Why is it "more devastating" to be check-raised w/ outs than w/o?

[trumpman84]

I'll take a guess..I haven't read the other replies..

When you have no outs, either option presented to you isn't a good option...if you check you aren't winning the pot anyway, so betting is your only to win...if you bet and are raised, you think ...ok, i couldn't of won the pot anyway, there was no better option than betting.

When you have outs and you think you can win the pot by betting on the button when you could take a free card and get check raised, now checking becomes the much, much better option, instead of taking a free card to a potentially winning hand, you now have to put in 2 bets with a losing hand or worse yet, have to fold the pot if you aren't getting sufficient odds to chase if you only had 3 or 4 outs.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Or: Your equity is 33%, meaning that you lose 34 cents for every dollar that goes into the pot at this point, since you're heads-up.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. In the example above, putting in 4 bets on the turn with a 33% draw meant you lost 1.3 bets total EV vs putting in 0 bets, or -0.33 bets per bet.

[AMT]

To answer the initial thread, though it has been well stated, david sklansky interpreted this situation the same way as stated, and i paraphrase his thinking as the "simple decision method". if you get aggressive with big hands or horrible hands either way your moves are more clearly defined than if you make the same moves with marginal hands. this is the basis of the theory in a nutshell, and the reason youre more prone to play a big pot with KK and not K J.

[ QUOTE ]
Does this theory only apply when you're in position or would it also work when your out of position? Being out of position if we check/raise the turn he's going to bet if we check again on the river because we're showing weakness.

What's our action on the river if we check the turn? Since random shots will be taken because of us showing weakness on the turn should we call more often on the river? Does this theory only work HU?

[/ QUOTE ]

the idea applies OOP but since you cant check/raise in position, we're examining a different question. read of the opponent and your turn action often determines river. a lot of times if you try to c/r and he fires again on the river in my experience you can assume youre beat a lot of the time, but if youre looking at a super aggressive player who always bets when checked to youre more prone to call bets in that light. if youre facing someone who is 20/5 he often wont fire if you show turn strength and he isnt sure he has the best hand on the river, but when youre looking at a 50/20, obviously its a different scenario. being out of position isnt fun and it makes those decisions harder which is why we try to limit that, imo.

[pzhon]

It is often just as devastating to be check-raised with few or no outs as it is to be check-raised when you have some outs. Having outs just means you more frequently have a low but positive equity when you get raised. With some marginal made hands, your hand may be good often enough that you have to call the check-raise. Whether you have outs or not, you could have preserved a much greater expected share of the pot by checking behind, so betting the turn instead of checking behind may cost you more than 1 big bet.

[F Paulsson]

[ QUOTE ]
It is often just as devastating to be check-raised with few or no outs as it is to be check-raised when you have some outs. Having outs just means you more frequently have a low but positive equity when you get raised. With some marginal made hands, your hand may be good often enough that you have to call the check-raise. Whether you have outs or not, you could have preserved a much greater expected share of the pot by checking behind, so betting the turn instead of checking behind may cost you more than 1 big bet.

[/ QUOTE ]This is not how I understand it.

With a hand without any outs (a pair on a four-flush board, for instance), you can fold directly to a checkraise on the turn, unless you suspect a bluff. You're out one big bet, but you're drawing dead to a flush so you're not sacrificing any equity.

When you're checkraised with outs, say with AKs and you have an inside straight draw on the turn, you have ~10% equity. Here, unfortunately, you will have the uncomfortable choice between folding and forfeiting that equity, or calling with poor return on the two bets that go in on the turn. You only expect to win 10% of the bets on the turn, meaning that it costs you 2BB to win 0.4BB. You've lost 1.6BB. And here's the devastation part: You're either forced to give up a decent chunk of equity (10%) or you're forced to call due to pot odds (lose 1.6BB). It's a crappy deal altogether.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With some marginal made hands, your hand may be good often enough that you have to call the check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
With a hand without any outs (a pair on a four-flush board, for instance), you can fold directly to a checkraise on the turn, unless you suspect a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Don't pretend that you have your opponent's range narrowed to one hand. Even with no outs, your hand may be stronger than some of the hands he can check-raise for value. A check-raise does not mean your opponent has the current nuts.

Of course, you should also suspect a bluff.

As I stated before, with or without outs, betting and getting check-raised can cost you more than 1 big bet more than checking behind. It can be just as devastating to get check-raised with no outs as it is to get check-raised with outs. You just need a very good sense of hand judgement (instead of a calculation) to know how much it costs you when you have no outs.

[F Paulsson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With some marginal made hands, your hand may be good often enough that you have to call the check-raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
With a hand without any outs (a pair on a four-flush board, for instance), you can fold directly to a checkraise on the turn, unless you suspect a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not true. Don't pretend that you have your opponent's range narrowed to one hand. Even with no outs, your hand may be stronger than some of the hands he can check-raise for value. A check-raise does not mean your opponent has the current nuts.

Of course, you should also suspect a bluff.

As I stated before, with or without outs, betting and getting check-raised can cost you more than 1 big bet more than checking behind. It can be just as devastating to get check-raised with no outs as it is to get check-raised with outs. You just need a very good sense of hand judgement (instead of a calculation) to know how much it costs you when you have no outs.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't pretend to have my opponent's range narrowed down to one hand; I'm responding to the OP's question (which included "safely expect that we're behind"). If we can safely expect that we're behind when we're checkraised, betting the turn is worse when we have outs.

[ellipse_87]

[ QUOTE ]
It can be just as devastating to get check-raised with no outs as it is to get check-raised with outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the wrong way to look at it. In the situation you're describing, when you have a strong chance of being ahead, you must bet to prevent the free card. Although it's a real drag getting check-raised, it's not devastating. It's simply ABC poker. It's more devastaing to allow the free card. Getting check-raised is the lesser of two evils.