when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

there have been fewer generic concepts posts in hsnl, so i'd like to contribute one based on a live hand i played a while back. imho, it's interesting because it illustrates a situation where checking the mortal nuts on the turn when villain has outs is more optimal than betting to protect.

blinds are 200/400 with a 25 dollar ante. we are seven handed. there has been a live straddle for the last few orbits livening up the action. preflop is folded to the cutoff who calls the straddle. cutoff is pretty weak imho. i'm on the button and make it 3000 to go with qj suited. with a straddler and limper, i am capable of making this raise on the button with a very wide range, and the good players at the table, including villain, know this.

villain in sb repops to 8000. folds to me. villain has a little more than 150k behind and i cover. we're deep and i feel that i can outplay villain post flop, so i call. villain can make this raise with almost any two cards knowing that i may be stealing. however, based on villain's behavior, i feel he likely has a premium starting hand, but i was still a little uncertain of my read.

flop is a-10-4 rainbow. villain leads for 15k into an 18k pot - which he can do with any two cards. i pop to 45k. i think villain folds anything except a set and will give me enough of a read that i can confidently fire again on the turn if i don't think he has a set, so my raise is +ev.

villain hems/haws/hollywoods for a while and calls. now i'm almost certain he has a set of aces, at worst a set of 10s.

turn is a king completing the rainbow and giving me the mortal nuts. villain checks.

here pushing is +ev as i'm certain villain will call. since villain has ten outs, one might naively think that betting is correct here to avoid giving a free card. however, checking is better.

although villain will likely call a push now, he will also call a push on any river, except for maybe a q or j. however, he has ten outs to fill up. on the other hand if i check the turn, then i can push a non-pairing river and fold otherwise. checking allows me to steer clear of losing money the 20 percent of the time villain fills up.

i haven't seen this concept of checking behind the mortal nuts sometimes being correct discussed on these boards (in contrast to limit games). so, i hope this hand generates interesting discussion.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think villain folds anything except a set

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
and will give me enough of a read that i can confidently fire again on the turn if i don't think he has a set

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

but yeah if he will call a push if on Q or J comes on river, then clearly checking is correct since 6 cards kill you rather than 10. esp. since he will prob check call a decent amt on a Q or J river.

the question is - is this really true, that he plays this obviously? and can you definitely get away from any bet on a board pairing river?

but given your set of (ideal and unrealistically certain in my opinion) circumstances, checking is clearly the right play

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

doesn't this require an absolutely flawless read to be valid?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't this require an absolutely flawless read to be valid?

[/ QUOTE ]

it requires an accurate read. important to note that it's a live game.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i think villain folds anything except a set

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
and will give me enough of a read that i can confidently fire again on the turn if i don't think he has a set

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?


[/ QUOTE ]

the sentiment i was trying to convey is that if he decides to call the flop without a set, i feel like i'll have enough of a read to know that and fire another shell.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

i don't play this high or anything near it, but i think this is a really interesting concept and would like to participate if you don't mind, innerpeace...

It being live clearly makes a big difference...what if you widened his range to include, say, top 2 pair here? would that make a difference in your play?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

Going all in on the turn with 81% equity equals 300,000$*0,81=+243,000$

Checking the turn behind and folding when the board pairs equals 300,000$*-0,19=-57,000$
I'm not sure how the amount of dollars you have already invested in the pot affects this option.

Checking the turn behind and calling/pushing non pairing river equals 300,000$

Checking the turn behind and valuebetting a Q/J river equals 108,000$+(n*y) which is sick hard to calculate because you need to know amount to bet n and frequency of him calling y. I'll just use 60,000$ and 50% for the sake of making the calculation.

Checking the turn behind and valuebettin a Q/J river equals 108,000$+60,000$*0,5=138,000$
Now this happens 12% of the time you check the turn behind.

So checking the turn behind will result in

a) board pairing 19% of the time
b) river being Q/J 12% of the time
c) river being a brick 69% of the time

note that by checking the turn behind ev wise you not only lose the pot 19% of the time but you actually give up a partion of the pot in S$ to your opponent(19% of the pot).

a+b+c

0,19*-57K+0,12*138K+0,69*300K = +234,390$ which is actually 9000$ less than going all in on the turn.


My intuition also says that because hero has already invested almost 1/3 of his stack to the pot not going allin with an 81% chance of winning a big pot is not correct. This would make more sense if hero has only invested a small amount (less than 19%) of his stack but is still sure he will stack villain on a non-pairing river card.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

Jesus this is terrible...

"checking allows me to steer clear of losing money the 20 percent of the time villain fills up."

His range is this tight?

"now i'm almost certain he has a set of aces, at worst a set of 10s."

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

isnt it good to get alot of money in when your ~80% favorite? also, youve already invested about 1/3 of your stack, so i see no reason why you shouldnt shove the turn now.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

Saying that he only has a set when he calls is a little absurd. I mean, any chance he's better than you? You have QJ. He could think you're bluffing, which you were on the flop... maybe you're getting leveled here

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]

a+b+c

0,19*-57K+0,12*138K+0,69*300K = +234,390$ which is actually 9000$ less than going all in on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

using your formulation of the problem, but converting it to 2+2 favored form (where fold = 0) and correcting mistakes (i think):

108,000 in pot on turn. he has 97k left
if you get it in now, you gain 205k 77.27% of the time and lose 97k 22.73% of the time = 136.31k EV

if you check:
22.73% of the time you have to fold river = 0 EV
63.63% of the time you get allin on river = 205k EV
13.63% of the time a Q or J comes = X

here's the indifference equation:
22.73% * 0 + 63.63% * 205k + 13.63% * X = 136.31k
130.45k + 13.63% * X = 136.31k
X = (136.31k - 130.45k) / 13.63%
X = 43k

43k = 108k + BetSize * Call%

based on these numbers, even if he folded every time on the river you would gain money by checking the turn.

another way to put it:
by checking:
63.63% of the time all the money goes in anyway
22.73% of the time you save your remaining 97k
13.63% of the time you lose his remaining 97k when the scare card hits

clearly even if you check behind on the river when the Q or J comes you're better off by checking the turn

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

kala, thanks for providing the analysis.

i think, though, that your numbers/analysis is off. for example, i don't understand why you say i'm -57k for checking behind the turn and folding if the board pairs.

also, keep in mind that if i put my opponent on specific hands, then that accounts for two cards. so there are 44 cards left.

i see where your intuition is coming from, though it's incorrect. there is a tradeoff since 6 cards will scare villain. however, that is more than offset by the 10 cards that improve villain's hand. if you do the ev calculation with the correct probabilities then you will find that checking behind comes out ahead of pushing the turn.

also, i also expect villain will call a reasonable size bet on the river even if a q or j fall.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
kala, thanks for providing the analysis.

i think, though, that your numbers/analysis is off.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you agree with mine?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
isnt it good to get alot of money in when your ~80% favorite? also, youve already invested about 1/3 of your stack, so i see no reason why you shouldnt shove the turn now.

[/ QUOTE ]

generally, yes it's fantastic to get your money in as a huge favorite. i'm not arguing that pushing isn't profitable. however, i'm saying that checking the turn is, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, even more profitable.

granted the circumstances / situation are a little unusual.
but, at the same time, the concept that you are better off checking a hand when your opponent has many outs to beat you is not something most poker players realize can be true.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

daut talked about this concept in his blog not very long ago

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus this is terrible...

"checking allows me to steer clear of losing money the 20 percent of the time villain fills up."

His range is this tight?

"now i'm almost certain he has a set of aces, at worst a set of 10s."

[/ QUOTE ]

He put in 100 BBs on the flop; I'll buy it.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]

do you agree with mine?

[/ QUOTE ]

ceczar, very well put. i think your analysis makes the concept that much clearer.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
isnt it good to get alot of money in when your ~80% favorite? also, youve already invested about 1/3 of your stack, so i see no reason why you shouldnt shove the turn now.

[/ QUOTE ]

generally, yes it's fantastic to get your money in as a huge favorite. i'm not arguing that pushing isn't profitable. however, i'm saying that checking the turn is, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, even more profitable.

granted the circumstances / situation are a little unusual.
but, at the same time, the concept that you are better off checking a hand when your opponent has many outs to beat you is not something most poker players realize can be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's akin to the idea of waiting for a safe turn to get allin. Just less often used.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Saying that he only has a set when he calls is a little absurd. I mean, any chance he's better than you? You have QJ. He could think you're bluffing, which you were on the flop... maybe you're getting leveled here

[/ QUOTE ]

darnold, note that it's a live game, so i have the advantage of seeing how villain reacts to my raise. based on that alone i was confident villain had a hand. villain also checked turn, so it's safe to say he wasn't setting up a turn bluff, which would be the only explanation for him calling with air. note as well that my raise size is pretty substantial which suggests he has a strong hand.

there is one other factor as well which i didn't mention in the original post. there were a couple of soft spots in the game, and i am pretty certain villain didn't consider me to be one. so, i don't think he's likely to get into a situation like this out of position with anything but a premium hand.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
clearly even if you check behind on the river when the Q or J comes you're better off by checking the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

Valuechecking is the new valuebetting.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

WTF how is even a topic of discussion? I mean thanks for sharing and all, but isn't this like odds and EV 101?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

lol you had to go through about 10 unrealistic scenarios to get to that turn decision, and assuming all those random scenarios to be true, make that decision an inherently obvious one.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

I used this principle a while ago, albeit in a .25/.25 game. I had the straight on the turn and my opponent, a tight player, was pretty much a lock for having the trips. On the turn, I could have gone all in, knowing he would always call me, but instead I wait to see if he boats up.

It's really only useful when you are 90%+ sure what a guy has, but anyone who plays poker knows there's lots of times you're 98%+ sure you know what one guy you've played with for a long time has.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

it also depends on the straight
if you have 10 j on a 2 78 9 board you would be a retard to check since so many more cards kill your action

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

this got me thinking when exactly it is profitable...b/c what mo42nyy is right, more scare cards kill action and reduce equity

so assuming
-you have an air tight read
-have the nuts with the turn but opponent has outs
-the only reasonable move left is a shove
-we can fold if villian's out hits

then checking the turn, is profitable when

W*(S+P)- (1-W)*S < (1-W)*0 +(W-Sc)(S+P) + Sc(P+BC)

where W= winning percent.......(thus 1-W is losing percent)
S= smaller stack size, since that will be our bet
P= current pot
Sc= percent scare card come out
BC= (bet*call) expected betting value on river if scare card comes out

the inequality becomes
- W*S+W*P-S+S*W < W*S +W*P -Sc*S- Sc*P +Sc*P +Sc*BC

- S*(W-1)< Sc*(BC-S)

- S*(1-W)> Sc*(S-BC)

- S/Sc > (S-BC)/(1-W)

- S/Sc > (S*(S-BC)/S)/(1-W)= S /((S/S-BC)*(1-W))

so Sc < (1/(1-BC/S))*(1-W)

quick examples:
1)if you think villian will call river shove no matter what BC=S, this leaves you with an undefined number on the right...just think of its limit, the turn check will always be profitable
2) if villian will never call when a scare card comes out, then the percent of the scare cards coming out must be less than the percent of losing cards for the check to be profitable
3)suppose you think that the BC will be half of the smaller stack and villian has 12% chance of beating you, then the scare cards percent must be less than 24% for the check to be profitable

so the closer the BC is to S and/or fewer scare cards consider checking the turn more

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

He can reraise preflop with any two, and you can probably raise the flop with a somewhat wide range. But his range is so extremely narrow when he calls that he must know that you know that.

I dont get his call on the turn. What does he think it will do for him?
You will not give him any more action with lesser hands than sets.
Is he afraid that you will fold bottom set if he reraise turn?

I just think his turncall is really bad if he has any idea of how you read him.

Sorry if this was out of topic.


sehr gut

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

Hi innerpeace,

Thanks for sharing a look into super-high-stakes poker. When I read posts like yours, I can tell that I will never get to your level of thinking. Do you do any coaching?

Not that it compares with your play in the OP, but here's a hand I played recently that has some similar features.

Home game in Flint, MI. 1000/2000 NL, 4000 to go. 9-handed, effective stacks 440K. I open for 4K UTG with T9o. The field plays pretty timidly at these stakes (we only play this high once a week; normal game is 500/1000 NL), so I expect to get HU with the blinds most of the time. But now, a really tricky villain makes it 78K on the button. All fold to me. I look at him and, based on his posture, tentatively put him on a range of AK (suited or not), 22-44, or T7o. I know that if I push now, he will see through it and insta-call with everything but T7, but if I wait to the flop, medium cards might land, and I can *possibly* get him off the small pairs with a push, while getting my money in way ahead when his T7 connects. Obviously, if a 7 flops, I have to c/f. I haven't done the EV calcs, because I'm not sure how, but does this type of thinking make sense to you?

Smooches

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
so Sc < (1/(1-BC/S))*(1-W)

[/ QUOTE ]
mrcfkane,

thanks for doing that out so completely, you gave a pretty clean framework for evaluating similar situations.

i prefer stopping a few steps above your last one, leaving a final form of:
check when the following holds:

Lose/Scare > 1 - BC/S

i like it better this way because it is pretty easy to calculate both of these ratios, and you'd need to know them anyway to solve any other form of the inequality.

easy to see here that as long as the number of losing cards is greater than the number of scare cards, it is higher EV to check.
if BC/S = .25 (e.g., half the bet called half the time when a scare card hits), you need 33% more scare cards than losing cards.
if BC/S = .5 (e.g., full bet called half the time), you need twice as many scare cards as losing cards to warrant betting.


[ QUOTE ]
He can reraise preflop with any two, and you can probably raise the flop with a somewhat wide range. But his range is so extremely narrow when he calls that he must know that you know that.

I dont get his call on the turn. What does he think it will do for him?
You will not give him any more action with lesser hands than sets.
Is he afraid that you will fold bottom set if he reraise turn?

I just think his turncall is really bad if he has any idea of how you read him.

Sorry if this was out of topic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sehr Gut,
i think you totally misread the hand. are you saying it'd be bad for villain to call allin with AA on the turn? or are you saying it's bad for villain to call the flop raise?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sehr Gut,
i think you totally misread the hand. are you saying it'd be bad for villain to call allin with AA on the turn? or are you saying it's bad for villain to call the flop raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im sorry. I wrote it wrong. Im saying its bad for villain to call the flop raise. Im editing my post now.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
WTF how is even a topic of discussion? I mean thanks for sharing and all, but isn't this like odds and EV 101?

[/ QUOTE ]
dale, i agree that the correct decision is trivial to see if you work out the ev calculations. however, the reason for posting it is that i would surmise many people put in this same situation would auto-push the turn. most leaks in peoples' games exist in situations like this where they make an automated decision without realizing that it's suboptimal. perhaps you think it's a trivial concept, but clearly there are posters who didn't understand it and learned something. doesn't that help fulfill the purposes of these discussion boards?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

Do you mind if I ask where you were playing such a big NL game live? Was this at a casino? I love the way you played the hand. The best part of this hand is you know what you're up against and the cards you need to dodge. Being so deep stacked you have to let your opponent draw to his fullhouse for free, if river bricks , you stack, if it pairs you can lay down knowing his holdings. It's a great way to protect your money. I'd check behind on turn here too.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

cero, i'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. really, i am posting a hand because i believe it contains a concept that some on these boards will benefit from. if you take issue with something i've said, just say so directly, i don't know why people here feel the need to make posts like the one you did. i'm more perturbed it came from you given the quality of posts i've seen from you in the past.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

I have been lurking here for at least several years and surprised to see a hand in which I'm a villain. (Barring a cosmic coincidence.)

Innerpeace is aggressive, sometimes too aggressive if you ask me (not quite the playing style you expect of someone with his screen name). His raise smelled like he wanted to bluff push the turn if I called. If I raise the flop he folds garbage. If I call he can donk of the rest of his stack. Yes he can suck out. But it is a risk I am willing to take since I know I win more money that way in the long run. Of all the hands he could have had he had one that could suck out.

I think I played the hand correctly given his playing style. He just got lucky. Simple as that.

Also, I resent the hollywooding comment, I don't know what the **** he is talking about. Despite that, if I fill up, he is still calling at least a small bet on the river. He is scary good at putting people on hands though, but there's NO WAY he gets away from this without forking over some chips.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

armen, the game was not played in a casino. these limits are not spread too often at casinos, except maybe if there is a major tournament happening concurrently or if the right people are in town. perhaps with more cash games shown on tv, it will start happening more.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

I understand. I like how the hand was played from both of your prespectives. QJ is a very unlikey holding for innerpeace in this hand and a set understandably should expect to have the best hand at showdown more likey than not..What happened on the river? The dynamics of this hand are very interesting..What were you intending on doing on the turn if it were a blank innerpeace? Are you always giving up on turn unless it's a K?

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi innerpeace,

Thanks for sharing a look into super-high-stakes poker. When I read posts like yours, I can tell that I will never get to your level of thinking. Do you do any coaching?

Not that it compares with your play in the OP, but here's a hand I played recently that has some similar features.

Home game in Flint, MI. 1000/2000 NL, 4000 to go. 9-handed, effective stacks 440K. I open for 4K UTG with T9o. The field plays pretty timidly at these stakes (we only play this high once a week; normal game is 500/1000 NL), so I expect to get HU with the blinds most of the time. But now, a really tricky villain makes it 78K on the button. All fold to me. I look at him and, based on his posture, tentatively put him on a range of AK (suited or not), 22-44, or T7o. I know that if I push now, he will see through it and insta-call with everything but T7, but if I wait to the flop, medium cards might land, and I can *possibly* get him off the small pairs with a push, while getting my money in way ahead when his T7 connects. Obviously, if a 7 flops, I have to c/f. I haven't done the EV calcs, because I'm not sure how, but does this type of thinking make sense to you?

Smooches

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahhhahahahaha [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

Seems like a simple ratio:

6 QJ Kill Action
10 Cards create Boat/Quads Saving money.

Reading the guy down to only two hands sounds like [censored]. If you can read the game that well, it really doesn't matter what you do. Only a matter of time for you to bust the game.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

[ QUOTE ]
cero, i'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. really, i am posting a hand because i believe it contains a concept that some on these boards will benefit from. if you take issue with something i've said, just say so directly, i don't know why people here feel the need to make posts like the one you did. i'm more perturbed it came from you given the quality of posts i've seen from you in the past.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I'll say it directly. I believe: This hand did not happen, you do not play high stakes poker, and the subject you bring up has been discussed at length on this board before. The guy with 4 posts who says he was the villain is most likely you, as well, and I think you probably also were behind the "Huckster" account that most here believed was Huck Seed, and then claimed to have known all along when I busted you (this means you, FSU, and you, KKF). I don't know why I care about busting trolls, but I'm just so sick of what this board is becoming that I think I'm twoplustilting. I think I'd better step away for a while. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

You are saying he is scary good to put people on hands.
What hand do you think he will put you on when you call?

Sure you wont get anything more out if you reraise when he got garbage, but im not so sure you would anyway.
If he can do this play with a wide range, KQ QJ KJ must be very likely hands. i dont know about 53 52 43, if they are also possible.

If you play like this you are giving him a chance to see the turn and the river which just cant be good.

Re: when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands
 

cero for mod