Should I bet this turn?

[BostonMetro]

Some hand ranges -

Cards he will fold on the turn but pay off on the river = 88 (6), 99 (6), TT (6), JJ (6)

Cards he will call both streets with = QQ (6), KK (6), AJ (1), AT (1), A9 (1), A8 (1)

Cards he will check raise this street with = 77 (3), AQ (4), AK (4)

Cards he might make something with and pay off the river = JT, QJ, KQ, KJ, KT (80) - he will hit 13% of the time --> 10 combos.

Assuming you will never get drawn out on:

Checking turn - 0BB x 70 combos + 1BB x 50 combos + 3BB x 11 combos/ 131 combos = (50+33)/131 = 83/131

Betting turn - 0BB x 104 combos + 2BB x 16 combos, 4BB x 11 combos/ 131 combos = (32+44) / 131 = 78/131.

Your expectation is to win about 1/2 a BB for the rest of hand. The reason is because the majority of the time he will fold if you bet on either street.

What do you think of the math? Note that all pairs could also make full houses that would pay off more bets ... but only with small likelihood. However, he will also call a small percentage of the time on the end with K-high. Note that you will also pick up a huge payoff on the river if you check and he has a full house. It probably doesn't matter whether you check or bet.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
Some hand ranges -

Cards he will fold on the turn but pay off on the river = 88 (6), 99 (6), TT (6), JJ (6)

Cards he will call both streets with = QQ (6), KK (6), AJ (1), AT (1), A9 (1), A8 (1)

Cards he will check raise this street with = 77 (3), AQ (4), AK (4)

Cards he might make something with and pay off the river = JT, QJ, KQ, KJ, KT (80) - he will hit 13% of the time --> 10 combos.

Assuming you will never get drawn out on:

Checking turn - 0BB x 70 combos + 1BB x 50 combos + 3BB x 11 combos/ 131 combos = (50+33)/131 = 83/131

Betting turn - 0BB x 104 combos + 2BB x 16 combos, 4BB x 11 combos/ 131 combos = (32+44) / 131 = 78/131.

Your expectation is to win about 1/2 a BB for the rest of hand. The reason is because the majority of the time he will fold if you bet on either street.

What do you think of the math? Note that all pairs could also make full houses that would pay off more bets ... but only with small likelihood. However, he will also call a small percentage of the time on the end with K-high. Note that you will also pick up a huge payoff on the river if you check and he has a full house. It probably doesn't matter whether you check or bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am no math wizard, but I can follow along with your numbers. If I understand it correctly, it doesn't really matter what I do here... Or am I misunderstading this math?

[BostonMetro]

I think that's what the math shows - you could alter the numbers such that it would be correct to bet the turn against a calling station and it would be correct to check the turn against a tight (good player). It might be correct to bet the turn behind the tighest of players (i.e. one that would never call a bet for the rest of the hand with less than a pair of aces or sevens full).

It's interesting that your instincts tell you that there are advantages to checking behind and also to betting the turn. And the math shows that. I think that Deranged is such a great player that his "mindset" that makes him bet here is such an important mindset to have in limit hold 'em that it is probably best if you instinctively want to bet the turn here. You know that old adage about LHE being like beating a monkey with a rusted wrench...

[W. Deranged]

Boston,

I think this is an excellent analysis. I think the key question, as this illuminates, is what you think your opponent will do with the 88-JJ hands. I personally think opponents paying off QQ are usually paying off JJ and TT, so maybe that is a better boundary than between JJ and QQ. I think 88-99 are paying off many times too, but even if you just move the border down to TT instead of QQ it beomes a clear call.

But I LOVE this type of analysis because this is the type of analysis that brings a lucid and meaningful connection between numbers, reads, and game play. Getting a feel for these types of interactions really helps to isolate the decisions. As we had been discussing, it seemed that the key read, and the key determinant of the game play, was what you thought your opponent would do with those middle pairs. The numbers bear that out, and that's powerful stuff.

[BostonMetro]

Thanks. It is rare to find a situation like this where you have essentially no possibility of losing the hand. But in that case it was fairly easy to go through the math because you only need to focus on bets you will make from the turn onward. You are right that if he calls down with TT things will change completely and you should be both streets. And because TT is a playing-zone pair, a lot of players will see a showdown with it. There are a lot of other considerations that could push you toward betting the turn (e.g. he might not call on the river with 88o - especially if a playing zone card rivers.)

I think the most surprising part of the analysis was that you're probably only going to make a half bet on average no matter what you do - a lot of the time this leaves us saying, "dammit! I should have [censored] checked behind" ... or "dammit! I should have bet the turn in behind and this donk would have called me down" - but either way, you weren't going to win much. He had to turn a one-outer with you to pay you off. I was sort of surprised that the two options were close in BB payoffs - goes to show that LHE is about bet/fold bet/fold bet/fold... then throw in a bet/call.