NFD faces a c/r

[FireStorm]

Move him all in on the flop. Your average opponent herre will have something other than a set often enough to make getting it in here profitable. It would not shcok me to see something like KJxx here or K4xx with spades, etc, all of which you are in good enough shape against to shove. Throw in QsTsxx, and you compensate for the times he has top set.

[alavet]

omg whats the question you are talking about Buzz?

if you called flop you commited to the turn anyway but now he may fold if he scared (thats still posible) and if he just bluffed you (thats also possible. so you just get $7 of profit in the best way but if you shove flop he may go desperation or etc etc and call you so your profit would be about $11. since we dont going to fold turn thats the _easiest_ shove flop because of hese $4

[pete fabrizio]

actually it occurred to me today that calling the check-raise could theoretically be the better play, if there was some chance that we could get him to make a bad fold by betting the $3 on the turn when checked to. lol.

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that you haven't really shown a real advantage to just calling the flop..

[/ QUOTE ]XXsooted - If BB holds KQJT, BB may fear Hero holds a set or AKQJ with spades. And BB might make the mistake of backing off and checking it down (but because of the size of the pot will still probably call if Hero makes a hand and bets). In other words, with KQJT, BB may make a mistake and not bet.

If BB holds KJXY or K4XY, BB may fear Hero holds a set (or with K4XY, a set or KJXY). And BB might make the mistake of backing off and checking it down (but because of the size of the pot will still probably call if hero makes a hand and bets). In other words, with either of these possible hands, BB may make a mistake and not bet.

If BB is on a pure bluff, I contend he might fold to the $3.30 re-raise from Hero. Or if he is on a pure bluff, I further contend that although he might fold to the $3.30 re-raise from Hero, a check from Hero might induce BB to bet his last $3.30 on the turn, as a last ditch attempt at a bluff. In other words, it does not seem impossible to me that by calling, Hero will induce BB to bluff away his last $3.30 on the turn, or if not on the turn, on the river.

[ QUOTE ]
But the villain is never checking the turn since he's already put so much of his stack in and doesn't have that much left.

[/ QUOTE ]Everybody seems pretty much united in that point of view. Nonetheless.......

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if he checks the turn, it's obvious we're ahead, since he'd surely stick the rest in with 2 pair or better, so why would we take the free card on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]See above. [ QUOTE ]
There is just really no reason to just call on the flop with our holding against our opponent's stack size.

[/ QUOTE ]See above.

Buzz

[pete fabrizio]

Why are you still defending your losing position Buzz?

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason to just call the flop would be to able to save your $3.80 when the board pairs about 15% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ] I dunno – If we just call, is it impossible for BB to think we may have a non-nut set and check with KQJT, KJXY, or K4XY (all of which are ahead of Hero after this flop)? Is it impossible for BB to make a mistake?

If we call, is it impossible for BB to bet the turn with a bluff hand he would have folded to our re-raise?

[ QUOTE ]
But against an unknown opponent, especially at this level, his range of hands will be much wider than a set.

[/ QUOTE ]I completely agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason this is a no-brainer shove is because his range includes a lot of draws that we crush,

[/ QUOTE ]If you’re correct about his range, that’s an excellent point. I may not have given due consideration to various draws he could have for a possible semi-bluffing check-raise.

[ QUOTE ]
and because his range is so wide there a lot of cards that we won't know whether they have helped or hurt our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]My thinking was our hand is helped if the board flushes in spades or if we make trip aces. You’re right that an ace on the turn would help BB more than Hero if BB holds QTXY. But don’t we have a better idea of that after the turn?

[ QUOTE ]
An Ace isn't always an "out," and a four on the turn is often a good card.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree. Any pair can be a good card. Hard for Hero to know. I don’t see how ending the betting here gives Hero a better idea of that.

[ QUOTE ]
It's pretty damn close to guaranteed. Maybe he checks the turn with draws that missed, but we beat those hands and don't want a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]We can still bet the turn. Are asserting he’s stupid enough to fold any decent draw for $3.30 in a $15.15 pot, but not capable of making an error by checking KQJT, KJXY or K4XY (all hands that are ahead of us)?

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz, your thinking here is fundamentally wrong.............that's limit poker thinking.

[/ QUOTE ] Pete – “Limit poker thinking” is not what it is, but I can see why you might think so. I admit to having more experience playing limit Omaha-8 poker. But more than that, to me poker is a card game played with friends and you keep track with money. We have a weekly poker game that has been running for twenty years. We play at one person’s house and then another’s. The people I invite into my house when the game is here are all my friends.

A natural consequence of that is although we try to best each other, it’s done in a friendly way. Although check-raising is part of the game, it’s held to a minimum. You can make enemies in a poker game if you check raise. I don’t have to use the tactic much to win, and when I do win, the people in the long running private game are still my friends. I might win bigger if I did check-raise more, but then my friends wouldn’t want to play with me any more – and some of them wouldn’t want to be friends anymore. Their friendship is worth much more to me than a few extra bucks in a poker game.

Don’t misunderstand. When I play poker with my friends, I’m going to try to beat them, and they certainly delight in beating me. But it’s done in a friendly fashion. Check raising is allowed, but it actually isn’t employed much, and mostly when it is employed, it is as a tactical weapon (perhaps as a defense against someone who too often semi-bluffs behind you).

When I play in a casino, I take that feeling of playing cards with my friends with me. You meet some real jerks in casinos, but you also meet some very nice people. (I’d like to think that I’m one of the nice people too). And I gradually become friends with some of the nice people with whom I play poker in a casino.

So my thinking is more “friendly live poker game” thinking than “limit poker” thinking. (As an aside, friendship probably starts with mutual respect. It seems to me that some of you who post in this forum have become friends).

But except for my one error where I asserted Hero had odds to call if BB has a set of kings, there’s nothing wrong with my thinking. It’s not “limit” poker thinking. And it’s certainly not “fundamentally wrong.”

[ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of the time, whether you raise or not, this pot is going to have the same outcome -- either you get it all-in on the flop or he puts you all-in on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]I think the majority of the time, the last of BB’s money is going into the pot. However, I don’t think it is inconceivable that BB might make a mistake if given the opportunity - and that mistake might be not betting the last $3.30 when perhaps it should be bet. I can envision hands BB might possibly have, K4XY, for example, with which he might be still ahead after the turn, but with which he might back-off when Hero calls (but still will call if hero bets).

[ QUOTE ]
So you need to think about your equity in the few deviations. Just imagine all the situations where you get checked to on the turn: after the flush card comes, or the bottom card pairs, or an ace comes, a jack, a spade, or even a blank. Pretty much any time that he checks to you on the turn, you'll be way ahead of his range. Since you know you are never getting out of this pot cheaply, raising the last bit on the flop ensures that he won't either.

[/ QUOTE ]O.K. Thanks. I see that.

As I see it, you’re giving him a wide range of hands including many draws. If so, you seem to have him check-raising after the flop with various crummy draws but then incapable of making a mistake on the turn.

Buzz

[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
The very few times we get checked to on the turn are when we're way ahead, say if villain was on a wrap and check/folds a flush card.

[/ QUOTE ]Good point, Iggy. I can envision a hand such that BB might well fold to a bet after a flush card on the turn.

I think one difference in our perspectives is you see more check-raising with wraps. That would be relatively rare in my games and accordingly I did not rate it as probable as you seem to rate it.

But you’re right. If BB check-raised with a wrap around straight draw, then hero would do better to force BB all-in before a possible flush card scared him away.

(I simply did not naturally consider that BB would be check-raising nearly as often with a wrap around straight draw, with which he would actually be behind, as he would be check-raising with a hand like KKXY, KJXY, or K4XY, all hands with which he is ahead).

[ QUOTE ]
In practice, the EV of calling or raising is almost the same since villain's putting his last $4 in on the turn 99% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]Iggy –I’ll buy 70%, or maybe 80%, but 99% is (I believe) an exaggeration.

[ QUOTE ]
, but when he doesn't, it will be because we're ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Or when he makes a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, buzz if you think villain C/Ring QsTsxx is a bizarre play, then you really don't understand PLO at all.

[/ QUOTE ]Iggy – “bizarre” is not the word for what I think of check-raising with QsTsxx. I think it’s good to mix up your play somewhat, whether you’re playing limit or pot-limit. But I think either directly betting, or even check-calling is a better default play. I prefer directly betting, which somewhat disguises other hands with which you would be ahead and with which you would directly bet (because you are ahead).

However, I do have much to learn about the pot limit game. I admit you know more about the game than I do, and I appreciate your many helpful posts in this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the very best line for that hand,.....

[/ QUOTE ]Thank God we agree on something! [ QUOTE ]
.....but it's not a bad line either.....

[/ QUOTE ] “Bad” would be an exaggeration for my current thinking about it. I just don’t think check-raising with QsTsxx is a particularly “good” line, except to mix up one’s play. [ QUOTE ]
.....and it's a pretty typical way to play it for a lot of players.

[/ QUOTE ]O.K. that makes sense to me. Thanks for that insight.

Thanks for your thinking on the matter. Greatly appreciated.

Buzz

[Buzz]

*****
Hi Tom – [ QUOTE ]
This situation can be explained just in terms of strategic options.

[/ QUOTE ]I think so too. [ QUOTE ]
Assuming we're continuing with the hand (we determine his range is wider than a set, which is.. almost certain),

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.[ QUOTE ]
then:

There is no turn that will make us fold if the opponent shoves,

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.[ QUOTE ]
and the opponent will never fail to shove any hand ahead of us on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]That’s very hard for me to believe. For example, if BB somehow check raised with K4XY, a hand with which he is ahead of hero after the turn, especially if he also has a couple of low spades, which would reduce Hero’s chances of making a winning flush, I can see him backing off when Hero calls the check-raise. I can simply see him making the mistake of not betting when he should. Many hands he might have are strong enough that he’s highly likely to not make a mistake, but some other not-so-strong hands he might have are not mistake-proof.[ QUOTE ]
There is no turn+river that will make us fold if opponent shoves the river

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.[ QUOTE ]
If you call, the opponent can possibly fold once you have him locked out, which saves him money.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed.
[ QUOTE ]
Calling gives you 0 strategic options that raising does not, so it cannot be an improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]Whoa. You haven’t considered all the options.

(1) Assuming Hero just calls, if BB actually does have a set of kings (or any set) BB is very much ahead, and will probably bet his remaining $3.30 on the turn, unless perhaps the turn is a spade. If the turn is a spade, and if BB does have a pair of kings, in my humble BB might bet or not. But if the turn is a spade, Hero will bet and BB would be making an error folding to Hero’s bet of $3.30. (Because BB would be getting pot odds of 18.45/3.30 to draw for the board to pair). At any rate, we’re all agreed that one way or another BB’s last $3.30 will go into the pot on the turn if he actually does have a set of kings. (I think we all agree on that). And in that case, it doesn’t much matter if Hero puts BB all-in on the turn or not.

(2) Also assuming Hero just calls, if BB holds KQJT, BB may fear Hero holds a set or AKQJ with spades. And BB might make the mistake of backing off and checking it down (but because of the size of the pot will still probably call if Hero makes a hand and bets). In other words, with KQJT, BB may make a mistake and not bet.

(3) Also assuming Hero just calls, if BB holds KJXY or K4XY, BB may fear Hero holds a set (or with K4XY, a set or KJXY). And BB might make the mistake of backing off and checking it down (but because of the size of the pot will still probably call if hero makes a hand and bets). In other words, with either of these possible hands, BB may make a mistake and not bet.

(4) Also assuming Hero just calls, if BB is on a pure bluff, I contend he might fold to the $3.30 re-raise from Hero. Or if he is on a pure bluff, I further contend that although he might fold to the $3.30 re-raise from Hero, but that a check from Hero might induce BB to bet his last $3.30 on the turn, as a last ditch attempt at a bluff. In other words, it does not seem impossible to me that by calling, Hero will induce BB to bluff away his last $3.30 on the turn, or if not on the turn, on the river.
[ QUOTE ]
You can NEVER keep your money out of the pot when behind, even on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]“Never” seems an exaggeration to me. (See above for reasoning).
[ QUOTE ]
Calling gives your opponent strategic options that raising eliminates (folding if he gets to the river with QT or baby FD and misses, for example).

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. Thank you. I did not originally think those were very likely hands with which to check-raise. But I can see that those of you with more experience than me do.

Thanks.

Buzz

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
But except for my one error where I asserted Hero had odds to call if BB has a set of kings, there’s nothing wrong with my thinking. It’s not “limit” poker thinking. And it’s certainly not “fundamentally wrong.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean "fundamentally wrong" as some kind of general pejorative. I mean that your reasoning here betrays a lack of understanding of some fundamentals of big bet poker. For example, in your many pages of replies, you seem not to have admitted the fact that if your opponent checks to you on the turn, you should put him all-in -- or recognized how that kills your argument for calling the flop completely.