86s OTB on wet board

[Sardine]

Villain is 30/20/3.2 over 252 hands.

No Limit Hold'em Cash Game - $0.25/$0.50 Blinds - 6 Players - (LegoPoker (http://www.legopoker.com) Hand History Converter (http://www.legopoker.com/hh))

SB: $53.35
BB: $103.70
UTG: $50.00
MP: $44.15
CO: $21.75
Hero (BTN): $50.00

UTG posts $0.50
Preflop: Hero is dealt 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif (6 Players)
UTG checks, <font color="red">MP raises to $2.25</font>, CO calls $2.25, Hero calls $2.25, 3 folds

Flop: ($8) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif (3 Players)
<font color="red">MP bets $8.00</font>, CO folds, <font color="red">Hero ?

what say you?

[You're No Daisy]

Take control of the hand and raise. He may have missed the flop altogether. Most flops miss most people and since he's aggressive I'll assume he's c-betting all flops. Also, what's your image like? Have you been TAG, nitty, or loose aggressive. If you've been tight, use your position. A raise might do the trick here.

AC

[oh well...]

Yeah, I think the play here is to raise this flop. Hopefully you take it down but if you don't hand plays much easier than if you had called. Folding is too soft obv.

[Sardine]

Some hands were mined, so I hadn't been on the table long. Therefore I had no image.

For those who say raise, how much, the pot is larger than normal....

[Nick C]

Well, here we see the hazards of cold-calling with the 86s in the first place (I'm not saying you should never do it, but it does have its hazards -- I mean, you flopped pretty damn well here, and I'm still not thrilled about the situation).

So . . . I'd imagine an immediate raise will take down the pot immediately a decent chunk of the time, with the problem of course being that a raise to even just $20 (barely more than a min-raise) commits you in a spot where, if you face a push, you have to call as probably something like a 7:3 dog (or maybe a little worse). Even if we just get called, we're still investing a big chunk of our stack as a dog, with dubious folding equity later in the hand.

Meanwhile, versus a hand you were about 50/50 with anyway (UI high cards), you will probably get a fold, and there's a decent chance you'll drive out a hand like TT too. But you are basically giving odds on your semibluff.

A semibluff-call is another option, and I think maybe it's the way to go. That way, you can try representing spades if one falls on the turn and Villain checks, and also your hand is nicely disguised so that if your actual draw does hit and Villain also has a hand, you're probably getting paid.

You'll lose the pot more often this way (versus an immediate raise), but unless Villain is a habitual 2-barreler postflop, you're are going to have more information on the turn, and that seems to me like a better time to decide how much you want to invest in the hand.

[Profish2285]

I think raising here is terrible to be honest. The villain just lead a post size bet into 2 others and you think hes weak? Do you have any read to make you feel this way? If he is an unknown I cant imagine raising here being +ev.

[oh well...]

[ QUOTE ]
I think raising here is terrible to be honest. The villain just lead a post size bet into 2 others and you think hes weak? Do you have any read to make you feel this way? If he is an unknown I cant imagine raising here being +ev.

[/ QUOTE ]

MP isn't really donking here since he opened PF, but he is c-betting into 2 opponents. Regardless I hate a call here, I just don't see how that can be good. If turn blanks he can double barrel w/ air and we have to fold. Also, I think we can raise flop and fold to a shove. We're getting better than good odds but I'm sure we are crushed so often it might actually make it -EV. Also, folding on the flop is completely acceptable.

[Movelong]

100%AGREE TO FOLD HERE, -EV

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
MP isn't really donking here since he opened PF, but he is c-betting into 2 opponents. Regardless I hate a call here, I just don't see how that can be good. If turn blanks he can double barrel w/ air and we have to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a draw that will hit about 1 in 6 on the turn, and if Villain really has a strong hand, we should have good implied odds. What cuts into those odds somewhat is that sometimes we'll hit our straight on the turn but the board will become 3-flush and give Villain a flush (occasionally) or a redraw to a flush (more frequently).

As compensation, there will be those times when Villain was c-betting A-high or pocket deuces on the flop and will check-fold the turn (this cuts into the implied odds I was talking about, I know, but on the other hand we'd want to call the flop with 32o if we knew Villain's plan was to c-bet the flop and then check-fold the turn). Hopefully Villain will slow down on the turn more often than he'll two-barrel big with air or play stack-a-donk with a monster, but in any case, my thinking is that calling the flop is probably slightly profitable.

I mean, even if we were just checking behind on a turn blank, that would increase our chances of hitting our hand enough that if we knew that turn check were coming, our flop call would be reasonable. (Plus, if we do get checked to on the turn, this increases the chances that we have pair outs.)

I don't know. This seems to me like one of those spots where we probably can't call for implied odds alone, but once you throw in a little stealing equity later in the hand, we probably can call.

[Sardine]

At the time, I figuired I would raise/commit myself as the villain was fairly aggressive and could be continuation betting a fair amount. Given the villains aggression and the fact that he could think I was drawing to flush, I was also thinking the chance of getting a 'free' river was lower than usual, as Villain could reason a double barrel being good too. So at the time, I didn't like call option. Although Nick C made some great points, and I think this line should be considered.

Firstly, what I didn't rationalize during the hand was Villain was firing on textured flop with 2 opponents behind him. This should decrease the likelihood this is a cb w UI overs and increase likelihood Villain has a legit hand as mentioned by Profish.

Secondly, if the board was rainbow, I like a raise alot more. If villain has a real hand he is more likely to call a wet, textured board like this vs. a dryer board. So my folding equity isn't as high as usual.

If you agree with the later 2 points, it would appear we should lean toward call or possibly even fold if Villain is going to barrel again. Agree?

[You're No Daisy]

Let's work out the numbers. We are 4.5:1 to make our draw right. If he folds 25% of the time we get $16 and calls the other 75%. In 100 identical situations let's say villain folds 25 times to a 3-bet of $25. The other 75 times villain calls our 3-bet we will make our draw 13 times (and lose 62 times. So I believe the math would look like (25 x $16)+(13 x $58)-(62 x $25) = -396. So if my numbers are correct a fold might be in order. However, when do implied odds factor into the situation? If we make our hand, shouldn't we factor in bets we potentially win on the river which make our expectation even greater? Just something to think about. Please correct my math if it is wrong. I don't attempt too many of these calculations, so take it easy if I'm way off.

AC

[Sardine]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's work out the numbers. We are 4.5:1 to make our draw right. If he folds 25% of the time we get $16 and calls the other 75%. In 100 identical situations let's say villain folds 25 times to a 3-bet of $25. The other 75 times villain calls our 3-bet we will make our draw 13 times (and lose 62 times. So I believe the math would look like (25 x $16)+(13 x $58)-(62 x $25) = -396. AC

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the math in the last 2 terms are incorrect. The math should be:
=0.25*16+0.75*0.13*(24+implied bet say 15) + 0.75*0.87*(-8)
=2.58 profit

when you are making decision to call, you loose $8 call, not whole pot, the pot is sunken cost.

similarly the last 2 terms are composed as follows:
Prob [V calls] * Prob [u hit or miss ] * [money won or bet lost]

clearer?

[You're No Daisy]

My post said nothing about calling. The calculation takes into consideration only 3-betting villain on the flop.

AC

[Sardine]

ok, i see.
I could be wrong but second term should be POT ($16) + additional money you win from villain ($25-8=$17) and should not include money you are putting in pot.

Your 1/6 odd of winning implies you only see one more card. Are you raising $25 then folding? I would agree that given your 25%fold/75%call estimate, that this would be bad. This goes to the comments earlier about even a small raise pretty much commiting you to pot.

[You're No Daisy]

Yeah...I think you're right. I'm tired and will recalculate tomorrow. Maybe someone else wants to take a crack at it? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

AC

[You're No Daisy]

I thinks this is the correct math. With 2 cards left to come and 8 outs for Hero in 100 identical situations:

If Hero raises to $25 and villain folds 25 times out of 100, he wins $16 25 times for a positive expectation of $400.
If Hero raises to $25 and villain calls he wins $25 23 times when he hits his draw for a positive expectation of $575.
If Hero raises to $25 and villain calls he loses $25 52 times when he misses his draw for a negative expectation of -$1300.

So Hero's Expectation here is -$325. However, since straight draws are well hidden, can we estimate that if Hero hits those 23 times (31.5% of the time with 2 cards to come) that we can get an extra $30 and possibly more from villain? If we only get an extra $30 out of villain because he check folds the river, we've still added an extra $690 for the times we hit our draw. So now our expectation is $365. So I think raising here is the correct play.

AC

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I thinks this is the correct math. With 2 cards left to come and 8 outs for Hero in 100 identical situations:

If Hero raises to $25 and villain folds 25 times out of 100, he wins $16 25 times for a positive expectation of $400.
If Hero raises to $25 and villain calls he wins $25 23 times when he hits his draw for a positive expectation of $575.
If Hero raises to $25 and villain calls he loses $25 52 times when he misses his draw for a negative expectation of -$1300.

So Hero's Expectation here is -$325. However, since straight draws are well hidden, can we estimate that if Hero hits those 23 times (31.5% of the time with 2 cards to come) that we can get an extra $30 and possibly more from villain? If we only get an extra $30 out of villain because he check folds the river, we've still added an extra $690 for the times we hit our draw. So now our expectation is $365. So I think raising here is the correct play.

AC

[/ QUOTE ]

So I take it we're examining the situation based on the idea that MP folds to the raise 25 percent of the time.

If so, yeah, you're right, we win $16 those 25 out of 100 times that he folds. (We don't win quite that much on the hand itself, but the money we put in preflop isn't really ours anymore.)

Since we're beginning our tally on the flop, though, we actually win more than $25 when Villain calls and we hit. (Probably some amount for potential redraws should be subtracted, though.)

Meanwhile, we probably will lose more than $25 on average when we miss. Basically the only way we'll only lose $25 is if Villain simply calls and then checks the turn and we take the free card and then no money goes in on the river (or Villain bets the river and we fold). But if Villain pushes the flop or donkbets the turn, we have to put more money in.

You are right that we'll probably often win more than $25 when we catch (and like I said, that $25 figure is too small in the first place even with no implied odds), but it is optimistic to think that $25 raise will always give us control of the remaining streets. (I mean, Villain is only going to have about $17 left behind if he decides to play versus our raise to $25.) So it very well may not be the last money we have to put in.

On the bright side, I suspect the 25-percent folding equity estimate is a little small . . .

One other thing: It is possible that, even if raising is a profitable play, that semibluff-calling is even more profitable. (Simple example to illustrate my point: checking behind with AA preflop in the BB after five limpers is almost surely profitable unless the player in the BB completely sucks, but generally it's going to be even more profitable to make a preflop raise with those aces in that situation instead.)