Well ahead/well behind NL Texas Hold'em examples

[Jurrr]

Hi, I don't think I fully get the term "well ahead/well behind" and it's implications.

Can somebody please post some examples?

[AKQJ10]

Here's a good short stack NLHE example:

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/q...-the-flop.html

Deep stacked (or even in limit), you have more issues to deal with because you're paying off more if "WB". You can use Google to search:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
site:twoplustwo.com "WA/WB"
</pre><hr />

and probably find some good examples. I'd be appreciative if you added them here: http://poker.wikia.com/wiki/WA/WB

[Megenoita]

Generally this concept means that your hand is either:

1. the best hand now, with your villain(s) drawing to very few outs (usually like 2-4 or fewer)

or

2. the worst hand with very few outs to improve

Let me illustrate for you.

I raise AKo in a 6-handed NL cash game from the Button. The Big Blind, a super-tight nit calls---his tendencies are to raise big hands, and call with pocket pairs. Everything else he folds.

The flop is K 3 5 rainbow

Here, basically he can't have a worse K because he wouldn't call preflop with a worse K, and he can't have AA or AK because he'd re-raise those preflop. So he has some pocket pair like 99-66, or he has 333 or 555.

If he bet into me on the flop, I would never raise, the reason being that I'm way ahead or way behind. He is either crushed by me (with a hand like 99), or I am crushed by him (with him having 333 or 555).

Raising on my part would fold the 99-type hands that I beat, and it would have the sets push all in...no worse hands would call my raise, and all better hands would just push all in.

So instead of raising the flop, I'll call and represent that I have some weaker pocket pair and perhaps he'll bet the turn, or if we both check the turn after he bets the flop and I call, maybe he'll check and call a smaller river bet.

Another example is if a solid pro raises and I call with 77 and the flop is J 3 3 rainbow. He continuation bets into me. I am wa/wb--if he has a J or higher pair, I'm drawing to 2 outs. If he has a lower pair or overs, the most # of outs he can have is 6. There are no draws possible, so I'm wa/wb.

In situations where you're wa/wb, you generally want to exercise pot control, and you want to try to profit the most you can for the times when you're way ahead, while still minimizing the amount you lose when you're behind.

Hope this helps some. This is a very important principle in NL.

M

[Jurrr]

Thanks a lot; much appreciated.

[PantsOnFire]

A classic example occurs when you hold KK preflop. The flop comes A J 7 rainbow. If villain has Ax, JJ or 77 you have two outs and are well behind (if he has AA you are really screwed). If villain has QQ, KJ or 1010 or lower then he has only two outs. If he has xJ or x7 then he has only 5 outs.

So this is the type of hand and flop where there is no real middle ground. This is now a game of chicken and one of the great confrontations in NL holdem. And it is really good to have position in a hand like this.

[Yads]

[ QUOTE ]
Another example is if a solid pro raises and I call with 77 and the flop is J 3 3 rainbow. He continuation bets into me. I am wa/wb--if he has a J or higher pair, I'm drawing to 2 outs. If he has a lower pair or overs, the most # of outs he can have is 6. There are no draws possible, so I'm wa/wb.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible example. If he has overs and the corresponding 6 outs that's not a WA/WB (Way Ahead/Way Behind btw) situation. 6 outs on the flop will have him winning the hand about 25% of the time which is nothing to sneeze at.

[jonny quest]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another example is if a solid pro raises and I call with 77 and the flop is J 3 3 rainbow. He continuation bets into me. I am wa/wb--if he has a J or higher pair, I'm drawing to 2 outs. If he has a lower pair or overs, the most # of outs he can have is 6. There are no draws possible, so I'm wa/wb.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible example. If he has overs and the corresponding 6 outs that's not a WA/WB (Way Ahead/Way Behind btw) situation. 6 outs on the flop will have him winning the hand about 25% of the time which is nothing to sneeze at.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a horrible example inasmuch as the person holding the J (say AJ) is about a 92% favorite to the pocket 7's with 2 cards to come on that board (J 3 3 rainnbow.) As such the guy with the Jack is way ahead and the the guy with the 7's is way behind.

Where the example seems odd to me is I do not generally count "outs" to the favorite--he's already ahead. In this case, the guy with the pocket 7's is drawing thin to 2 outs and is very, very way behind IMO.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another example is if a solid pro raises and I call with 77 and the flop is J 3 3 rainbow. He continuation bets into me. I am wa/wb--if he has a J or higher pair, I'm drawing to 2 outs. If he has a lower pair or overs, the most # of outs he can have is 6. There are no draws possible, so I'm wa/wb.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a horrible example. If he has overs and the corresponding 6 outs that's not a WA/WB (Way Ahead/Way Behind btw) situation. 6 outs on the flop will have him winning the hand about 25% of the time which is nothing to sneeze at.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he has in his hand range only overs, then you're right, that 3:1 dog is nothing to sneeze at. But his hand range is lower pp's, higher pp's, and overs. All of these total is probably around 4.25-4.75 outs, 19% equity maybe at most. This is probably the limit as far as saying wa/wb, but it's an effective example nonetheless. Why? Because the principle is that protecting my hand is not important compared to pot control. WA/WB is really most situations where there are no major draws on the board. In NL it's generally accepted that if you put villain on overs, you don't need to work hard to protect your hand in a pot that's not already built up. I do think that overs in a pot like this falls under wa/wb, b/c he's 87% to still be behind on the next card. Some don't. But if you look at my first analogy, villain's range is overpairs where I have 2 outs, underpairs where he has 2 outs, and overs where he has 6 outs. Thus he has anywhere from 2-6 outs if behind. Most situations have villain with 5-13 outs, like he has outs to 2p and possibly a FD or SD or something added to that. I do think 2-6 outs max falls under wa/wb.

M

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's a horrible example inasmuch as the person holding the J (say AJ) is about a 92% favorite to the pocket 7's with 2 cards to come on that board (J 3 3 rainnbow.) As such the guy with the Jack is way ahead and the the guy with the 7's is way behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

So 77 would be SA/WB, not WA/WB. They're very different.

The classic SA/WB is middle pairs preflop. Say you raise UTG with 99 and get reraised by the button. If you're not getting set odds in a NL or PL game, you may have to release 99. You're a slight favorite over a good part of most people's PFRR range, namely AK or possibly AQ. But you're a huge underdog to TT-AA, so on balance you're behind the range.

WA/WB isn't at all the same.

[jonny quest]

[ QUOTE ]
So 77 would be SA/WB, not WA/WB. They're very different.

The classic SA/WB is middle pairs preflop. Say you raise UTG with 99 and get reraised by the button. If you're not getting set odds in a NL or PL game, you may have to release 99. You're a slight favorite over a good part of most people's PFRR range, namely AK or possibly AQ. But you're a huge underdog to TT-AA, so on balance you're behind the range.

WA/WB isn't at all the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I can now appreciate the distinction. Thanks