Simple Question
 

You have A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. You raise pot preflop from UTG, one LP caller, blinds fold. The flop is K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. You're first to act

Which is preferable against an unknown opponent - betting or check-calling?

Re: Simple Question
 

Bet. Checking allows someone who has a backdoor low to get a free card, which you don't want.

Re: Simple Question
 

Betting gives you a chance to take it right there, and may give away less information about your hand.

Checking may be appropriate because you have draws, but no hand.

Of course, it depends on the game and the situation, but most of all the opponent. Does he like high cards? Does he give up on flops with one low card? How big of a hand does he need to make him aggressive?

edit: 'Unknown opponent." Have to work on my reading comprehension.

All things said, playing heads up in a limit game, I am usually going to bet in most situations.

Re: Simple Question
 

I would bet as well, but I also wouldn't normally raise this hand UTG. I only play low stakes (1/2) though.

Re: Simple Question
 

There are only 12 unfavorable turn cards, right? (KKK, TTT, 666, 222) Seems like a clear bet or even a check-raise, and re-evaluate on the turn.

Re: Simple Question
 

What is our stack to pot ratio?

Re: Simple Question
 

Oh, just realized it was pot limit. Betting still seems like a better approach.

Re: Simple Question
 

Hi Phil - It's doubtful that your unknown opponent likes that particular flop very much. However, if you check, you probably won't much information. That is, even if your opponent doesn't like the flop, he might bet simply because he has position. And then if you call, figure you have 13 straight outs.

45-13=32. It's roughly five to two you won't make a straight on the turn.

You also have a back-door flush draw.

13/45 you make your straight on the turn
(7/45)*(19/44) you make a straight or flush on the river,
(25/45)*(13/44) you make a straight on the river.

(13/45)+(7/45)*(19/44)+(25/45)*(13/44)=
0.289+0.067+0.164 = 0.520.

I checked that with a 100000 run sim and got 52146 straights or flushes if played out. (Thus it checks).

Roughly slightly more than half the time, you figure to make a nut straight or nut flush on the turn or river. And you also win some back-door lows. (And there also are some other miscellaneous wins).

How do people in your games usually play when (1) you get heads-up, (2) the flop is a rainbow two high cards and one low card, and (3) you check from first position? Do they usually bet almost regardless of what cards they hold? If so, maybe you can trust your opponent to bet a hand he would fold it you bet yourself. Then you can call or raise.

On the other hand, if you bet and get raised, fine. You are ahead here, although that isn't evident unless you project to the showdown.

Yet at the same time, you're not far ahead enough to slow-play. I don't think you want to give your opponent a free card.

Since you're ahead, despite not actually even having a pair, I don't think you have anything to worry about, except how to maximize your profit on the hand.

How about betting half the pot?

(Keep in mind my experience is mostly in limit games).

Buzz

Re: Simple Question
 

Is this some kind of punk the forum post? I thought you had a reputation for being LAG.

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this some kind of punk the forum post? I thought you had a reputation for being LAG.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is clearly some ulterior motive. Trick question somehow?

Re: Simple Question
 

No ulterior motive - this is just one of those hands that comes up a few times.

Where's the long term money coming from with this hand, against an unknown opponent? Is it picking up the flop pot (small but frequent)? Being ready to get all in on the flop (rare but large amounts of money involved), when you could easily be dominated by raising hands? Building a pot for the turn/river(fairly common, but how does a larger pot and the flop action affect profitability when we hit)? Or some combination? How much is each of these lines worth, and how are they best achieved?

I feel like there should be a clear line that maximizes EV against an average, unknown opponent with common stack sizes.

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
No ulterior motive - this is just one of those hands that comes up a few times.

[/ QUOTE ]
wrap, backdoor low and flush, no pair? Sure, these do come up often enough.

[ QUOTE ]


Where's the long term money coming from with this hand, against an unknown opponent? Is it picking up the flop pot (small but frequent)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. We don't have a pair, but we do have initiative. We should be perfectly happy to bet and take it down without improving.

[ QUOTE ]


Being ready to get all in on the flop (rare but large amounts of money involved), when you could easily be dominated by raising hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't see what hand would call a raise that would truly have us crushed much worse than 60/40 here. Help me out?

[ QUOTE ]

Building a pot for the turn/river(fairly common, but how does a larger pot and the flop action affect profitability when we hit)?

[/ QUOTE ] This seems like a more plausible action in the concrete than in the abstract. With certain pot to stack ratios we couldn't possibly fold the river If we only improve to nut low on the river. If our stack ration was such that we would jam the nut high but fold the nut low, it seems quite likely to me that the anony-villain will be capable of finding a fold to our large bet.

If the board pairs, can we really bluff into an unknown opponent on the river?

[ QUOTE ]

Or some combination? How much is each of these lines worth, and how are they best achieved?
I feel like there should be a clear line that maximizes EV against an average, unknown opponent with common stack sizes.

[/ QUOTE ] I probably don't play enough deep stack to truly understand the complexity here. With any stack size where 70% of the money is in by the river the appropriate line seems clear to me.

Re: Simple Question
 

Against an unknown I think it's safe to say that you can pick up the pot close to one time out of three at any level, and that's where the profit mostly comes from. That, along with keeping up an aggressive image, which makes it easier to get paid when you have a set.

Also, if he sees that you will c-bet made hands along with draws, he shouldn't be floating you very often.

Re: Simple Question
 

I think you probably want to lead out with a moderate sized bet, maybe half the pot or slightly under (maybe even closer to 1/3). This way, you probably fold out a lot of the total trash that could hit bingo on the turn while still getting money in against the hands you would like to play with.

This line also doesn't give away much info about your hand while it will likely define your opponent's hand which will pay huge benefits on later streets.

Re: Simple Question
 

phil, this is SUCH a loaded question, and i know you know that. i'm voting for some ulterior motive. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

anyway, a short list of some info i would like to have:

- stack sizes

- stakes (25plo8 plays differently than 400plo8)

- general texture of table (maybe villain is unknown due to the fact that he saw a stupidly juicy table and decided to jump in -- and this might influence villain's line).

- hero's image (esp. if pto tracking is possible and/or likely) -- if this is phil, then it's different than if it's someone else.



anyway, my "default lines" assuming 100 bb stacks:

- at a relatively tight-passive table, i bet out expecting to take it down and fold to a raise. if called, i probably bet most low turn cards and check (and likely fold to a bet) if the board pairs or a non-straight high card falls.

- at an aggressive table, i check and call or check and raise (some ratio of the two). if villain checks behind, that could have some fun implications for turn play, most of which have me betting out and likely jamming if raised (depends on card and table texture).

- fwiw, i don't think you frequently pick up a small pot if you bet out here in an aggressive game -- i know i'd often raise a flop bet due to the fact that as an lp caller vs an ep raiser, this flop is more likely to have hit my pf calling range than his pf raising range (as a general rule).

- if i knew that you were hero, then i'd often be willing to jam with something like tp + gutshot + a backdoor draw or two (e.g., A2Qx suited to spades) depending on how you were playing.


post more pls... kthx.

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


Being ready to get all in on the flop (rare but large amounts of money involved), when you could easily be dominated by raising hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't see what hand would call a raise that would truly have us crushed much worse than 60/40 here. Help me out?


[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, what hands would have called a preflop raise and have us crushed? I'm just not visualizing....

Re: Simple Question
 

Is 64% 'crushed'? I'm still scratching my head. What has us in bigger trouble than these hands?

Kd Ks Ah 2d = 58%
Kd Ks Qh Jd = 64%
Kd Ts Qh Jd = 60%

Re: Simple Question
 

I never used the word crushed. I said dominated. You're off on your own adventure there.

My only point being that at certain tables, pot betting invites raises from hands that have us dominated. Compare this line to seeing a turn and trapping an unwary set holder. I'm all for being willing to get your money in, but there's no money to be made here against hands that raise us (these are the very hands that are also likely to pay us when we make a hand).

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
phil, this is SUCH a loaded question, and i know you know that. i'm voting for some ulterior motive. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

anyway, a short list of some info i would like to have:

- stack sizes

- stakes (25plo8 plays differently than 400plo8)

- general texture of table (maybe villain is unknown due to the fact that he saw a stupidly juicy table and decided to jump in -- and this might influence villain's line).

- hero's image (esp. if pto tracking is possible and/or likely) -- if this is phil, then it's different than if it's someone else.



anyway, my "default lines" assuming 100 bb stacks:

- at a relatively tight-passive table, i bet out expecting to take it down and fold to a raise. Why fold? You've got a lot of money left behind and probably something like 40% equity, if not more. i probably bet most low turn cards and check (and likely fold to a bet) if the board pairs or a non-straight high card falls. Every high card gives him a straight. I'm starting to think you don't realize he flopped a wrap. Also, if it's a truly tight passive table, you should be betting board pairs too some of the time.

- at an aggressive table, i check and call or check and raise (some ratio of the two). You still should be betting out with this hand a good portion of the time at an aggressive table for a number of reasons. if villain checks behind, that could have some fun implications for turn play, most of which have me betting out and likely jamming if raised (depends on card and table texture). You're probably just going to end up putting your stack in bad most of the time doing this.

- fwiw, i don't think you frequently pick up a small pot if you bet out here in an aggressive game -- i know i'd often raise a flop bet due to the fact that as an lp caller vs an ep raiser, this flop is more likely to have hit my pf calling range than his pf raising range (as a general rule).

If you lead out after raising preflop and get raised everytime it's a high flop, that's important information and something you should like to find out ASAP.

- if i knew that you were hero, then i'd often be willing to jam with something like tp + gutshot + a backdoor draw or two (e.g., A2Qx suited to spades) depending on how you were playing.

We're talking about unkown players, so you have to think about your action as the villain along with the heros action in terms of the general player pool.

post more pls... kthx.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I never used the word crushed. I said dominated. You're off on your own adventure there.

My only point being that at certain tables, pot betting invites raises from hands that have us dominated. Compare this line to seeing a turn and trapping an unwary set holder. I'm all for being willing to get your money in, but there's no money to be made here against hands that raise us (these are the very hands that are also likely to pay us when we make a hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying you think the optimal way to play this hand is to bet half the pot, or something less than the pot, so you don't have to commit as much of your stack on the flop when you're beat?

You'd have to figure out how much fold equitly you are giving up by doing this and see if the value to be gained by keeping the pot smaller is great enough to make it your standard line. I don't think you can make that case.

Also, if you do that, then you either tip off your hand when you come out firing for the pot, or you have to bet less than the pot when you have a set so people have a harder time putting you on a hand.

If you raise the pot preflop, c-bet the pot on the flop, get raised by the pot, and call, you should still have enough left behind that when you hit the turn, a naked set isn't getting the right price to call. Most of the time you'll get called anyway though. Plus there a few cards where your equity goes up to 50% without actually making a hand on the turn.

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
phil, this is SUCH a loaded question, and i know you know that. i'm voting for some ulterior motive. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

anyway, a short list of some info i would like to have:

- stack sizes

- stakes (25plo8 plays differently than 400plo8)

- general texture of table (maybe villain is unknown due to the fact that he saw a stupidly juicy table and decided to jump in -- and this might influence villain's line).

- hero's image (esp. if pto tracking is possible and/or likely) -- if this is phil, then it's different than if it's someone else.



anyway, my "default lines" assuming 100 bb stacks:

- at a relatively tight-passive table, i bet out expecting to take it down and fold to a raise. Why fold? You've got a lot of money left behind and probably something like 40% equity, if not more. i probably bet most low turn cards and check (and likely fold to a bet) if the board pairs or a non-straight high card falls. Every high card gives him a straight. I'm starting to think you don't realize he flopped a wrap. Also, if it's a truly tight passive table, you should be betting board pairs too some of the time.

- at an aggressive table, i check and call or check and raise (some ratio of the two). You still should be betting out with this hand a good portion of the time at an aggressive table for a number of reasons. if villain checks behind, that could have some fun implications for turn play, most of which have me betting out and likely jamming if raised (depends on card and table texture). You're probably just going to end up putting your stack in bad most of the time doing this.

- fwiw, i don't think you frequently pick up a small pot if you bet out here in an aggressive game -- i know i'd often raise a flop bet due to the fact that as an lp caller vs an ep raiser, this flop is more likely to have hit my pf calling range than his pf raising range (as a general rule).

If you lead out after raising preflop and get raised everytime it's a high flop, that's important information and something you should like to find out ASAP.

- if i knew that you were hero, then i'd often be willing to jam with something like tp + gutshot + a backdoor draw or two (e.g., A2Qx suited to spades) depending on how you were playing.

We're talking about unkown players, so you have to think about your action as the villain along with the heros action in terms of the general player pool.

post more pls... kthx.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ me...

1) yes, i missed the wrap -- i thought it was an oesd for some reason. i'd at least call the flop raise regardless of the table texture. i'm happy to blame personal circumstances (big drama in my life) and a wee bit of alcohol for my oversight -- or maybe i just suck.

2) regarding action at an aggro table -- at a maniac-type aggro table, betting from oop is rarely good, imo. in a tighter but aggressive game, i agree with your assessment (i.e., you're often in bad shape if you get jammed on the turn after a checked flop).

3) agree with the "truly tight passive" table comment, but i try not to play in those kinds of games if possible. i'm not sure if phil ever plays at a "truly tight passive" table. ;-)

4) i agree with your pfr/high flop comment, but i'm not sure how it relates to my comment. obviously a decent lp villain raises a subset of the instances of this situation -- the interesting question is what ratio, imho.

5) villain might know hero (phil) but the opposite may not be true (e.g., due to datamining and/or forums). phil has a bit if a reputation. furthermore, those who don't know him soon learn about him.

anyway, thanks for the response. most of the responses haven't been that interesting.

FREE WINTERMUTE!!!!!

Re: Simple Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
4) i agree with your pfr/high flop comment, but i'm not sure how it relates to my comment. obviously a decent lp villain raises a subset of the instances of this situation -- the interesting question is what ratio, imho.

[/ QUOTE ]

My only point is that we should be planning on calling any raise, so in this instance we shouldn't be worried about about getting bluff-raised off our big draw (we could even be ahead sometimes). The only real worry is that our opponent is going to fire a second barrel on the turn when it pairs. The board only pairs 9/45 times. Even if we make a bad fold 10% of the time when it pairs, then we are only making a bad fold about once every 45 turns. And its not like we're going to be folding incorrectly with 90% equity. So it would be really annoying to make a "bad" fold on the turn, but it wouldn't be a very costly one in the long run.

Re: Simple Question
 

Here I lead out for 1/2 to 2/3 closer to 2/3 pot bet on flop. Top set will probably push the action, everything else folds (I'm assuming decent play). You've got the most dangerous part of this relatively safe flop covered, so a raise of your flop bet will probably be fairly easy to comprehend. I think the downside of risking a raise and maybe deciding to bail on the flop raise is more than offset by the tone you're setting by dictating the action. It's probably hard to put this lead on something specific. It says I'm not afraid to bet into you, even though I don't know you, so if you wanna mess then you're going to have to bring the heat. A call of this bet is probably likewise easy to deal with on the turn. If you don't see a paired board, what can you fear aside from a LD+FD hitting (is 789x losing their mind here)? A non-club low leaves it up to your personal style I guess. I think a moderately bold flop lead boils this hand down to a thickish paste while the pot is still very manageable.