JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Strictly from an equity POV, raising is the better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis are you saying this?

If what you mean is: the play with the most EV on the flop is raising, then I agree with you.

If what you mean is: the play with the most EV for the whole hand is raising, then I that one of the main points of the thread (and I don't agree with you).

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Strictly from an equity POV, raising is the better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis are you saying this?

If what you mean is: the play with the most EV on the flop is raising, then I agree with you.

If what you mean is: the play with the most EV for the whole hand is raising, then I that one of the main points of the thread (and I don't agree with you).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you agree with me. Flop in a vacuum.

The rest is up in the air and completely dependent on our opponents.

[Our House]

FWIW, going readless, I like a flop call.

It's too much to assume that unknown SB is a donk (enough to NOT be raising a big pair or AK/AQs) and that the unknown limpers are very (enough to call two cold on a flop 3-bet) loose.

[freewheeler]

[/ QUOTE ] and that's assuming a flush is good at the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
The most understated point in this thread IMO. This hand hits but still loses a significant percentage of the time. I would have raised this 100% before reading all this based on simple pot equity. But now I believe calling is smarter play. Nice thread.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
This hand hits but still loses a significant percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not even close to a significant percentage of the time. A JT high FD has huge implied (not reverse-implied) odds because of that.

[ QUOTE ]
I would have raised this 100% before reading all this based on simple pot equity. But now I believe calling is smarter play.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may be a point for calling, but it's nowhere near a top argument. Calling is better for so many reasons other than hitting and losing. We already take the reverse-implied odds into consideration as part of the EV estimation.

[freewheeler]

[ QUOTE ]
This may be a point for calling, but it's nowhere near a top argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. This is not the main reason why I think calling is best. Greater implied odds is. I just thought it was an under-mentioned possibility. And I disagree that it is a trivial percentage. Someone could fill up if board pairs, board could get 4th spade on riv, someone could be on higher flush draw... I know these are not huge likelihoods, but they are still significant possibilities and worthy being factored in.

Obviously, we expect a flush to win if we make it - and the main thrust of the argument for calling is to win a bigger pot when this happens. But, if we ARE going to lose in the end, saving chips now is a good thing - and the fact that we improve our implied odds when we do win at the same time we save chips when we lose is a very nice thing.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
This hand hits but still loses a significant percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

if by lose you min win. or by significant you mean rare.

[Dids]

This feels like a really hard question to answer without player reads. So much of it hinges on the SBs range, what the players facing a likely 2 back to them on the flop will do, if the SB will followup on the turn...

There's a lot of math being thrown around in this thread, and I'm not sure how much it means when there's other factors that should be shaping our decision that feel a lot more important.

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Strictly from an equity POV, raising is the better play.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis are you saying this?

If what you mean is: the play with the most EV on the flop is raising, then I agree with you.

If what you mean is: the play with the most EV for the whole hand is raising, then I that one of the main points of the thread (and I don't agree with you).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you agree with me. Flop in a vacuum.

The rest is up in the air and completely dependent on our opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this.

I also think that the lower in stakes you go, the better a flop raise is. Your avg 3/6 & 5/10 player isn't a relentless value bettor - You can usually pacify the field with a raise... and when a 3flush comes off in a 4way pot IMO the pfr is often going to check fearing one of the multitidue of opponents hit a flush. Finally, monkeys who put 1bet in on the flop with overs / gutshots are not folding for 2 more anywhere near as often as at 10/20+, in the unlikely event that they do actually get 3bet.

It's unsurprising to me that players like stox who play in tough, aggressive games think that a raise is bad. The flop bettor is going to be 3betting overpairs like 110%, and most of the flop callers are smart enough to figure out that weak overcards are no good, leaving you paying 3bets to be HU as a big underdog. At low limits this play is gold.

Surf

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

I also think that the lower in stakes you go, the better a flop raise is. Your avg 3/6 & 5/10 player isn't a relentless value bettor - You can usually pacify the field with a raise

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was getting at earlier, when I justified the raise b/c I play at 5/10 and do not assume that I will get 3-bet from an unknown.