the $3 rebuy, and this hand happened. She had QQ.

pokerstars Game #17255072159: Tournament #87045215, $3.00+$0.30 Hold'em No Limit - Level XI (400/800) - 2008/05/06 - 22:46:59 (ET)
Table '87045215 30' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: TheBigT96 (40530 in chips)
Seat 2: posseven (23244 in chips)
Seat 3: UvBnFelted (18815 in chips)
Seat 4: phrozen3 (2210 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 6: 6BLUFFMANIAC (5881 in chips)
Seat 7: HOTTCRDS (44674 in chips)
Seat 8: XBarbaPapaX (14700 in chips)
Seat 9: aloevera (24869 in chips)
TheBigT96: posts the ante 75
posseven: posts the ante 75
UvBnFelted: posts the ante 75
phrozen3: posts the ante 75
6BLUFFMANIAC: posts the ante 75
HOTTCRDS: posts the ante 75
XBarbaPapaX: posts the ante 75
aloevera: posts the ante 75
posseven: posts small blind 400
UvBnFelted: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
phrozen3: folds
6BLUFFMANIAC: folds
HOTTCRDS: folds
XBarbaPapaX: folds
casaspimp is connected
aloevera: raises 1600 to 2400
TheBigT96: folds
posseven: folds
UvBnFelted: calls 1600
*** FLOP *** [Ad Jd 3h]
UvBnFelted: checks
aloevera: bets 2400
UvBnFelted: calls 2400
*** TURN *** [Ad Jd 3h] [6h]
UvBnFelted: checks
aloevera: checks
*** RIVER *** [Ad Jd 3h 6h] [2d]
UvBnFelted: bets 2400
???



How much information did that cbet get her? Is this just weakness from the turn check? And this is a pot in position, being OOP as we are in the actual hand we're discussing makes it even worse because we've also checked the river in front. How much credit can we give to a river bet in this situation? How much did that cbet really tell us? Do you really mean to tell me only the A calls a cbet?

 

[aliengenius]

A really bad comparison:

1. she has position
2. there is a flush draw that can call