Question on hand from HOH3

NineLions

NineLions

Advanced beginner
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Total posts
4,979
I'm rereading HOH3 for the third time. There is a statement in one hand that I didn't understand the first time, second time, and now on the 3rd maybe I'm starting to understand a bit, but I'd like some thoughts on this.

This is taken from a hand with Negreanu vrs Farha. Negreanu is a great hand reader, Farha an aggressive player who will play both weak and strong hands strongly.


Blinds are 25/50, 10 players, Negreanu has 7,000, late mid player has 10,000, Farha has 30,000.

Negreanu is MP1 with 9h8h, raises to $150. Called from late mid. Farha on the button raises to 1,025. Negreanu calls, late MP calls.

Flop is 7s6s5d.

Negreanu checks, late MP checks, Fahra bets 1,000. Negreanu calls, late MP calls.

Turn is Kh


Now in the analysis part, this is where I don't quite understand fully. Harrington says "Don't worry about pricing out a flush draw - your opponent may not have a flush draw. All the other possible hands are more likely."

I'm a little simplistic, so I'm always worried about pricing out flush draws, especially when there's more than one other player still in the hand. Plus I'm not as good at reading other player's hands as Negreanu or Harrington, or at walking the tightrope between getting the most value from a hand verses risking getting outdrawn, so I'm sure this is part of my difficulty with this statement.


Is there something else I'm missing, other than to plunk some ranges into PokerStove? Even with that it would be difficult with 2 others in the hand and the fact that late MP is an unknown and Farha has position and is known to be aggressive.
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
I'm thinking in this case he is telling you not to overthink this. You have the nut str8, with one card to come, and a player who will call you regardless.
Bet it out. Even if the flush fills on the board, that does not mean anyone was particularly chasing it.
 
J

joeeagles

Guest
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Total posts
1,114
I think, at times, we worry a little too much about pricing out flush draws especially in HU pots (I know that this one is 3-handed though). At times this ends up making us lose value because the bet is too big to get called by other hands that are more probable than the flush. For sure, he is correct when he says that the flush draw is always less likely than other hands. When 2 suited cards flop, the chance our opponent has 2 cards of that same suit is about 20%. So he'll have that 1 time every 5.

In this specific case we have the nuts. TBH vs 2 opponents and 1 card to come I would worry about the flush, but if you look at Negreanu's stack he only has ~5k left and pot is 6k. Any bet here that makes flushes draw incorrectly also has Negreanu committed. So no sense in doing it, unless you shove. Shoving might make everyone fold and we lose value. There is an ~18% chance someone makes a flush (~4.5 to 1). So it comes down to 2 options:

1) We try to get the most we can in the pot vs an 18% chance of getting outdrawn (that is, if one of them really does have a flush draw). We do this because we are shortstackewd and need to make the most we can from this hand.

2) We worry about getting outdrawn and shove risking not to get any more chips. We're happy with the 6k pot.

Considering Negreanu started this hand with 7k and decided to call 1k with 98s OOP (!!!!!!!), if he only makes a 4k profit in this hand after flopping the nuts it should be considered a disaster.

I'm not saying that Harrington is correct in this, but I will say that many times you see pros slowplaying the most amazing boards, taking the risk of getting outdrawn to make the pot as big as they can and get the max value. They keep opponents in the pot rather than making them fold, at times leaving inviting odds. Does it sound right? Maybe not. But I think there is a reasonable explanation to it: hand reading.

Throughout the hand pros try to procaess all the info they can, and little by little they narrow the range of hands you might have. With this comes a sense of understanding when they're beat, and in particular if a certain river card has made their hand 2nd best. I think if you have good reading skills you can take more chances to leave a player in the pot, so you can build it to the max leaving tempting odds for draws cause you'll know when to escape. This, I believe, is the reason why pros often give their opponents correct odds.

Harrington here isn't mentioning any of this, he's only basing it on probabilities. Since this hand was 3-way, I don't know if I agree with this or not. I guess I should since its Harrington.

1 more thing: I don't mean to be "zomg its rigged", but I for sure wouldn't use this approach online :) . But thats just me.
 
J

joeeagles

Guest
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Total posts
1,114
When 2 suited cards flop, the chance our opponent has 2 cards of that same suit is about 20%. So he'll have that 1 time every 5.


Oops, got those numbers reversed (lol blame it on the Russians for inventing vodka, had way too much of it when I posted this :eek: ).

When 2 suited cards flop the chances of our opponent having 2 cards of that same suit is ~5%, so he'll have it 1 time every 20.
 
NineLions

NineLions

Advanced beginner
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Total posts
4,979
Pretty good post, joe, vodka considered. :)

In this specific case we have the nuts. TBH vs 2 opponents and 1 card to come I would worry about the flush, but if you look at Negreanu's stack he only has ~5k left and pot is 6k. Any bet here that makes flushes draw incorrectly also has Negreanu committed. So no sense in doing it, unless you shove. Shoving might make everyone fold and we lose value.

Good point, and one that isn't mentioned at that point.


I'm not saying that Harrington is correct in this, but I will say that many times you see pros slowplaying the most amazing boards, taking the risk of getting outdrawn to make the pot as big as they can and get the max value. They keep opponents in the pot rather than making them fold, at times leaving inviting odds. Does it sound right? Maybe not. But I think there is a reasonable explanation to it: hand reading.

1 more thing: I don't mean to be "zomg its rigged", but I for sure wouldn't use this approach online :) . But thats just me.


Yeah, hand reading, and that willingness/ability to walk that fine line postflop trying extract the max while trading off against the risks. Plus in many cases many, many hands experience against those same players.

I would hazard to guess that the pros don't play it quite the same online either, because the quality of competition is lower so moves or faked moves might not even be noticed, plus they're probably playing faster (less time to consider hands) than a live big money tourney, plus they're probably multitabling like the rest of the best of us.
 
S

Shandy

Guest
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Total posts
159
Just wondering if i could hijack this post, the question i have is related to the heading. In another hand in the book, harrington is playing in a hand with gus hanson and another player (sorry dont have book in front of me- all from memory)- anyway gus opens from i think the CO- to about 3 times bb, think harrington calls with 77, and bb who is short stacked shoves for another couple of blinds on top, both gus and harrington call, flop comes 45K, no gus bets out an amount which is about 1/2 pot or so i think, now harrington says that he is pretty sure he is ahead of gus' range, but is worried about bb, but if he is so sure he has gus beat, then a call or raise would be correct as the amount bet covered what he had already put in the pot, so he would still make a profit on the hand. In the hand he folded, bb had QQ, and gus had 75, and turned or rivered the case 7 for 2 pair to win. Just wondering how he can really justify his play when he has already stated that he is sure he is ahead of gus?
 
J

joeeagles

Guest
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Total posts
1,114
Just wondering if i could hijack this post, the question i have is related to the heading. In another hand in the book, harrington is playing in a hand with gus hanson and another player (sorry dont have book in front of me- all from memory)- anyway gus opens from i think the CO- to about 3 times bb, think harrington calls with 77, and bb who is short stacked shoves for another couple of blinds on top, both gus and harrington call, flop comes 45K, no gus bets out an amount which is about 1/2 pot or so i think, now harrington says that he is pretty sure he is ahead of gus' range, but is worried about bb, but if he is so sure he has gus beat, then a call or raise would be correct as the amount bet covered what he had already put in the pot, so he would still make a profit on the hand. In the hand he folded, bb had QQ, and gus had 75, and turned or rivered the case 7 for 2 pair to win. Just wondering how he can really justify his play when he has already stated that he is sure he is ahead of gus?


I think you're right Shandy, it does sound like he's contradicting himself in this hand. I have this book but still haven't read it yet :eek: . I'll give a look at both these hands when I have some time.
 
NineLions

NineLions

Advanced beginner
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Total posts
4,979
Just wondering if i could hijack this post, the question i have is related to the heading. In another hand in the book, harrington is playing in a hand with gus hanson and another player (sorry dont have book in front of me- all from memory)- anyway gus opens from i think the CO- to about 3 times bb, think harrington calls with 77, and bb who is short stacked shoves for another couple of blinds on top, both gus and harrington call, flop comes 45K, no gus bets out an amount which is about 1/2 pot or so i think, now harrington says that he is pretty sure he is ahead of gus' range, but is worried about bb, but if he is so sure he has gus beat, then a call or raise would be correct as the amount bet covered what he had already put in the pot, so he would still make a profit on the hand. In the hand he folded, bb had QQ, and gus had 75, and turned or rivered the case 7 for 2 pair to win. Just wondering how he can really justify his play when he has already stated that he is sure he is ahead of gus?

I think at this point he's no longer sure that he's ahead of Gus. Preflop he was more certain given Gus' aggressive nature, but since Gus just called the small stack push, he has a medium strength hand that may or may not have just hit.
 
Starting Hands - Poker Hand Nicknames Rankings - Poker Hands
Top