A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

In September I started this thread in reference to a couple of specific posts by Nate in th archives. I am curious how frequently you guys check/call both the turn and river heads up after having the lead on the flop. Also, for the sake of posterity, maybe Nate can elaborate and/or clear up any misinterpretations I/we may have had about his statements.

Thanks,
Cartman

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

This is difficult to answer in the abstract. I have no idea how often I do it.

But if I do take this line, I think it's going to occur where I have a showdownable hand (as defined by all the relevant circumstances) and I consider my opponent a LAG tard type, who can be expected to bet with air and are, consequently, difficult to read.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious how frequently you guys check/call both the turn and river heads up after having the lead on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question and something I've been thinking about a lot lately. At this point I have nothing to add other than Stoxtrader does this quite a bit (more than most at least). I'll check to see if he minds me posting some hands for discussion...


___1___

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

i do it a lot, probably more than most on this forum. I like it a lot as well. You've got to be careful if you keep doing it against thinking LAGS because they'll own you

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

I think in theory it should be really bad to do, because a smart player should realize that you're going to showdown most of the time when this happens, but that doesn't stop these idiots from betting both streets with Q-high.

I definitely do it sometimes, but I can be convinced it sucks.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think in theory it should be really bad to do, because a smart player should realize that you're going to showdown most of the time when this happens.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is an upside to that if he catches on: draws will get more free cards.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
i do it a lot, probably more than most on this forum. I like it a lot as well. You've got to be careful if you keep doing it against thinking LAGS because they'll own you

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think in theory it should be really bad to do, because a smart player should realize that you're going to showdown most of the time when this happens

[/ QUOTE ]
I am? Plenty of the time that I check the big streets after betting the turn it is because I have a draw that can't win unimproved, I'm pretty sure the opponent isn't folding and I think he is going to pop me on the turn. When he sees me check the river after checking the turn, he can't tell if I am going to a showdown as you say or if I missed my draw and know that he won't be bluffed. And when I check the turn, I could be folding, raising or calling. I don't think it is necessarily obvious what you are doing.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
In September I started this thread in reference to a couple of specific posts by Nate in th archives. I am curious how frequently you guys check/call both the turn and river heads up after having the lead on the flop. Also, for the sake of posterity, maybe Nate can elaborate and/or clear up any misinterpretations I/we may have had about his statements.

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of points of clarification. There are really two separate concepts going on here.

The first concept, and far and away the more important one, is that you *don't* always need to call the river when you call the turn. Obviously, this requires some delicacy and certain feel for your opponent, above and beyond what you'd get with Pokertracker type stats. But against either a TAG type opponent who is judicious with her river bets, or a weak player who is only too happy to show down anything that could plausbily win, this is an important play to have in your handbook.

FWIW, I find that this works especially well when you're running well, or your opponent is running badly.

I'm talking, of course, about those situations in which you're way ahead/way behind or mostly ahead/mostly behind; you'll make this play all the time when you're on a draw that misses.

There *is* an in between case too. Say that you have 76s on a 742(Q) board. You check-raised the flop and your opponent raised the turn when the queen appeared. You might not quite have the odds to draw to a five-outer, and the hand might not quite be worth calling down, but against certain opponents, you can probably credit yourself with an extra couple of outs for those times that you still have the best hand *and* you gain a free showdown.

The second concept is giving up the lead on the turn in a mostly ahead/mostly behind situation. I'm still not a big advocate of this play on a turn blank, whether or not you are planning on making a "sexy" fold on the river if your opponent bets both big streets.

I can think of one situation where I use this play fairly often, which is where you have ace-high on a drawless, paired board like TT4(7). I find that opponents *do* call the flop here fairly often with the intention of making a play on the turn. But if you think opponents below about the 50/100 limit are doing a lot of this on more normal sorts of boards, you're either playing a little paranoid or you need to work on your table selection.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

Just read stox's Jan article in the 2+2 mag that sums it up.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just read stox's Jan article in the 2+2 mag that sums it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I found the right article.. link

Stox's article covers the case when you are in position. Cartman is asking about out of position situations.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just read stox's Jan article in the 2+2 mag that sums it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox has mad game, but I disagree with a couple of examples, particularly #4.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

I think that it shouldn't be done too often because players will know that they can pickup a freecard after calling the flop a good deal of the time. So even if they slightly take the worst of it odds wise on the flop they can make up for it a lot of times because you check to them on the turn.

I really only do it against very bad players who bluff on an overcard turn if you dont bet.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

Villian is 38/24 and steals religiously.

This seemed like a good spot.


Cryptologic 5/10
Hold'em <font color="#0000FF">(5 handed)</font> link

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, Button calls.

Flop: (7.00 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

Turn: (4.50 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (6.50 BB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB.
Results in white below:<font color="#FFFFFF">
Button has 4s 7d (High Card King)
Hero has Ad 8c (A Pair of Eights, Ace high)
Hero wins 8.47 BB.
</font>

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm talking, of course, about those situations in which you're way ahead/way behind or mostly ahead/mostly behind

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "mostly ahead/mostly behind". The situation where I feel inclined to relinquish the initiative on the turn is when I 3-bet preflop with a big Ace and my opponent is extremely aggressive. There are a bundle of these guys who are very likely to raise the turn on boards that they deem unlikely to have hit me with a wide variety of draws as well as unpaired high card hands. As some others have said they also aren't necessarily opposed to betting again on the river with worse hands either. Do you think it is a bad idea in this case to check the turn at least tentatively planning to call both streets?



[ QUOTE ]
you'll make this play all the time when you're on a draw that misses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "this play" when it comes to missed draws. You aren't talking about betting or raising the flop out of position and then checking the turn are you?




[ QUOTE ]

There *is* an in between case too. Say that you have 76s on a 742(Q) board. You check-raised the flop and your opponent raised the turn when the queen appeared. You might not quite have the odds to draw to a five-outer, and the hand might not quite be worth calling down, but against certain opponents, you can probably credit yourself with an extra couple of outs for those times that you still have the best hand *and* you gain a free showdown.





[/ QUOTE ]
We are usually getting and immediate 7.25:1 and the chances that he is raising intending to take a free showdown seem to somewhat offset the chances that we often don't have 5 full outs. Would you say that the majority of time it is correct to call the turn raise in this situation with any non-pocket pair with which you decided to checkraise the flop provided that your opponent is capable of making a free showdown raise unpaired?

Thanks,
Cartman

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just read stox's Jan article in the 2+2 mag that sums it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox has mad game, but I disagree with a couple of examples, particularly #4.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of hijacking this, can you elaborate about your disagreements with the article please?

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

I need to read the online mag more often. Lot's of good stuff there. It's also encouraging to see a strategy explained that I'd been using for a while because it "felt" right.

- Jim

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just read stox's Jan article in the 2+2 mag that sums it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stox has mad game, but I disagree with a couple of examples, particularly #4.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of hijacking this, can you elaborate about your disagreements with the article please?

[/ QUOTE ]

The main issues are that:

1) I think Nick us underestimating the number of outs that his opponent will have. A great number of times, when you have ace high or a low pair on a coordinated flop, your opponent will have 6 pairing outs + 4 gutshot outs, for 10 total.

2) I think Nick is overestimating the number of times that you'll be bluffed off your hand with air. One of the "moments of clarity" I've had since returning to the online game is that the *postflop* play at the 10/20 through about 30/60 limits isn't quite as aggressive as you guys make it out to be, and it's fairly predictable in which types of situations people are going to try and make moves and in which they aren't. Now, above 30/60, you'll some very aggressive types who can read hands pretty well and probably come fairly close to optimal bluffing frequency. But most of you guys aren't playing that high (I haven't played that high very much either - but enough to recognize some shifts in game texture) and I think his advice could be costing you some value/protection opportunties against more typical sorts of opponents. Certainly, you should make adjustments against known tricky LAGs, but I object to the notion that these should be the *default* plays at midlimits.

3) Finally, in a couple of cases, I think Nick is negleting the bonus you get when you get someone to fold a better hand. I'm not under any illusions that this is going to happen often. But, if in Hand 2 for example you can get someone to fold a hand like a pair of 7's or T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] even 3-5% of the time, that begins to have a quite significant impact on the equity valuations.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are a bundle of these guys who are very likely to raise the turn on boards that they deem unlikely to have hit me with a wide variety of draws as well as unpaired high card hands. As some others have said they also aren't necessarily opposed to betting again on the river with worse hands either. Do you think it is a bad idea in this case to check the turn at least tentatively planning to call both streets?

[/ QUOTE ]

As a default play, yes. The reasons basically are the same as I've listed in the response to Wynton's post immediately above.

Mind you, I do plenty of calling down. My W$SD have always been very low, and my my W$WSF have always been very high. But I still pick my spots. I just don't feel all that hellbent on getting to showdown when I have ace high out of position on a semi-coordinated board.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you'll make this play all the time when you're on a draw that misses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I must be misunderstanding what you mean by "this play" when it comes to missed draws. You aren't talking about betting or raising the flop out of position and then checking the turn are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is what I'm talking about. I'm trying to be a little bit more selective about when I make continuation bets with my draws.




[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There *is* an in between case too. Say that you have 76s on a 742(Q) board. You check-raised the flop and your opponent raised the turn when the queen appeared. You might not quite have the odds to draw to a five-outer, and the hand might not quite be worth calling down, but against certain opponents, you can probably credit yourself with an extra couple of outs for those times that you still have the best hand *and* you gain a free showdown.





[/ QUOTE ]
We are usually getting and immediate 7.25:1 and the chances that he is raising intending to take a free showdown seem to somewhat offset the chances that we often don't have 5 full outs. Would you say that the majority of time it is correct to call the turn raise in this situation with any non-pocket pair with which you decided to checkraise the flop provided that your opponent is capable of making a free showdown raise unpaired?

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

The *majority* of the time, almost certainly.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

Nate I think your observation regarding postflop play in midlimits is quite accurate. Most turn raises (flop play consists of raises with all sorts of hands) are made hands of some sort. Even on a TT7(4)r board a turn raise is more often a hand like A4 or 97 than QJ.

I had the following sequence occur the other day. Two straight hands I openraised AJ then AT and bet flop and turn against a loose passive who always peeled the flop. Both times I got checkraised and folded as I had no piece of the board. The next hand I play is J8s with a button raise and only called by a TAGgy player in the BB. Flop is KT6 and I bet, he calls. Turn is a 2, I bet expecting him to CR and push me off the hand, but he just folds. So I'm pretty sure he had a gutshot and either didn't notice I was willing to give up on weak hands or figured I was gonna call down lighter or just doesn't CR turns as bluffs ever. Next hand I enter is against the loose passive (who I am starting wonder might be a bit trickier than usual) with JJ on a Q86(9)(9) board and the loose passive calls me down as I bet all streets with 87. So he had a pair and straight draw in the last hand and didn't semibluff raise the turn. Almost certainly his two earlier raises were with real hands (two pair / top pair). At the time, though, the short-term variance played with my head a bit and I had to wonder whether he was trickier than my first 75 hands or so seemed to indicate. I probably would have made a bad calldown with the JJ hand had he raised the turn -- especially since I picked up the gutshot outs. I can only tell now in hindsight that it would be bad as I would have included hands like 87 in his range if he had raised the turn because of the past two hands against him.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

[ QUOTE ]
if in Hand 2 for example you can get someone to fold a hand like a pair of 7's or T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] even 3-5% of the time, that begins to have a quite significant impact on the equity valuations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mostly agree with Nate in terms of betting the turn with weak made hands to avoid freecards (even at the risk of being checkraised by a LAG on a draw).

However, I dont think the specific rationale of folding a better hand that Nate quoted here makes sense. If you think you can only fold a better hand some miniscule portion of the time (e.g. 3-5%), given the very small pot size (e.g., 6.5 SBs), your bet on the turn has around 1/10th of a BB in fold equity. This doesnt move the needle at all.

I think Nate's first reason--namely that many villains will have up to 10 clean outs--is the reason to bet the turn on 4th street against all but the most aggressive and tricky opponents.

I cant tell you how many times my steal attempts on 4th street have crashed and burned on the river due to having given the freecard on the turn.

Re: A couple of quotes by Nate tha\' Great
 

my favourite nate the great quote which i use frequently is "always bet the flop after raising pre-flop unless your doing the ironing"

stripsqueez - chickenhawk