Too passive or played perfectly
 

Poker Stars
Limit Omaha Ring game
Limit: $10/$20
10 players
Converter

Pre-flop: (10 players) hero is MP1 with 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 folds, <font color="#cc0000">hero raises</font>, MP2 calls, 5 folds, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (7.5SB, 3 players)
UTG+1 checks, <font color="#cc0000">hero bets</font>, <font color="#cc0000">MP2 raises</font>, UTG+1 folds, hero calls.

Turn: A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (5.75BB, 2 players)
hero checks, MP2 checks.

River: 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (5.75BB, 2 players)
hero checks, MP2 checks.

Results:
Final pot: 5.75BB

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

dunno don't know mp2 :-)

against random opp i don't mind that line

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Bet river. MP2's check on the turn makes it very very unlikely that he has one of the missing Qs. Therefore you are almost certainly good for high. Opponent might not have a low, and might fold even if he has a bad one. Unlikely, but I think you're risking very little in betting the river.

Someone else might make a case for raising the turn. I wouldn't, for fear of a Q, but I'm probably being wimpy :-)

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Great idea. The reason I didn't is the way I played the hand I think villian has to put me on aces or a A2 with wheel backup. If you do spike the ace I think the play is to go for the checkraise. He smelled it and checked behind. On river he might have a queen and likely has some type of low. I think that's what he needs.

For me to raise in MP1 this guy knows I have aces or A2 with some more stuff going for it.

I do think I should of bet river though like you said. Just for those instances where he has a bad low that he would fold.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

am I missing something here? you raise PF, ok great, then you get raised on a 2flush paired board that you got no piece of and you call? dunno about you, but thats insta muck territory to me.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Why on earth did you call the flop raise? To chase for half? Your main concern from the two hands I have seen is you like to draw for half. This will bust you in this game.

Bet/fold flop.

Tuco.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

This is only a fold if opponent hardly ever raises. If his raise means it's certain he has a Q in his hand (or 55) then sure, fold it. But I would expect many opponents to also make this move with the flush draw or a single 5 in hand, or a pair (and maybe even with nothing at all), especially if they think that your pfr means it's likely you have a low-type hand (A2xx) hand and that you might fold to pressure here.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is only a fold if opponent hardly ever raises. If his raise means it's certain he has a Q in his hand (or 55) then sure, fold it. But I would expect many opponents to also make this move with the flush draw or a single 5 in hand, or a pair (and maybe even with nothing at all), especially if they think that your pfr means it's likely you have a low-type hand (A2xx) hand and that you might fold to pressure here.


[/ QUOTE ]

this is a fold if you like money. period. you have no hi, no lo, no draw.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Maybe against this particular opponent it's a fold. But surely you can see that always folding in this spot is a losing strategy in general? If opponent only raises with Q/Q5 or 55 (15% of the time or so), ok, fold; you're going to be paying 1.5BB or 2.5BB for a 16% chance at half of a 8BB/10BB pot and might get quartered even if you pull out a low. But if opponent also raises with suited hearts or a 5 or KK in hand, you have a shot at the high. And while the backdoor low doesn't provide enough equity by itself to chase on this hand, it really lowers the bar as far as the amount of high-side equity you need to call (especially against one opponent, where you know you can limit the damage on later streets).
As regards chasing the low, the above makes it seem more -EV than it is, the key being that some of the time you don't pay the 1BB on the turn because you fold.
10.5 SB in pot, we pay 1SB to see the turn:
20/45 we get a low card (pay another BB as opponent bets)
25/45 we get no low card and fold (this is not how it played out, but just by way of general example...): (EV so far is -25/45 * 1SB=-.27BB)
16/44 on the river we make our nut low, getting half the pot (EV from this is 20/45*16/44*7.75BB/2=+0.63BB)
28/44 no low and we fold (EV from this is 20/45*28/44*-1.5BB=-.42BB)

So the low chase is -EV, but only by .06BB. You don't need much of a high draw or much of a chance the opponent is bluffing to call here.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe against this particular opponent it's a fold. But surely you can see that always folding in this spot is a losing strategy in general? If opponent only raises with Q/Q5 or 55 (15% of the time or so), ok, fold; you're going to be paying 1.5BB or 2.5BB for a 16% chance at half of a 8BB/10BB pot and might get quartered even if you pull out a low. But if opponent also raises with suited hearts or a 5 or KK in hand, you have a shot at the high. And while the backdoor low doesn't provide enough equity by itself to chase on this hand, it really lowers the bar as far as the amount of high-side equity you need to call (especially against one opponent, where you know you can limit the damage on later streets).
As regards chasing the low, the above makes it seem more -EV than it is, the key being that some of the time you don't pay the 1BB on the turn because you fold.
10.5 SB in pot, we pay 1SB to see the turn:
20/45 we get a low card (pay another BB as opponent bets)
25/45 we get no low card and fold (this is not how it played out, but just by way of general example...): (EV so far is -25/45 * 1SB=-.27BB)
16/44 on the river we make our nut low, getting half the pot (EV from this is 20/45*16/44*7.75BB/2=+0.63BB)
28/44 no low and we fold (EV from this is 20/45*28/44*-1.5BB=-.42BB)

So the low chase is -EV, but only by .06BB. You don't need much of a high draw or much of a chance the opponent is bluffing to call here.


[/ QUOTE ]

you are trying to make some weird twist of math to prove that you should peel this flop. i promise you that if you peel this flop as your normal play it is going to cost you money, and probably a lot of money. too often you will get caught chasing for 1/2 or 1/4 and all those little bets on the flop are really going to add up. folding the flop here is the correct play, i don't even think its close. the times that you get something you like on the turn and then see the river and are still smoked are really going to cost you a lot. micro-analyzing this hand is retarded, in online poker you are playing a large quantity of hands and you want to make the best decisions on the fly, usually because you are multi-tabling, but even if not, you don't want to put yourself in situations that are super hazardous like this with the off chance that you will occassionaly be making a correct play, because the majority of the time you are not.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

I agree that if you're looking for quick heuristics for multitabling you're probably better off shuffling this into the 'fold' column. It's only because the pfr made the pot big, *and* the flop action gets you heads-up with that big pot for only one more SB, that the math works out. By way of comparison, if everyone limps preflop or for that matter if you check the flop and get bet into (rather than the bet/raise we saw), or if UTG+1 stays in the pot, or someone else were left to act after you, the situation would be much worse.

So anyway, I wouldn't peel this flop as part of 'normal play'. A lot of conditions apply. But more generally I think it's a mistake to focus exclusively on the money you might lose at showdown and ignore the money you lose by folding incorrectly when an aggressive player blows you out of a pot.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Calling the flop is beyond atrocious.

If you think they're pushing a draw then don't give them the option for a free card. Bet the turn, fold to the raise.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Why would you bet the turn? You can't fold a draw, the pot being as big as it is, and *you can't charge a draw when you don't have anything*. You're also opening yourself to a checkraise in those cases where opponent has a FH...The reason for staying in the hand is that you have just enough equity to call; you're not ahead of opponent's range.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Please don't take this the wrong way. If you cannot immediately understand that the flop is a bet/fold (or in some cases a check/fold) you are going to be in real trouble with O8. There are so many WAY more complicated spots that you will be making drastic errors in. Omaha is a very intricate game and the fact that you seem to be missing a basic understanding of the game should be troubling to you.

Anyway, you don't seem to agree. Please get back to us with an honest assesment of your overall results with this strategy so we can be proven wrong. Not trying to be a dick, I enjoy being proven wrong as it improves me as a player.

Tuco.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

fold the flop.

wtf am i missing?

bet the river when you get there. he prolly has KK-JJ.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Comic - MP2 probably has a queen for the flop raise, suspects Hero also has a queen when Hero calls the raise, doesn't improve, fears Hero has a better kicker, and goes into check/call mode.

Another possibility is MP2 made a full house, maybe even back on the turn, and hopes to get in a check-raise against an over aggressive Hero.

(And of course a third possibility is MP2 has nothing. But then you'd think he would have bet the turn, hoping to drive out Hero.)

Your post title suggests you were too passive. Wow. you raised before the flop and then bet this flop without a queen. That seems anything but passive. MP2 could put Hero on slow playing turned aces full!

At any rate, I think Hero is beat. But I think MP2 will call with a queen and maybe even check-raise with a full house, although the danger of Hero having aces full mitigates against the check-rause. With nothing, I think MP2 folds to Hero's bet. But I think MP2 at least calls with a queen or full house.

Thus by betting, Hero has nothing to gain and one bet to lose. Well... not quite. There's a possibility MP2 has an ace with a worse kicker, and will call Hero's bet. In that case, Hero picks up a bet by betting. (But that's such a whacky raise on the flop that it's hard to believe).

On balance, I vote for checking behind MP2 on the river.

I haven't read the other replies yet. Maybe I'll change my opinion when I do.

Buzz

Edit: Oops, I forgot the possibility MP2 might have nothing but a bad low and might fold to a river bet. But this is a 10/20 game, not a micro limits game. I don't think it's likely MP2 bluff raised on the flop (or raised with a runner-runner low draw on the flop), so that I still vote for checking behind MP2 on the river.

Buzz

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you bet the turn? You can't fold a draw, the pot being as big as it is, and *you can't charge a draw when you don't have anything*. You're also opening yourself to a checkraise in those cases where opponent has a FH...The reason for staying in the hand is that you have just enough equity to call; you're not ahead of opponent's range.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first question is: would villain raise hero on the turn with anything that we're beating? No. Hero's play looks like an oddly played trips or boat. If we get raised, we safely fold and earn an extra bet as compared to calling down.

The second question: do we have a chance of inducing a mistake from our opponent by betting? Yes. We have a relatively trashy hand and there's almost no hand we have a huge equity edge against. If any hand folds here, we've earned money. If we get a hand like a baby flush and 7 high low draw to fold - we've earned quite alot of money.

The only reason you'd want to check/call here is if you felt you had a large equity edge and wanted to try to induce bluffs from worse hands - or if you thought there's a chance you might get blown off the best hand. But that's just not going to happen here. You don't have a big equity edge over any real hand, and your opponent's not going to raise you with worse hands.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

Thanks for all the comments people.

I really appreciate bbartlog. Not for agreeing with me, but for standing up against everyone who thinks we are complete morons.

I think calling on the flop after I'm raised is warranted. There are 10 SB's in the pot. It only takes one more to chase low. I think the way I played it gives me the odds to chase. I wish I had a back door flush draw, but I do have a backdoor broadway. I know the board is paired, but we're being optimistic.

Let me give an example of hands the villian could have. However unlikely you think they are
1) A mere 5.
2) A flush draw
3) A running low draw
4) bluffing because he thinks i missed.

I have under 30 hands with player so I have no idea how he plays. I'm typically playing about 4 games at a time at the 10-20 level. I also believe it is a call on the meta game level as I don't want to be someone who he thinks I can be pushed off the flop.

Don't know how I feel about turn. I'm ahead of everything if he's not full or has a queen. I slow down to play it safe.

On the river I check. I might be able to bet and move him off a bad low, but I check with the idea of calling simply because I don't believe he has a queen and I want to see what he played.

The villian has a A35J.

Tuco, you are right about playing for half based on the hands I posted. I don't post all my great plays and brilliant stuff where you hit the wraps and the sets filling. I only post hands that might have evidence I'm a donkey. Still trying to slay the inner donkey.

Sorry for the delay in responses. Took the weekend off for awesome NFL action.

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

After looking at comments from Dire and Buzz I actually think betting the turn makes more sense than betting the river. Though I still don't hate a river bet.
I think if you analyzed it in depth you would find that the flop situation is a mixed-strategy case. If you always call when raised in this spot you will lose to people that only raise with a FH or a Q plus backdoor draws. If you always fold you will lose to an aggressive opponent who bets with marginal hands.

Tuco writes (condescending stuff):

Question for you - how big would the pot have to be on the flop for you to call here? 12SB? 16SB? 24SB? I'm asking because I think you're sticking to your heuristics too blindly. Not that a 24SB pot (that you can contend for HU for one more SB) is realistic, but surely you agree that in principle there is some pot size where a call is +EV. For you, what is that number?

Re: Too passive or played perfectly
 

[ QUOTE ]
The villian has a A35J.

[/ QUOTE ]Comic - That's very interesting.

Villain raises the flop and by so doing gets you to check to him on the next two betting rounds.

Considering your hand and the flop, with two opponents seeing the flop, there are eight active opponent slots where one of the two missing queens could be located.

<ul type="square">scratch:
(43!/6!/37! + 44!/7!/37!)/(45!/8!/37!) =
6096454+38320568/215553195 =
44417022/215553195 = 0.206[/list]
Before either of them acts, assuming no favoring or disfavoring of starting hands with queens, the probability of finding a queen amongst the eight cards collectively held by your two opponents is about 20%.

In other words, before there is any action, it's about four to one that neither of these villains has a queen.

It also should seem to your opponents before there is any action that the probability you or the other opponent has a queen is about 20%.

But when you bet, it should look a bit more to each opponent as though you actually do have a queen. Of course if you bet too often without a card it should look like you have, then your opponents are not likely to believe you. Or maybe one or both of them don't believe you even if you don't bet too often without holding what you are representing with your bet.


At any rate, you boldly bet the flop without a queen, expecting that four times out of five, neither of the two of these guys has a queen and that maybe you can steal the pot. Seems right to do at least some of the time.

But Villain MP2 doesn't buy it that you have a queen. (I think if he puts you on a queen, he doesn't waste two bets on the second betting round).

And now it is your turn again. From your viewpoint, MP2 either doesn't buy it that you have a queen and has bluff raised, or MP2 has a queen himself, or perhaps a full house, and has made a value raise.

Pretty hard for you to tell which, even if you know something about how MP2 usually plays. He says he has a queen (by raising) - but he could have a queen here or not. (You also said you had a queen by betting).

Looks more or less like a stalemate to me. MP2 has position on you and thus has the advantage. It isn't only 20% that he has a queen any more, since he has more or less represented a queen with his 2nd round bluff raise.

But we have to know how often he does it to assign a probability to it.

Now that we know he does this, the next time it happens, we can re-raise to see what MP2 will do. From MP2's perspective, there will be a possibility Hero has a queen, as represented by Hero's 2nd round bet and re-raise. And, from MP2's perspective, one time out of five, one of his two opponents should actually have a queen.

Interesting. It's still pretty tough for you to bet that river. And if you had any inclination to bluff-bet the turn, it might be better to have already bluff-re-raised on the second betting round.

Buzz