Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

Well, lots of discussion was generated from a comment I made about a hand that was posted here. But most of it wasn't about the specific hand since I headed off in a more general direction. Now we can get back to it. And I will reprint something I wrote in another thread since it spells out my exact reasons.

The problem is that it concerns a slightly different hand than what was posted. Because I skim a lot. My answer might be the same for the actual hand posted but it would be more debatable. On the other hand I think that most of those who disagreed with me will still disagree for this slightly altered hand.

Here is what I thought I read.:

5-10 blinds. Two limpers. Loose agressive player makes it 50. You call in the big blind with two sevens. Both limpers call. Flop is KQ7 no suits. Players have about 2500 in front of them. I disagree with those who would come out betting on the flop. To quote tmy other post:

I recommend a check IN THIS SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCE because:

1. A bet may win it right there which will usuually cost you money if there would have been a continuation bet.

2. A bet may win it right there which will also often cost you money even if there is no continuation bet. That occurs when the turn gives someone a draw, a GOOD thing for you in No Limit, (with one card to come) though not in Limit. Or when one of the two limpers have something like QJ that you would have squeezed out on the flop.

3. With this flop it is easily possible that one of the limpers has a draw that your flop bet will not make fold (with two cards to come, that's not so good) but a check raise will.

4. Since the flop doesn't allow for two different overpairs any semi rational preflop raiser is not necessarily going to lose more when the smoke clears with AK or AA then he would if you didn't come out betting.

5. If you bet your set into three players behind you, it shows strength that will dissuade a player. who might have raised bluffed head up, to do it here.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. With this flop it is easily possible that one of the limpers has a draw that your flop bet will not make fold (with two cards to come, that's not so good) but a check raise will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we want a draw to fold when he's not correctly priced in when we have a set of sevens?

Edit: especially when we may get semi-bluff raised?

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]
2. A bet may win it right there which will also often cost you money even if there is no continuation bet. That occurs when the turn gives someone a draw, a GOOD thing for you in No Limit, (with one card to come) though not in Limit. Or when one of the two limpers have something like QJ that you would have squeezed out on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey David,

I don't know about you but i have a very hard time getting off sets so i'm not sure this holds true for me. When my opponent picks up a draw on the turn and the stacks are deep he'll often have implied odds to call a pot sized bet. Especially if he has position on me. Of course it also depends how transparent the draw is and how tricky the opponent plays.

By the way...I think most of what you've written the past few days is gold and i love the discussion it's been generating.

Thanks!

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

yes this is specific. and you did say the raiser was loose and aggressive.

the way i play this depends on knowing my opponents. i usually play it as you describe. however, if i have an opponent who often will reraise with AA, or AK, because he thinks i am drawing, or too find out where he is, i bet out, expecting the reraise. if you have an opponent who overplays AA or overplays top pair, you want to lead out - IF you expect a reraise.

point 5 you state that there are 4 opponents. but here i am not really concerned with the other two, mostly the raiser. can i get him to reraise? if one of my opponents played something like JT, i am happy to have him come alone too. but this will usually be heads up very quickly.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

Even assuming that in this specific situation (agg player in position with a multiway pot) it is true checking the set is the most profitable play considering the hand in the vacuum:

1) check raising with a set increases the likelihood of having a huge problem where people know you check raise your monsters, thus if you want to make a credible bluff you will need to check raise bluff, which is obviously going to be very expensive when you do run into a hand

2) and will make your medium strength hands play HIGHLY transparently, check calling sucks and leading out when weak will get pots stolen from you constantly against good players

I am also very appreciative of the general discussion this is sparked, and I hope your book is completely misinterpreted by new players or ignored, and does not help anyone play better!

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

David,

As I stated in one of your threads, I agree w/ your general premise regarding who wins the most and why, and how changes in strategy affect the earn of these different types of players.

In fact, I have covered that specific point in various posts in the past in this forum when I've discussed how to exploit certain types of players who give way too much action across the board and the changes I make in my game when facing the small handful of aggressive players who do a really good job at mixing up their play.

So, big picture, I think we pretty much agree.

However, wrt this hand, I continue to disagree. That is because of the following things.

Guys in the middle will be involved with hands like K4s and will call your flop bet and get stacked when they improve to a second best on the turn. These guys will fold to your checkraise, though. In a lot of games, the range of such hands that will call that flop bet is far wider than top pair.

Aggressive PFRs will often raise you with hands like AK on the flop, but will proceed with caution after you checkraise. If the board stays friendly, you probably stack them anyway. But you can often build a bigger pot against these guys and increase your likelihood of stacking them by leading into them on the flop.

Certain turn cards on a board like this can kill your action against hands that would be willing to give a ton of action on the flop. (This point is reduced somewhat by the fact that you changed the flop to rainbow)

There are other reasons as well (including balancing reasons when considering the range of hands we're going to lead with vs. checkraise or checkfold), these are just a few.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]

There are other reasons as well (including balancing reasons when considering the range of hands we're going to lead with vs. checkraise or checkfold), these are just a few.

[/ QUOTE ]

for anyone else commenting:

even if you grant david his points i still dont think check raising works well in terms of shania, and we ARE discussing general theory here, not the "best line in a particular hand"

right? please give feedback

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

Best first post ever.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

hhahahahahahahahahahhaha

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

Edit: I just did a better job of reading David's post and see that he acknowledged the differences between the new hand and the original hand. I still think the compaing the two could be useful. As to the new hand, my comments below still hold. I don't think David understands the range of hands we can expect to be called by/raised by if we lead this flop, especially if we are frequent flop bettors.



God, I am such a nit. But, once again, the hand was three-handed. This makes a difference, I believe, because initial bet is less likely to be viewed as strong (a bet into two people, not three), and therefore it is more likely that the original raiser will raise the lead.

Since we are getting heavy into theory anyway, I am curious how much difference David sees between the three-way and four-way situations and if the fact that the orignal hand was three-way changes his position.

Generally, I think David's perception of how the lead will be viewed is off. At least in the games I play (mid-limit NL and tournaments), most of the time the people in the middle are calling the flop with a queen and the preflop raiser is raising with a king or better. Also, KQ7 two spades has plenty of draws that we don't want to see the turn for free.

The original post:

"5-10 NL at the Borgata in Atlantic City.

My image is solid, as I have shown down all the big ones, and gotten away with some timely moves.

I am in SB and dealt 7c7s. I have ~1600. Two limpers to an aggressive tricky player in the cutoff who makes it 50. This player has shown down a wide variety of hands, and is capable of raising late with any two. He has ~2200 in chips. One of the limpers(tight solid older man) calls, and we are three to the flop.

The flop is Ks, Qs, 7d.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

priceless

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]
Best first post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

Chuddo in a second disguise?

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]
Best first post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I second that

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

in many games a bet out will look weak if done correctly (the classic weak lead). this is the best situation. now whether you get raised or called you set up your check raise on the turn. if a bet out will be taken as strenght (as you assume) then a check raise is much better.

in SS doyle always cals for leading into raisers w/ his big hands. htis is because he leads alot w/ draws as well.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]
Best first post ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love HSNL...

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

I'm glad you came back to discussing an actual hand. I was worried you were going to begin another post concerning an interesting thought experiment; maybe "Sklansky's Cat", photons bouncing between parrallel mirrors on a moving train, or a theoretical 21 handed Hold 'Em game.

To be honest, your theoretical posts (along with the provacative commentary) seemed to confuse and antagonize people rather than enlighten them. Most of what you wrote in your theory posts, I would agree with. The problem is that I don't really see the connection between some of those opinions and the disagreement about what should be the default strategy in this hand.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that it concerns a slightly different hand than what was posted. Because I skim a lot. My answer might be the same for the actual hand posted but it would be more debatable. On the other hand I think that most of those who disagreed with me will still disagree for this slightly altered hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is a real problem. I find it a little disturbing that you have taken the license of not only changing the number of players who saw the flop (a change we came to grips with long ago), but you have now changed both the stack sizes and the texture of the flop.

The texture of the flop is really the major change in my mind. Now it is a rainbow flop I see.

Anyway, I still can't agree with your reasoning, although it makes more sense to me now and I am glad you took the time to spell it out.

[ QUOTE ]

1. A bet may win it right there which will usuually cost you money if there would have been a continuation bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

This could be true if this player is really aggressive, and not too smart. I am not too concerned about only winning a 20BB pot here though. If I bet out and they all fold, oh well, no one had much.

I also take issue with the idea that a smart player would fire a continuation bet here with nothing, or with a draw.

The player was described as aggressive and "tricky", and I assume he knows enough to fire with a continuation bet a lot less often (assuming he has nothing) when there are 3 other players who saw the flop. Especially when the flop is KQ7. I won't mention the two spades because apparentely you don't want to talk about that. If he missed that flop, or picked up any draw, I think there is a good chance he is checking.

The reason I fear he will check is two fold. First of all, with 3 callers of his PFR, the pot is already large enough where he would have to put in a significant bet. Secondly, it is obvious that with 3 other players seeing the flop, there is a better chance that someone has something.

[ QUOTE ]

2. A bet may win it right there which will also often cost you money even if there is no continuation bet. That occurs when the turn gives someone a draw, a GOOD thing for you in No Limit, (with one card to come) though not in Limit. Or when one of the two limpers have something like QJ that you would have squeezed out on the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

This I really disagree with. I see no reason to give a free card. Everyone has position on you and you have a good, but not unbeatable hand (assuming certain cards hit the turn). I hate slow playing trips here (especially if we allow that the actual flop had two spades). Someone could hit their OESD, gutshot, or two outer to a higher set. While this is not likely, even with 3 other players seeing the flop, this could be expensive for us.

I disagree with your assertion that someone picking up a good draw is a good thing for us here. The problem is that by checking, we have kept the ratio of our stack size to the pot large enough for these people to have the proper implied odds to call our turn bet, especially because they ALL have position on us. In addition, if they had a draw on the flop, and hit it on the turn, we would at least have the draw to the full house going for us. But if they see a free card on the turn, any draw they pick up will beat us almost all of the time if it hits on the river.

Assuming they do call your turn bet, and we don't want them to have gotten the proper implied odds, then we would have to check the river if any "scare card" hits. We would also have to fold to anything more than a pot sized bet. This is a really weak way to play the hand. We will not win a big pot this way.

[ QUOTE ]

3. With this flop it is easily possible that one of the limpers has a draw that your flop bet will not make fold (with two cards to come, that's not so good) but a check raise will.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let them draw.

We have a set, which always comes with a nice redraw to a full house. Some of these idiots will even continue to draw dead if the board pairs on the turn.

Also, we're going to be betting almost the pot. This means that the pot will be a lot larger on the turn, and their implied odds will be somewhat lower. This is somewhat off balanced by the fact that it will be harder to escape with our hand, due to the larger pot. It will also be harder for them to escape, assuming they make a flush on the river with a card that pairs the board.

Assuming a rainbow board (as you seem to have done), only a 9 or an A really scares us on the turn (assuming we bet the pot on the flop and were called). If you check the flop, and then get action, they could have hit anything from a higher set to a straight (from a gutshot).

You're going to have to bet the turn, and they have position on you. Now you are really in trouble, and are not sure what they hold. You are not going to get away cheap.

[ QUOTE ]

4. Since the flop doesn't allow for two different overpairs any semi rational preflop raiser is not necessarily going to lose more when the smoke clears with AK or AA then he would if you didn't come out betting.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to win the least against AK or AA, the best way is to checkraise the flop. Even weaker players can make that lay down. Checkraising the flop exudes too much strength. You seem to be under the impression that leading the flop will give away the strength of your hand; it won't. Checkraising will.

As other players have mentioned, you should be capable of leading the flop with a wide range of hands. It is foolish to only lead with hands that can't stand too much action, but to check with strong hands. This is how novice players play it.

When we lead, we are really hoping that the PFR has a hand like AK or AA. If we come out betting, he is not going to fold the flop. This means he can not get away too cheaply, and we should win at least a decent pot. Many player will not fold AK or AA if we bet 3/4 pot on the turn AND river (after potting the flop), even if you are not known as an aggressive player.

You seem to doubt this, but you are really overestimating the discipline of your opponents.

He may even raise the flop here, because he knows everyone is assuming he is raising PF light.

An added advantage is the two players caught in between you and the PFR. If you get two callers on the flop, you can win a big pot from AA or AK here.

Some players in these 5/10 games like to limp call with AK. It doesn't have to be the preflop raiser who has AK (QK is of course even better). Many of these players will also seek to check call the PF raiser with a one pair hand here. If you checkraise here, you are going to blow them off of AK or lower.

Betting and getting two callers here is a great result, and you are on your way to winning a large pot.

[ QUOTE ]

5. If you bet your set into three players behind you, it shows strength that will dissuade a player. who might have raised bluffed head up, to do it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that leading the flop here gives away the strength of your hand, and most posters seem to agree with me. Again, I think you are overestimating your oppenents' ability to get away from AK or AA cheaply. They raised PF and got 3 callers. This means the pot is already a good size to get a lot out of a one pair hand.

I am not saying you will get their whole stack. If you get called on the flop and turn, you will win a nice pot. If you get 2 callers on the flop, you can win an even bigger pot.

I would also many times check the turn (heads up), given this new rainbow board.

On the other hand, checkraising certainly does show strength. In fact, your checkraise must be large because many players will call with any draw here in order to bust you. They know you probably have two pair or better, and given your newly specified stack sizes (2500), they could be correct to call with just a gut shot if you don't make a large enough raise.

So you really have to checkraise with a pot sized raise, and this means you may as well turn your cards face up because they are expecting you to have QK or better.

Realize that you are still not getting away from a higher set here. The pot is already very large. All of the money is going in the middle.

Even after you changed the flop, I think the best move is to lead out for a nearly pot sized bet. I really think you are overestimating the typical casino player's ability to dump AK or AA to a couple of pot sized bets.

Also, you don't mention any meta-game considerations. One of the best reasons for leading with your sets is if you lead with good draws or one pair hands. And if you are one of the many players who only checkraise the flop with a monster, you may as well turn your cards face up. So in order for your checkraise to be really effective, you would have to be willing to checkraise this flop with lesser hands. That is not recomended, given that THREE players saw the flop and all have position on you.

In fact, I think the CR defines your hand so much that you would be better off check-calling. This is especially true with the new rainbow board. If the other two players fold, you can then go for the CR on the turn. Or you can bet out something less than the pot. If a third player calls, I would pot the turn though.

I have a question. You say "My answer might be the same for the actual hand posted". Would it? Would you really say that you would CR more often then lead out on a flop of K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]?

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

I think David's line makes sense given his specified conditions, even though the conditions were not as were specified in the original post (we can still keep this friendly though).

Given the actual flop texture, number of players, read, I would consider a bet if I was confident I would get a reraise and especially if I could sandwich callers between myself and the LAG PFR'er. It'd have the same effect as a check-raise but you'd trap more money in the pot.

You'd just have to weigh how much money you can trap vs your bet size vs the probability someone would be compelled to raise your bet (and maybe some other factors).

I'd be interested if someone could tinker with some numbers and post the results.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

That's a good reply. Actually my reasons after #1 as I originally posted, are only used to argue that it is close aside from reason #1. And that #1 reason swings it in many situations.

As to your comments about reason #2., if you can't make money giving someone 2-1 plus implied odds on a 5-1 shot with one to come, you are doing something wrong.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

OK, I understand your logical reasoning now, even if we disagree on some of the assumptions. We'll have to agree to disagree on this hand.

I hope you continue to contribute to the forum.

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

You're right David, thats one hell of a response [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Good post, post-oak

Re: Coming Full Circle Back to the KQ7
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that leading the flop here gives away the strength of your hand, and most posters seem to agree with me. Again, I think you are overestimating your oppenents' ability to get away from AK or AA cheaply. They raised PF and got 3 callers. This means the pot is already a good size to get a lot out of a one pair hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

What hands do you lead out on the flop with here besides a set?