JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

First orbit. UTG and MP limp, and I limp along with J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] otb. An unknown raises from the SB, the BB calls and everyone else calls.

Flop: 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB bets, BB calls, UTG folds, MP calls, I

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I think I call here, if we raise and hit on the turn, the action will go check check check bet 2 may fold one may stay along.

If we call, I think our implied odds are fantastic as SB will probably bet again even if its a spade, giving us the opportunity to trap callers.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

i def call. If sb has qa big pair then you just faced the callers with two bets and might be driving paying customers out while paying 3sbs for your draw.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

call. implied odds are better since you can get a big double bet. also, in last position, raising does not clean up any outs. fwiw, i would raise a j or 10 on turn too.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

i was suprised everyone said call..
I was thinking raise, for one you can hit you are raising for value...
for 2 if u dont hit on the turn u can take a free card if u so chose...

but i run good, and play bad

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

How do we know SB will bet again if a flush card hits? He does have 3 opponents. On top of that, we have 9-15 outs, or somewhere between 36-60% equity in this 4-handed pot. SB is not guaranteed to 3-bet, and even if he does, we still may get another caller (and even then we can cap for value/free card).

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

Reraise pf maybe :P

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I call here, if we raise and hit on the turn, the action will go check check check bet 2 may fold one may stay along.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't follow this. Raising does not automatically tell people we have a flush draw. And I don't see how we assume the sb will bet if the flush draw completes.

The main reason I see against raising is the fear that sb will 3-bet. But I think that's relatively unlikely, so I would raise.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

This is a raise (and it's not even close). I'm surprised that so many high-volume players would call. Some points:

1) As pots become larger it becomes more and more valuable to take "free" (why don't we call them cheap?) cards. This pot is already a pretty fair size.

2) Implied odds inshmied odds. You have limpers chasing right now and a pretty big edge. Getting money in now is going to be a pretty big value play for you. No guarantee that these guys are intending to chase the next street.

3) "Implied odds" continue to suck. The SB (the PFR who lead the flop) will check the turn UI very often.

It's fun to get greedy and dream of the multiway trap on the turn when you spike your flush, but about a million things need to go right in order for this to happen. Raise now and get money in against the chasers. Give yourself the option to check behind if you miss.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
i was suprised everyone said call..
I was thinking raise, for one you can hit you are raising for value...
for 2 if u dont hit on the turn u can take a free card if u so chose...

but i run good, and play bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I am also surprised some people on here suggested call. To be honest, not only have I never called in this situation on the flop, Ive never even considered the idea of calling in this spot. Raising seems so much like the obvious right play that I almost feel like I'm missing something here.

With 3 people committed on the flop, and the reality that the hero is either a 2-1 underdog to make the best hand on the river(assuming the raiser has JJ and above) or the hero may have 15 live outs and be a slight favorite if the raiser has AK,AQ,KQ,99, and the hero may also have 12 outs if the raiser has TT. In all 3 scenarios, the hero is getting 3-1 odds on his raise and he is much less than a 3-1 underdog here, meaning the hero makes a lot of money off this raise in the long run. Yes I know the PFR may reraise here, but even this is not necessarily a bad event. Sometimes both people in the middle or even one person in the middle will call, and we can still cap for value. Also If we knew the PFR had 99 or TT and we also knew that he would 3 bet our raise every time in this spot, raising the flop would still be the best play since this line would increase the hero's probability of winning this already large pot by a small yet very significant percentage.

There are so many strategic advantages to raising here, that I honestly think calling here is a bad play. Another thing, If I did raise the flop and everyone just called, I would bet the turn again even if I knew I couldnt win the pot with this bet just in case the raiser has a hand like ATs,KJs,KTs,AJ and will fold to a turn bet.

Also, If my flop raise is reraised by the raiser, I am capping always if I believe I can get a free card or when im getting 2-1 or more odds on my cap.

I also dont buy the argument of just calling the flop to not kill our implied odds should we hit the turn.....Like Ive already mentioned, this pot has already reached a big size once the action is on the hero(approx 13 small bets) If raising the flop will increase the hero's chance of winning this nice pot by even a small percertage, this factor alone trumps any strategy that may win the hero a large pot if he hits. I am convinced that a flop raise will indeed increase the hero's probability of winning this pot.

Also, the hero may still make more money by raising the flop, since there is no guarantee that the flop bettor or two callers will call the turn if a spade hits, but they do have their money in right now on the flop, so take their money while you still have a chance, and if you hit your flush, you may induce one or more of them to call you down drawing dead becuz you made the pot even bigger by raising the flop.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I like a call here.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

i call, and one reason i havent really seen mentioned is that i dont want to give SB a chance to 3-bet the flop. well i guess westley mentioned it but he said its not that bad. i disagree and think its happening pretty often given that he raised after the world limped to him.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

Id probably call too, its almost borderline to where I raise, but Id really like 1 to 2 more players in before I prefer raising.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I raise...mostly because I don't think SB will lead again on the turn if a face card or spade drops, or maybe even if a safe card falls. It may even get checked to you on the turn (worst-case), but more likely someone in the middle will bet, and if you raise, you're making SB and BB, who both likely have playable hands, face two big bets cold.

I'd rather just raise the flop and get more bets in when I have high equity

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I raise this all day, every day.

Jeff

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I'm grunching here but the crux of the matter to me is how often you think these players in the middle are going to call two back to them because SB is going to 3bet like always.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

Meh I'd call. Free card plays lose a lot of their luster in aggressive games which I'm assuming this is. Don't really hate a raise but I would probably just call with just 2 callers in the middle.

Lemme guess, Donkey says to raise it? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I just hate getting 3-bet in this spot. It would be a disaster if we have to play HU with 9 wins.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) As pots become larger it becomes more and more valuable to take "free" (why don't we call them cheap?) cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain this.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]

1) As pots become larger it becomes more and more valuable to take "free" (why don't we call them cheap?) cards. This pot is already a pretty fair size.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. The value of a free card decreases with every person in the pot and with the number of outs you have. With many people in the pot and lots of outs, the value of a free card is pretty low.

Raise now or call.. doesn't matter much. There are 13 sb in the pot. Something like 5-6 of those are "yours". A raise now makes you something like 1.5sb. Waiting to raise, not sure, but it's not much more or less than this. Most of the money you'll make this hand is already in the pot.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I rarely donkquote, but:

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the hero may still make more money by raising the flop, since there is no guarantee that the flop bettor or two callers will call the turn if a spade hits, but they do have their money in right now on the flop, so take their money while you still have a chance, and if you hit your flush, you may induce one or more of them to call you down drawing dead becuz you made the pot even bigger by raising the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

4 players, I raise. 2 overcards and a good flush draw. Yea, you give away your hand, but with 4 players in the flop +EV by raising is pretty good. There's no guarantee when another spade comes everyone isn't checking it anyway, unless it's a big spade that makes someone a pair.

With 3 players I almost always call, but with 4 I'm probably a random 2:1 on raise:call.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
Id probably call too, its almost borderline to where I raise, but Id really like 1 to 2 more players in before I prefer raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly how many people do you have at your short handed tables? There's already 4 in this pot...

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like a call here.

[/ QUOTE ]

As do I, and I learned this from you back in August and again in one of your recent magazine articles.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]

1) As pots become larger it becomes more and more valuable to take "free" (why don't we call them cheap?) cards. This pot is already a pretty fair size.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes absolutely no sense. As the pot gets larger draws become "cheaper" because the total expectation is higher.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
I raise this all day, every day.



[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, I do too, but I can barely remember the last time I had a chance to do it. This situation comes up all the time in the lower limits but at the 10/20 and even the 5/10 I think, it only seems to happen every few thousand hands. Strange.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1) As pots become larger it becomes more and more valuable to take "free" (why don't we call them cheap?) cards. This pot is already a pretty fair size.[ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. The value of a free card decreases with every person in the pot and with the number of outs you have. With many people in the pot and lots of outs, the value of a free card is pretty low.

Raise now or call.. doesn't matter much. There are 13 sb in the pot. Something like 5-6 of those are "yours". A raise now makes you something like 1.5sb. Waiting to raise, not sure, but it's not much more or less than this. Most of the money you'll make this hand is already in the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

This makes absolutely no sense. As the pot gets larger draws become "cheaper" because the total expectation is higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Grah, stuff like this makes me so angry when I'm posting record slides. I want to yell at you guys, but it's probably a reasonably complex point. Think! If calling increases in value as you add bets to the pot then the value of seeing the same amount of cards for cheap also increases as you add bets. If you raise for a free card when you're getting exactly the odds to peel the flop you've basically gained nothing. Getting cheap cards in large pots basically equates to the EV happy dance. Peeling does get cheaper in big pots, but free cards get way better than peeling. What's better, 10:2 or 10:3? Can we also see how the bet saved in a 20:2 vs 20:3 example is more valuable than the previous one? Yes we can.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

I dont understand why we wouldnt wnt to PUSH OUR EQUITY EDGE on the flop if we think there wil bet at least one caller between us and the sb. Or maybe whether anyone calls in between is th issue entirely?

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

i'd like to hear deathdonkey explain a raise.

I think a raise is +EV for sure. I think a call is MORE +EV.

I'm certainly not positive, and this is always situational. This one is close otherwise two good players would not disagree anyways.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'd like to hear deathdonkey explain a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were a court of law, the raise would be the defense, since it's the correct play from a strict equity POV, and the call would be the prosecution. So the burden of proof is on you. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]. Why just a call?

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
Think! If calling increases in value as you add bets to the pot then the value of seeing the same amount of cards for cheap also increases as you add bets. If you raise for a free card when you're getting exactly the odds to peel the flop you've basically gained nothing. Getting cheap cards in large pots basically equates to the EV happy dance. Peeling does get cheaper in big pots, but free cards get way better than peeling. What's better, 10:2 or 10:3? Can we also see how the bet saved in a 20:2 vs 20:3 example is more valuable than the previous one? Yes we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this is your logic:
-calling increases in value as the pot gets larger
-therefore, taking a freecard increases in value as the pot gets larger
-therefore, as the pot gets larger, taking a freecard becomes more valuable than calling.

The truth is that the value of freecarding vs calling is the same regardless of pot size, since it deals with only the bets which go into the pot, and not our probability of winning the pot.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

You'll notice that the net difference EV in the 20:2 vs 20:3 example is larger than the difference in the 10:2 vs 10:3 example. Make the pot bigger and the dollar amount you net increases (even if the ratio between the two plays stays the same).

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]

Grah, stuff like this makes me so angry when I'm posting record slides. I want to yell at you guys, but it's probably a reasonably complex point. Think! If calling increases in value as you add bets to the pot then the value of seeing the same amount of cards for cheap also increases as you add bets. If you raise for a free card when you're getting exactly the odds to peel the flop you've basically gained nothing. Getting cheap cards in large pots basically equates to the EV happy dance. Peeling does get cheaper in big pots, but free cards get way better than peeling. What's better, 10:2 or 10:3? Can we also see how the bet saved in a 20:2 vs 20:3 example is more valuable than the previous one? Yes we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is there is very little difference between 20:3 and 20:2, especially when you take into consideration the possbility of being stop-and-goed, 3-bet, etc.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
i def call. If sb has qa big pair then you just faced the callers with two bets and might be driving paying customers out while paying 3sbs for your draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Si senor.

Edit: Glad to see many other players I respect agreed. Raising just seems like the inferior play to me. Reason's have already been given.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Grah, stuff like this makes me so angry when I'm posting record slides. I want to yell at you guys, but it's probably a reasonably complex point. Think! If calling increases in value as you add bets to the pot then the value of seeing the same amount of cards for cheap also increases as you add bets. If you raise for a free card when you're getting exactly the odds to peel the flop you've basically gained nothing. Getting cheap cards in large pots basically equates to the EV happy dance. Peeling does get cheaper in big pots, but free cards get way better than peeling. What's better, 10:2 or 10:3? Can we also see how the bet saved in a 20:2 vs 20:3 example is more valuable than the previous one? Yes we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is there is very little difference between 20:3 and 20:2, especially when you take into consideration the possbility of being stop-and-goed, 3-bet, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fallacious, incomplete thinking. Why do we worry about our odds so much when we call with hands pre-flop in the BB? It's because making money in poker is entirely concerned with the ratio of expectated bets versus bets paid. Let's spell this particular hand out, to the letter. I'm going to assume 40% pot equity, since it's a nice round number to work with, and plug it into the 20:2 vs 20:3 example you just quoted.

If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]


This is fallacious, incomplete thinking. Why do we worry about our odds so much when we call with hands pre-flop in the BB? It's because making money in poker is entirely concerned with the ratio of expectated bets versus bets paid. Let's spell this particular hand out, to the letter. I'm going to assume 40% pot equity, since it's a nice round number to work with, and plug it into the 20:2 vs 20:3 example you just quoted.

If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue to ignore factors that go into the calculation of the EV of raising the flop and you haven't even bothered to compare it to the possibility of trapping people for two double-sized bets on the turn or river.

Plus your math is off.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

Who's talking about the hand? The free card thing was just a peripheral concern in my analyses. These later posts have been responding to people calling BS on my factoid. The big reasons why I raise the flop are points 2 and 3 in my origional post.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
You'll notice that the net difference EV in the 20:2 vs 20:3 example is larger than the difference in the 10:2 vs 10:3 example.

[/ QUOTE ]

And herein lies your mistake. This simple pot odds expression does not denote your "value" in the pot. If the pot had 1000 bets, and you had to pay 1 or 2 bets with your flush draw, paying 1 is clearly not twice as valuable - both are extremely valuable for the option of making ~300 bets at the cost of 1 or 2. Comparing 1000:1 to 1000:2 for value is obviously incorrect.

The actual value of your hand is simply this:

EV = Pr(win) * (pot + bets won) - cost

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, your maths is wrong. I'm sorry. See my above post.

edit- To clearly see why dividing cost into pot size is incorrect, imagine that you were almost allin, and only had to pay 0.1 BB. Somehow your value is now bigger than the pot size!

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]
it's not only between putting 2 and 3 bets in... its an issue of putting 3 bets in most of the time by calling vs. putting in 2 very rarely and most often 5 by raising.

and this still completely ignores the completely awful result that an SB 3-bet on the flop can knock out so many hands that can improve to crap pairs at the same time you improve to a flush.

Re: JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey
 

Our options are to (1) just call, because I don't want it to get 3 bet by the SB and cut down my odds if the SB has an overpair. Or (2) if you generally put the SB on something other than pockets higher than 99(because most ppl suck) I think a raise by you and 3 bet by the SB tremendously increases your equity and may sometimes fold out a stronger flush draw. That being said... I like a raise on the flop and if the SB just calls then you can take that free turn card if you don't improve.