should i have called this?

[slycbnew]

Look your stratagy contradict itself.

You say that we become a calling station as we wont fold for such a small amount of money.


Then you say we are trying to get him to put as much money in bad whilst drawing.

Yet the result is that we pay him off every-time he hits, thus reducing the amount of money he puts in bad (because he is now getting some added implied odds)

It just makes no sense to have this small amount of money hanging around after the turn that we are going to put in anyway.

Look at it this way - let's say we shove the turn 100% of the time and he calls 100% of the time. He's made the incorrect play 100% of the time, right?

Let's say we overbet the turn leaving $0.10 effective behind 100% of the time and he calls 100%, and we call the river 100% of the time. Better or worse? He got $0.10 in good and the rest in bad, right?

Now start moving the amount we leave behind on the turn up until it starts getting significant whether we call the river or not when a flush completes. When does it become significant? Also, Villain (presumably) doesn't know whether or not our strategy is to become a cs - he can't depend on the implied odds.

There's definitely a point where we can't call the river and get into a tricky spot (bluffable or spewing implied odds - I don't think we're at that point in this case w a 2/3psb on the turn, but I understand your point), but say we were effectively deepstacked - shoving in order to shut out a flush draw would be bad, right? That's the original point I was making.

 

[slycbnew]

Thanks for all the inputs. Another question here:

(I forgot to save hand history, can't find it now so can't convert)

But I had AKos on the button (6 handed table). MP raises 4xBB (he's loose aggressive preflop according to PTR.com stats). I reraise him to 3x his raise (to 60c at 5c table). He calls. I am thinking Ax or KQ type of hand here.

Flop is K23 with two spades. I lead out with a 4/5 pot size bet. He sits a while and flat calls. The turn is 8d. What should I do on the turn?

About half of my stack is already commited at this point.

(I shoved. He had KK)

I am wondering if there's anyway I can avoid losing my entire stack in this situation. Somewhat similar situation to my first hand posted above.

Tricky spot, I'm losing my stack alot in this spot, I'm not putting him on KK/AA here (both are generally automatic 4bets pf) without a read (i.e., without seeing him flat KK+ oop to a 3bet pf in a prior hand). When he flats the flop, I'm going to find it hard to not bet the turn.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Look at it this way - let's say we shove the turn 100% of the time and he calls 100% of the time. He's made the incorrect play 100% of the time, right?

Let's say we overbet the turn leaving $0.10 effective behind 100% of the time and he calls 100%, and we call the river 100% of the time. Better or worse?

Now start moving the amount we leave behind on the turn up until it starts getting significant whether we call the river or not when a flush completes. When does it become significant? Also, Villain (presumably) doesn't know whether or not our strategy is to become a cs - he can't depend on the implied odds.

There's definitely a point where we can't call the river and get into a tricky spot (bluffable or spewing implied odds - I don't think we're at that point in this case w a 2/3psb on the turn, but I understand your point), but say we were effectively deepstacked - shoving in order to shut out a flush draw would be bad, right? That's the original point I was making.

Deep stacked would be fine and we wouldn't want to shove as we would want our villain to call, but deep stacked we wouldn't be committed to putting the remainder of our stack even when the scare card comes.

The situation we are in is one where we are not deepsatcked. (hence we have only a small amount of money left on the river) because it is small we are going to put it in the pot no matter whet happens and are therefore offering implied odds to our opponent.

 

[zztoprules]

Without knowing how he was playing you, I think you probably made the right play calling. You represented strength pre-flop, flop, and turn ... and then when the river came, he makes a pot size bet ... smooth calling all the way. A side of me thinks he may have had floped a straight with J,T, and bet like he did on the river thinking you didn't have the flush checking on the river.

Keep pluggin away though

Sincerely,

zztoprules

 

[slycbnew]

Deep stacked would be fine and we wouldn't want to shove as we would want our villain to call, but deep stacked we wouldn't be committed to putting the remainder of our stack even when the scare card comes.

The situation we are in is one where we are not deepsatcked. (hence we have only a small amount of money left on the river) because it is small we are going to put it in the pot no matter whet happens and are therefore offering implied odds to our opponent.

But if the amount we're offering in implied odds is inconsequential to the amount of the mistake Villain makes on the turn call... I understand your point, do you understand mine? The value of the implied odds only applies to the amount left behind, not the amount put in on the turn.

Where exactly the scale of the implied odds being offered trades off against the scale of the mistake on a turn call falls is a math thing, and I'm terrible w math, but I don't think that leaving $1 behind offers enough in implied odds to offset the mistake of Villain calling the turn.

 

[crajeejosh]

i would think that the pocket KK i dont know about that but maybe you bet too little on preflop? .15 people would call that unless depends on their stack. i mean if they have like 20 dollars behind them .15 cent raise is not much, but also if you have low stack then they might just call you because they think youre on tilt, but then again i wouldnt have much to say unless i was watching you play at the table for a while.

 

[Pafkata]

But if the amount we're offering in implied odds is inconsequential to the amount of the mistake Villain makes on the turn call... I understand your point, do you understand mine? The value of the implied odds only applies to the amount left behind, not the amount put in on the turn.

Where exactly the scale of the implied odds being offered trades off against the scale of the mistake on a turn call falls is a math thing, and I'm terrible w math, but I don't think that leaving $1 behind offers enough in implied odds to offset the mistake of Villain calling the turn.

How do you justify risking the entire stack only to win one more bet on the turn if we get lucky and draw does not complete???

Sklansky money BS theory does not justify to risk the whole stack. It's -EV play.

The play you suggest is only good when very deepstacked and fold is an option on the river,but this situation is completely different. Do you understand the difference?

Villain will pay even a pot bet with a draw,because he knows we are pot committed and he will get paid if the draw completes. Thus his call will be correct because of the implied odds.

No one should ever want a draw to call him in this spot, that's why we do something very simple - overbet to protect our hand and hope we will get called by some weak Ace or worse two pair hands.

All-in on the turn with the best hand in this spot guarantees us to win the pot and we can move to the next one. Case closed.

 

[slycbnew]

OK. I suck at math, but here goes. Please point out the error.

$0.50/$1 NLHE (to keep numbers round)

$32.50 effective stacks (that's roughly what the hand example is in OP, I think, I'm inferring stack size since it's not stated)

CO opens to $3.50, BTN folds, SB folds, BB calls

Pot = $7.50

Flop is two toned, we flop top two pair. We bet $5 and get called.

Pot = $17.50

Turn is a blank, $24 effective behind.

Let's say whenever we shove, villain folds 100% of the time w a flush draw. We win $8.75 against the flush draw (I'm ignoring the rake).

Let's say whenever we bet $12 on the river, leaving $12 behind, villain calls 100% of the time w a flush draw, villain will fold to a river bet 100% of the time if the flush doesn't hit (not realistic), we will call the river 100% of the time when a flush does hit (not realistic) and 100% of the time Villain has a flush when the flush makes on the river (not realistic).

80% of the time, we will win $20.75, and 20% of the time we will lose $32.75.

.8 x $20.75 = $16.60, .2 x -$32.75 = -$6.55

$16.60 - $6.55 = $10.05 expectation w the "dumbest" strategy of 100% calling the river when the flush completes.

$10.05 is greater than $8.75, so this line I think has a better expectation. You can manipulate the values of the betsizes to make it more or less attractive to Villain to draw and to make it more or less favorable to Hero.

Like I say, I suck at math, so if there's an error here, please identify it.

 

[ComplexPlaya]

You didn't bet enough. You made it worthy for him to chase the flush (if that's what he was doing). Bet the pot or more.

The blinds you're playing are so low they're guaranteed to be 90% calling stations, so you can bet double or triple the pot or all in in those situations I think...

 

[slycbnew]

Hmm, I did make an error - effective stacks are around
$54.

Flip it around then and fold the river 100% of the time the flush completes. Our expectation is even better than when we were calling the river 100% of the time w effective stacks at $32.50 (we lose ~$20 20% of the time).

I was never specifically advocating becoming a calling station unless the remaining effective stack was small relative to the overall pot - pls don't get hung up on that. My argument was that we want Villain to call, not to fold, to a turn bet when he's holding a draw, and that betting in such a way that he calls as much as possible with improper odds has a positive expectation. I think the math demonstrates that.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Hmm, I did make an error - effective stacks are around
$54.

Flip it around then and fold the river 100% of the time the flush completes. Our expectation is even better than when we were calling the river 100% of the time w effective stacks at $32.50 (we lose ~$20 20% of the time).

I was never specifically advocating becoming a calling station unless the remaining effective stack was small relative to the overall pot - pls don't get hung up on that. My argument was that we want Villain to call, not to fold, to a turn bet when he's holding a draw, and that betting in such a way that he calls as much as possible with improper odds has a positive expectation. I think the math demonstrates that.

Or shove lol

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Hmm, I did make an error - effective stacks are around
$54.

Flip it around then and fold the river 100% of the time the flush completes. Our expectation is even better than when we were calling the river 100% of the time w effective stacks at $32.50 (we lose ~$20 20% of the time).

I was never specifically advocating becoming a calling station unless the remaining effective stack was small relative to the overall pot - pls don't get hung up on that. My argument was that we want Villain to call, not to fold, to a turn bet when he's holding a draw, and that betting in such a way that he calls as much as possible with improper odds has a positive expectation. I think the math demonstrates that.

around $5 more like

 

[slycbnew]

Or shove lol

Stu, the statement that started this was that we should shove to fold out the draws. If shoving folds out the draws, you win the pot that was created on the flop, which has a positive expectation, but if Villain calls a turn bet, the pot is bigger. 80% of the time we win that bigger pot, 20% of the time we lose it, which translates to a higher Ev than shutting out the draws.

I'm not sure why this is a controversial or difficult to understand position.

And obviously I'm trying to take the effective stacks at 5nl in OP and translate it to 100nl to make the math easier, and obv I botched the effective stack size - it's closer to 54bb's than 33bb's. However, the implied odds offered by the amount left behind aren't really relevant - even if you fold 100% of the time, your Ev is still higher.

Kinda feel like a strawman if you know what I mean. I'm dropping out of this discussion, since I don't think the argument is being taken seriously.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

OK just run an equity simulation.

I have made put a lot of flush cards in our villians range.

I have compared what happens when we shove and villian calls with TP3K+ and the second nut flush draw.

Vs

the smaller bet on the turn and then us committed to calling a small bet made on the river by thie villian (I have again assumed the villian would bet only TP3K+ or a completed Fd (when it comes in)

This of course does not mean the villian will have either TP3K+ or FD most of the time (just makeing sure you are aware that this is a simulation of how his logical range (any PP Any Ace, any suited King any SC any broadway) play out on this board.

The results of him folding anything but the 2nd nut FD

and calling with all of his FDs are as follows

Our shove has an EV of 2.38

Our bet then call play the river has an EV of 1.96

Therefore the decision to shove is the better option

 

[slycbnew]

I believe I said several times throughout this thread that if Villain will call a shove, it's clearly the better play. Completely agree.

The idea that shoving to get Villain to fold draws (i.e., worse hands) is what I was specifically commenting on, that we want him to call w draws and that we should size the bet to encourage Villain to call with improper odds - and that the bet should be the biggest that he will call. If he'll call a shove, that's the correct play. If he won't call a shove, but will call 2/3psb, that's a better play from an Ev standpoint.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I believe I said several times throughout this thread that if Villain will call a shove, it's clearly the better play. Completely agree.

The idea that shoving to get Villain to fold draws (i.e., worse hands) is what I was specifically commenting on, that we want him to call w draws and that we should size the bet to encourage Villain to call with improper odds - and that the bet should be the biggest that he will call. If he'll call a shove, that's the correct play. If he won't call a shove, but will call 2/3psb, that's a better play from an Ev standpoint.

THe purpose of having him call with only the 2nd Nut FD is to show the difference between him calling 100% of the time and calling a much lower %
The lower % combined with the bigger bet yields a higher EV for us.

The point of me saying previously that effective stacks were $5 and not $50 was not that I cant fathom moving the decimal place one point over, its that at $5NL people love to call with their draws and they will call big bets.

I personlly believe that they will be calling with a wioder range than just the 2nd ND (giving an even bigger EV) but for the sake of argument I think that calling with the 2nd ND is a reasonable cut off point.

 

[slycbnew]

We've been talking past each other throughout this thread. If we have a high expectation that Villain will call a shove, I completely 100% agree it's a superior play to betting any smaller. If we have a high expectation and desire for Villain to fold to the shove because he's drawing, I think we're misunderstanding poker, and this is what my comments were all directed at.

/my input

 

[Stu_Ungar]

We've been talking past each other throughout this thread. If we have a high expectation that Villain will call a shove, I completely 100% agree it's a superior play to betting any smaller. If we have a high expectation and desire for Villain to fold to the shove because he's drawing, I think we're misunderstanding poker, and this is what my comments were all directed at.

/my input

You are probably right here.

I am of the opinion that its correct to allow opponents to draw (at a bad price) with stacks of 150BB+

With the 100BB stack we end up with a small amount of money left in nomans land on the river.

If the scare card comes in, we get too good a bluff catching price to fold.

If we start folding, players can call with things like gunshots because they feel that if their GS comes in then they win (obviously) but if the FD comes in they can jam on us and get a very decent price on a bluff.

So we are dammed if we do and dammed if we dont.

Now if you replay the same situation with deeper stacks, we dont end up in this situation, we are betting the turn, actively rooting for our villian to call with a draw and planning to call his smaller bets (because even with the implied odds if this we still have him calling bad on the turn).

We become less bluffable (because it costs him more to jam)

We are less call station on the river because there is too much money left behind for us to auto call.

Before you make the turn bet, ask yourself this. How much money will be left behind after I make this bet and will I be obliged to call even when the FD comes in on the river? If the answer is that you will be obliged then the correct play is to shove.

If the answer is no I think I could get away from the hand, so Ill look at the size of my villains bet and decide then, then the correct plays to make a standard turn bet and play out the river.

What you are saying about not folding out draws, but instead charging them is correct, but it is also stack size dependent.

 

[Pafkata]

Stu said it all !

If the situation was with deeper stacks -> 2/3 or pot bet to encourage a drawing hand to call , but the stacks are shallow and any reasonably sized turn bet makes Hero pot committed.

Whenever your next bet is going to make you pot committed -> you'd better shove, because you will be putting the money in the pot anyway ,so it's +EV to add some fold equity.

 

[blueskies]

Another one to ask for your thoughts. The other guy had Qd3d (it showed in the hand history visualizer even though it doesn't show down there).

I thought about raising the turn, but I didn't want to get reraised, so I wanted to see what he would do. I was surprised he checked so I wasn't sure how much to value bet on the river with a made fullhouse, thinking maybe he had mid pair. Should I have shoved it all in or bet at least a buck? If I knew he had a flush, I would have bet higher. And if he had trip 7s, he might have been willing to call higher too.

Stacks:
BTN with $4.88
SB with $5.00
BB with $2.79
UTG with $5.71
MP with $9.47
CO with $4.79

Blinds: $0.02/$0.05
Site: Pokerstars
Dealt to BB:7♠ 3♣
Preflop:
UTG calls [$0.05]
MP calls [$0.05]
Hero: checks
3 players folded.
Total folds this street: 3
Potsize: $0.17
Flop:
6♦ 7♦ 3♠
Hero bets [$0.20]
3 players fold.
UTG calls [$0.20]
1 players folded.
Total folds this street: 1
Potsize: $0.57
Turn:
K♦
Hero: checks
UTG: checks
Potsize: $0.57
River:
7♥
Hero bets [$0.57]
1 players fold.
UTG calls [$0.57]
Results:
Hero shows a full house, Sevens full of Threes:
7♠ 3♣
UTG doesn't show.
Hero collected $1.66 from pot

 

[chevanater]

In the 1st hand I am pushing the turn. As someone stated early you will get called by draws, 2 pairs, and other random aces you beat.

 

[Dreams of Tragedy]

look like you had a bad day where the board was not working with you

 

[Pafkata]

Last hand: I think it was better to check-raise the flop with a pot-bet. This way you could get more info and you could put villain on a flush-draw. Turn check is OK. River bet as played is OK,but you could get more if you built up a bigger pot from the flop.

 

[thepokerkid123]

In your latest hand, it's good up until the turn where I think you still bet. UTG's range is heavily weighted towards pocket pairs and raggy junk, most of which can't have the flush. Most often you're up against just a 7 or pocket pair and I think you should still be trying to get value.

Bet like 40c on the turn and bet half pot on any non-diamond or K river.

Bet size on the flop/turn should be reduced a little depending on opponents, but since this guy will limp UTG with Q3, he's the kind of player you want to make big value bets against.


Also, buy in for 100bb, it's very important and very hard to win long term with less.

 

[MicroStakesManiac]

Hard not to be results-oriented here, but I think you played it well all the way down.

Checking the turn signals weakness, but also keeps the pot smaller in a hand where you are clearly vulnerable. Had you bet into me on that turn, under those conditions, I would have put you all in or raised you up enough to make the draw to the big Ace or FH unprofitable.

As it happened, villian's check/mistake allowed you to see river for free and improve.

I might have played the river differently. With a flush on the board, I **might** have gone AI hoping that V had made a flush or worse FH but was slow-playing the turn. The pockets that beat you -- KK -- don't make sense given V's play to that point (and 76 is highly unlikely, but certainly possible) so I think you were good to go all-in. The pot river bet was certainly higher % to get called, but may not have been most postive EV (definitely was not given what V actually held).
--MSM
http://microstakesmaniac.com