decent draw on the flop. what should i do?

[glass_onion]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry to open this up again, but this is my first post on 2+2!

I'm not sure I agree with the pot bet on the flop. For a start, I'm not convinced with the call pre-flop. It is a weak holding and with that kind of hand, you will be pretty much chasing throughout the pot. The flop is kind, the gutshot gives you added value from an otherwise sole flush draw which has little implied odds.

Anyhow, pre-flop aside, what you need to consider is whether the pre-flop raiser is likely to continuation bet. If he has a high propensity to do so, I don't see why you need to bet out here. If you want to follow the line of betting, why not bet half-pot. That way you have more control over the pot size. Anyhow, Checking on the flop allows you to assess your position:

- if the pre-flop raiser bets pot. With one of the blinds calling, you easily have odds to continue

- if both blinds fold, I would let it go. A set has many killer outs and you need about 17-18 to be a coin-flip (of which you only have 12). This is all assuming he has not a single blocker too. At best you are 2-1 on the flop (odds which you are receiving with a pot bet), but that is the absolute optimum situation. Surely that's not a +ev situation to be in and thus you can not call.

[/ QUOTE ]


Absolutely, which is pretty much what I said a few posts earlier. This is the standard play, and it makes sense for all the reasons you listed.

To deviate from what is right, you have to be convinced that conditions exist that make an otherwise sub-optimal play more profitable. This is a broadway board with a preflop raiser. Your flush, if it hits, won't get paid well. Set is more likely than a random board, especially with preflop action. Many people in. You have 0% fold equity. If you hit the st8 your are sharing. Preflop raiser and cold caller still to act on the flop, they are the most likey betters, more importantly raisers, and they are in position. This is absolutely the time to play it passively.


I think sometimes people on this forum get caught up in trying to think up elaborate plays or be agressive for aggressive sake.

Even if you feel like you have to pay aggro, ask yourself what an observant opponent would take away from you pot/calling this, and how that would benifit you in future hands.

I'd really love for someone who disagrees to intelligently respond to this.

[jocelyn85]

Ah glass_onion I hadn't read your post! I read a few replies and assumed everyone was saying check-raise so I thought I'd step in! Have I played you on UB before?

[glass_onion]

they never have full PLO tables and the reload bonuss suck, so generally no. You play crypto?

[BluffTHIS!]

onion,

Reasons to play this aggressively:

1) Meta considerations in getting action when you do have sets by playing some draws hard;

2) The problem as you noted that if you hit the flush playing passively it won't get paid by not set/straight draw hands or 2 pairs even usually. Moreover, the pot will then be so big that you can't offer bad odds to someone trying to fill if it isn't HU on the flop;

3) Checkers aren't always checkraisers, though it is true as you note that broadway flops are the most explosive and offer less FE. But this is a decent sized pot and worth taking a shot at;

4) Stack sizes: if you are making a mistake by betting because someone does have a big hand and checkraises (or the pf raiser raises behind), you will be justified in calling and there will be no more decisions to make as in if another deuce comes when you are really only up against QT;

5) Limiting the field, even against a better hand increases your equity - a non-spade J coming may well be a split, so all the better to get rid of weak splitting straight draws;

6) You have nut outs if you get played with, and not just 3 or 4.


Now obviously what I am advocating isn't 100% correct in all situations. Reads that the 2 checkers are habitual checkraisers would be a consideration leading to checking. As would the preflop raiser only having big cards when he raises pre. But I will tell you one thing that is absolutely not a consideration, and that is the possibility of losing your stack and having to reload.

[glass_onion]

"
1) Meta considerations in getting action when you do have sets by playing some draws hard;"

Good point. My arguement. What would an observant opponent take away from you potting, calling all in with a flush draw and inside st8 draw? That you like to play big pots, can't get pushed around, and will call with BIG draws, although probably not quite as big as you need. Especially if he RR and someone else calls, then both plays look perfectly reasonable and you have no metagame value.


"
2) The problem as you noted that if you hit the flush playing passively it won't get paid by not set/straight draw hands or 2 pairs even usually. Moreover, the pot will then be so big that you can't offer bad odds to someone trying to fill if it isn't HU on the flop"


Good point. But, you can be assured to have quite good pot equity by check calling. You will make $ on that play, period. If you hit the turn flush - which is what we are discussing here - you might not get paid off well. But you still win a big pot. I find lots of hands call your all in anyway. Try it.

Also, you can't defend against the trips/huge draws. Well, life is full of problems. When I get get my whole stack in as a 75% favorite, I try not to complain. It pays the bills.

"3) Checkers aren't always checkraisers, though it is true as you note that broadway flops are the most explosive and offer less FE. But this is a decent sized pot and worth taking a shot at;"

What % of the time do you think this gets folded down. I'd say 1%, generously. You may as well not even factor it into your calculations. How much equity do you give up if you get raised by the LIKELY raisers ahead, or checkraised, and now you have to call all in because of pot odds knowing you are a huge dog. Remember pot odds mean you lose less money, not make more. Its like buying more because its on sale, you didn't 'save' any money, you spent more. Hell, if you check and someone else bets, 2 or 3 callers, you can still donk in this time with equity. . .


"4) Stack sizes: if you are making a mistake by betting because someone does have a big hand and checkraises (or the pf raiser raises behind), you will be justified in calling and there will be no more decisions to make as in if another deuce comes when you are really only up against QT;"


Yep, donking it in does make future decisions easier. Easy is not the same as profitable, though sometimes it can be. My arguement here is that this board is way more likey to be hiding monsters like trips and huge draws, therefore unlikely scenerios like this don't concern me much.


"
5) Limiting the field, even against a better hand increases your equity - a non-spade J coming may well be a split, so all the better to get rid of weak splitting straight draws;
"


True. I'd rather have 35% equity against 4 people than 37% against 1, especially if the 37% was for all my chips.

"6) You have nut outs if you get played with, and not just 3 or 4."

Yep. 9 nut outs, which can be beaten on the river. 3 which are almost certaintly splitting, or in someone else hand, or both.

"Now obviously what I am advocating isn't 100% correct in all situations. Reads that the 2 checkers are habitual checkraisers would be a consideration leading to checking. As would the preflop raiser only having big cards when he raises pre. But I will tell you one thing that is absolutely not a consideration, and that is the possibility of losing your stack and having to reload."

I guess that's the point, that we can't be scared to lose it all when we have equity. We have to put opponents on some range of hands, and given the board and preflop raise, top pairs are likely holding, as are good st8 draws. I don't think 'habitual checkraiser' is a needed read, since we all checkraise advantageously, and 6 handed (or whatever) in a big pot, going into the preflop raiser is about as good as I can think to do it if I hit set.

I appreciate the response. I think you have good points. You change this board to 9s 7s 2x or the like, sets become less likely and I like your line more.

pokenum -o as ks 2s 3d - qh qd 8h 7c - jh kc 9s 8c - ad kh jc qc -- qs ts 2d
Omaha Hi: 528 enumerated boards containing Qs Ts 2d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ks 2s 3d 169 32.01 339 64.20 20 3.79 0.338
7c Qd Qh 8h 224 42.42 304 57.58 0 0.00 0.424
9s Kc 8c Jh 19 3.60 429 81.25 80 15.15 0.111
Qc Jc Ad Kh 18 3.41 412 78.03 98 18.56 0.126

[shpongled]

As others have said I would fold this preflop. Two of your cards are nearly useless.

After the flop I agree with Bluff's line although a pot sized bet isn't necessary in all situations. I'll often bet about 2/3 of the pot.

NFD + gutshot is a good enough hand that I'll bet the flop 80% of the time if it's checked to me.