JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey

[The Bryce]

[ 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.

[Dan BRIGHT]

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?

[stoxtrader]

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.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ 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?

[DeathDonkey]

Hi Stox,

If I remember the conversation with Jason right, I didn't really feel too strongly about the flop play either way. I did say I would raise preflop 100% and I'm surprised nobody has commented on this. I also think the rest of the hand is interesting that Jason hasn't posted yet.

Anyway, a big argument I have for a flop raise is that this is a 5/10 6m game. We will get free cards we don't deserve here because opponents make mistakes more frequently here. You might not get your free card at 300/600 but they often do give it up here. Also, if the SB is aggressive enough to prevent us from getting a free card, he may also be aggressive enough to 3 bet a medium pocket pair or even AK on the flop which would make us a favorite so its not like he just has TT+ everytime.

One more thing is I understand if the turn comes a low spade you can raise the field sometimes but there are also plenty of scare cards (spades or not) that will make the turn action change drastically.

I'm glad to see so much disagreement in this thread at least. It's fun.

-DeathDonkey

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if the SB is aggressive enough to prevent us from getting a free card, he may also be aggressive enough to 3 bet a medium pocket pair or even AK on the flop which would make us a favorite so its not like he just has TT+ everytime.


[/ QUOTE ]

Donkey,
I'm not sure I follow this.

[krishan]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW I think good players are disagreeing because it's not clear, not because it's close. Too many conditional variables. I think it's likely that there is a correct non-marginal answer.

Krishan

[poker1O1]

AK - 16 combo's
AA - 12 combo's
KK - 12 combo's
QQ - 12 combo's
JJ - 6 combo's

42 overpair > 16 overcards

that was loosely his range, but still clear that a 3bet from the SB is likely.
So far, it appears the main argument for raise is that we intend to take a free card. If we do in fact raise, the reason should be because we have good equity on this flop and want to increase the pot size. Raising for a free card will rarely happen here. Now, given that the main argument for raising is to get more money in the pot, I believe calling is the right option, that way we wont shut out the middle players, and SB will likely lead into them on the turn as well.

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]
AK - 16 combo's
AA - 12 combo's
KK - 12 combo's
QQ - 12 combo's
JJ - 6 combo's

42 overpair > 16 overcards

that was loosely his range, but still clear that a 3bet from the SB is likely.
So far, it appears the main argument for raise is that we intend to take a free card. If we do in fact raise, the reason should be because we have good equity on this flop and want to increase the pot size. Raising for a free card will rarely happen here. Now, given that the main argument for raising is to get more money in the pot, I believe calling is the right option, that way we wont shut out the middle players, and SB will likely lead into them on the turn as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that range would be fine if utg had raised and sb had 3bet over a bunch of coldcallers. just raising out of the SB isn't anywhere near that tight of a hand range, IMO.

Surf

[poker1O1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK - 16 combo's
AA - 12 combo's
KK - 12 combo's
QQ - 12 combo's
JJ - 6 combo's

42 overpair > 16 overcards
that was loosely his range, but still clear that a 3bet from the SB is likely.


[/ QUOTE ]

raising out of the SB isn't anywhere near that tight of a hand range, IMO.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]
let's seperate it into hands likely to 3bet and hands likely to call:
AK - 15 combo's
AQ - 15 combo's
AJ - 12 combo's

A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] - 1 combo
A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] - 1 combo
AA - 12 combo's
KK - 12 combo's
QQ - 12 combo's
JJ - 6 combo's
TT - 6 combo's
This range is a little better, but some hands can be discredited, as I'm not sure villian leads here with AK-AJ with high frequency. Irregardless, it now shows 3bet range of 50 > 42 combo's. This is my main argument to call here.