Where's the sense in "calling"?

[Poker Plan]

What about speculative hands preflop? They are only profitable if you have many opponents to boost the implied odds up. You need to "encourage" others to limp. Raising would be wrong. (LHE)


Also: Later on in a hand, it is possible to get the correct odds to chase (for example a flush draw)- but the actual call itself (taken in isolation on that street) is a -EV proposition. ie chasing a flush draw- you only have one opponent left. You each put in 50% of the cash, but you are only 20% to win. It is the dead money in the pot that makes it worthwhile. Hance a call is correct- raise is not.


Ian

[Ludanto]

Poker Plan,

How do you define a speculative hand? From what I have read from ohters it seems to be understood as a hand which either flops nothing or flops really big. To me it seems that one can say that a speculative hand has a below average pot equity but is played for the reason that it can flop really big. Taking it from a mathematical point of view (and taking into consideration that you know all the hole cards) if would be then wrong to play those speculative hands for the below average pot equity. Why do you play them? Because it is creative and you can make the hand +EV by playing better postflop than your opponents. But as I said I am considering only the mathematical best decision and leaving out all creativity.

Sorry but I can't fully follow your second example about chasing the flush draw. Can you please give an example hand with actual cards and bet amounts such as I did in my last post? It would help me to understand your point.

[Hi5]

Here's a simple example of when calling is better than raising. You have an opponent who you know cannot fold top pair for any amount. The pot is heads up and you have position. It is the turn, and there is $30 in the pot and both of you have $85. The board is ace high with two hearts and you have Kh Qh, without a pair. You strongly feel that your opponent has just top pair and is not folding. You opponent bets $30 into you.

Here, a call is correct. The implied odds you are getting to hit your make a call correct, especially since your opponent is never going to fold. You will get everything in on the river if you hit and you will get paid off. If you miss, you are going to fold, even if you hit your pair.

Of course, you might argue that you cannot know the opponent has top pair for sure. But if we assume that we can trust our read 90%, then calling is obviously the correct play and a raise is the wrong play, since we have assumed the opponent is never folding.

[Ampelmann]

[ QUOTE ]
Ampelmann, what about this example? (remember: no creativity, only the mathematically best decision):

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought it was clear that my post only deals with mathematical expectation.

[ QUOTE ]
Heads-up limit Texas Hold'em.
Your hole cards: A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Preflop play: raising until cap. Pot: 8 SB.
Flop: 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Your opponent bets.
Here you have sufficient odds to call. But mathematically it would be better to raise. Do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's look at our equity first.

If he A's, we have 9 outs to beat him (let's disregard the small chance to catch running K's or a backdoor straight for a moment). So we have about 35% (all-in) equity (we win 35% of the time if we're going to see 2 more cards, which we will, and we will lose 65% of the time). He will not fold if we raise (he will rather reraise). So putting any more bets in will lose us money (we put in 50% of the money on the flop, but we only win 35% of all the money put in on the flop). Raising is clearly wrong.

If he has K's we have 3 more outs--our A's. So we have 12 outs to beat villain (twice), our equity is about 45%. Again he will not fold if we raise (and he will likely reraise), so raising again is wrong. We put in 50% of the money but we win only 45% of the money.

If he has AQ he will again not fold if we raise, and again we have about 45% equity -> raising is wrong.

If he has QQ or 99 our equity drops to about 25%. Raising is a major error.

If he has JJ or TT we have 15 outs, making us the favorite for the hand on the flop (54% equity, we have an edge). Here, raising is good. If villain (correctly) calls, we make money by every flop bet going into the pot (we put in 50% of the money but we win 54% of the money); if villain (incorrectly) folds, he makes us even more money by making a mistake according to the fundamental theorem.

Also, raising the flop or (yet better) the turn becomes good if he holds AK.

All in all I wouldn't raise this flop unless villain is super-passive and I figure I have a good chance to get a free card. The chance to get 3-bet here is too big imo.

[ QUOTE ]
You say that calling is also clearly the best move when you don't have an equity edge (including fold equity).

By writing equity I thought one usually means pot equity (that's what I mean at least) which includes fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I write "equity" I typically mean all-in equity, that's why I added fold equity explicitly.

[ QUOTE ]
What is an "edge" here in your opinion? Is it only a pot equity above average or is it the highest pot equity among the players in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
We have a (pot or all-in) equity edge if our equity is bigger than average (HU: bigger than 50%, 3-handed: bigger than 33%, and so on).


Edited to add: If you raise a flush draw on the flop in FL hold'em with more than 2 opponents, you typically raise for value. You shouldn't forget, though, that this cuts into your implied odds (about which you typically don't care here, since your immediate odds and equity justify the raise already).

However, implied odds are important preflop when you play speculative hands like small pp's or suited connectors both in FL and NL hold'em. Implied odds on the flop typically are important in NLHE when you call with a flush or straight draw.

[Ampelmann]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define a speculative hand? From what I have read from ohters it seems to be understood as a hand which either flops nothing or flops really big. To me it seems that one can say that a speculative hand has a below average pot equity but is played for the reason that it can flop really big. Taking it from a mathematical point of view (and taking into consideration that you know all the hole cards) if would be then wrong to play those speculative hands for the below average pot equity.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is wrong. If played correctly, speculative hands have a positive mathematical expectation, even though their preflop equity is below average. We don't play them because it's "creative," but because they have a positive mathematical expectation.

They are played for implied odds. Edit: And implied odds typically go [censored] when the pot is raised preflop.

[Ludanto]

[ QUOTE ]
So putting any more bets in will lose us money (we put in 50% of the money on the flop, but we only win 35% of all the money put in on the flop). Raising is clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking about 35% pot equity, right? So we don't win 35% of all the money put in on the flop but rather 35% of all the money of the b]whole[/b] pot. We put in 50% of the money on the flop but we don't put in 50% of the whole pot on this bet.

Where's my mistake?
Shouldn't every betting decision on every round (there can be a maximum of 3 betting decisions per betting round in limit poker; at least at Poker Stars) be considered as a proposition bet and shouldn't the money already in the pot be also considered in the pot equity calculations?

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I have never found a good situation for minraising. Minraising automatically gives everyone at least 3:1 odds, often times more. Giving odds is not good poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are plenty of good reasons and correct situations to min-raise.

But do not EVER repeat it in ANY 2+2 forums cause you gonna get a new one ripped.

Also do not min-raise unless you have a VERY clear idea of WHY you are doing it and WHAT you are hoping to accomplish with it and WHY in this instance a min-raise is better than either a call or a more standard raise.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

We are talking about 35% pot equity, right? So we don't win 35% of all the money put in on the flop but rather 35% of all the money of the b]whole[/b] pot. We put in 50% of the money on the flop but we don't put in 50% of the whole pot on this bet.

Where's my mistake?
Shouldn't every betting decision on every round (there can be a maximum of 3 betting decisions per betting round in limit poker; at least at Poker Stars) be considered as a proposition bet and shouldn't the money already in the pot be also considered in the pot equity calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]

You basic mistake is that you don't recognize that the amount you bet (or call) influences the behavior of your opponents, and therefore the size of the pot on the current street and in the future. In no limit, that's also why it's +EV to raise JJ 3-5 xBB pre-flop at a full table when the blinds are small compared to the average stack size, but it would be -EV to push in that same situation.

Your argument is only valid in games in which the size of the players' bet is independent of the action, such as in blackjack.

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, I think I should mention some more things. Sorry for not doing this earlier. The reasons I am trying to find out when calling is better than raising should only apply to a mathematically correct way of playing which is almost the same as saying that you can see your opponents cards (or read him absolutely perfect). Also I am not asking about reason which can be put into the category "creativity" which would be true for UATrewqaz example. Let's say I don't consider things such as "if I do X then my opponent might fold which I don't want".


Ampelmann, what about this example? (remember: no creativity, only the mathematically best decision):

Heads-up limit Texas Hold'em.
Your hole cards: A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Preflop play: raising until cap. Pot: 8 SB.
Flop: 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Your opponent bets.
Here you have sufficient odds to call. But mathematically it would be better to raise. Do you agree?


You say that calling is also clearly the best move when you don't have an equity edge (including fold equity).

By writing equity I thought one usually means pot equity (that's what I mean at least) which includes fold equity.
What is an "edge" here in your opinion? Is it only a pot equity above average or is it the highest pot equity among the players in the hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example there is a TON of reasons to raise - you have the nut FD + Backdoor SD + overcrads and you are a favorite over any pair of queens at this point; not to mention that if you're in position you can take a free card on the turn if you wanted to.

Calling is basically for the situation where

1) You have the pot odds (or implied pot odds) to draw, but the raise would make your odds incorrect WITHOUT adding FE

2) You have sufficient pot equity to justify a call even if you are not sure you are ahead

3) Slowplay - giving YOUR OPPONENT good odds when he's really badly behind or setting him up to bluff the next street

4) Float - setting up YOUR OWN bluff on the next street

[Poker Plan]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker Plan,

How do you define a speculative hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

A speculative hand in Limit Holdem would be mid-suited connectors , small pocket pairs, etc. They play well in large, multiway pots. They "play well" means they don't hit very often, but when they do, they will be well stand up well against multiple opponents.

The flush draw example: I'll have to look through my PT database for a specific example. What I was trying to demonstrate is an example where it is correct to call, but not raise.

Ian