when giving free cards is better than betting vulnerable hands

[Dale Dough]

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

[alphatmw]

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.

[GoodCallYouWin]

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.

[mo42nyy]

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

[mrcfkane]

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

[Sehr Gut]

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

[cero_z]

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

[ceczar]

[ 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?

[Sehr Gut]

[ 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.

[innerpeace]

[ 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?