NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...

[Renton]

yes, in all those situations, you gave your opponent a free card.

However, when your opponent is drawing dead or has only a couple of outs (i.e. the KK/AA hand), you don't mind him getting a free card.

This is pretty pointless semantics, the only point im trying to make here is that generally speaking, the "Hero bets --- villain calls" situation is WAYYY more plus ev than the "Hero checks ---- villain bets ---- Hero calls" situation with regard to getting value with a good hand.

[AllTheCheese]

I agree, in general. But I just think it's important to acknowledge that someone can price themselves out of a draw. For example, we sometimes smoothe call a reraise preflop with AA because, among other reasons, Villain's put in enough of his stack to make it impossible for him to draw profitably.

A lot of people are of "not giving free cards" mentality. And they twist that idea to the detriment of EV. For example, some will push all in with A5 on a Ah9d2h board to "not give a draw a free card" when really what they're doing is donating to better hands.

[xxrod17xx]

This thread delivers! Renton thanks for all your very informative posts. And yea im 100% with renton on the fact that paying only involves calling. If the villan gets to bet they are naming their price, and prob gets check to on the river.

[Renton]

[ QUOTE ]
But I just think it's important to acknowledge that someone can price themselves out of a draw. For example, we sometimes smoothe call a reraise preflop with AA because, among other reasons, Villain's put in enough of his stack to make it impossible for him to draw profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true.

The only reason you slowplay AA preflop in your example is because you believe that the implied value of villain spewing a stack to you on most flops is > the mistake you made by giving him a free flop.

People can't "price themselves out" as you say.

[AllTheCheese]

[ QUOTE ]

The only reason you slowplay AA preflop in your example is because you believe that the implied value of villain spewing a stack to you on most flops is > the mistake you made by giving him a free flop.

People can't "price themselves out" as you say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again. It is not "free" if he's putting money in. By your logic, him flat-calling our raise when we have AA is NOT seeing a free card but him reraising and getting called IS seeing a free card. So, when he puts MORE money in from behind, he's seeing a free cards, and when he puts less money in, he's paying. Doesn't make sense.

Returning to the example of open-shoving 27 off and getting called by AA being the same as getting 5 free-cards, do you see how this definition is contrary to logic? Here I'm "getting five free-cards" with 27 off and opp is "paying" with AA. Not only that, but the term "getting free cards" has a definite positive connotation, as opposed to a term like "checking behind" or "betting" which have a neutral connotation. So the term has a positive connotation, but, as you define it, may very often be minus EV.

You can call things whatever you want, I'm not gonna stop you. But the term, as you define it, is misleading.

[Renton]

See, i'd stop arguing with you here because its basically purely subjective semantics, however im concerned that you are getting something very wrong.

Try to look at things as range vs range as opposed to specific hand vs hand.

We open AA for 7 from the hijack in a 9 handed 1/2 game with 200$ stacks. We have a tight and aggressive image. Villain on the button who is also a solid tag reraises to 24.

Our opening range for the purposes of this is any pair, suited ace, suited broadway and KQo ATo+, or about 16% of hands. Villains range is the top 10% of hands.

Our range to call or 4bet to his reraise is 99+ AQs AK, or about 4.5% of hands. In this specific hand, we opt to call with AA.

Now lets stop and think about what has happened. The way I look at this, villain hasn't made a mistake yet. He has 3bet us with presumably a profitable range, and by opting to call we chose not to give him a chance to make a mistake vs our hand THIS STREET. Our decision to call is in anticipation of him making one or more mistakes against us after the flop. IMO since we chose not to charge him to see the flop with an inferior hand to AA, then he got a free flop. In the instance that he has 22, we gave him a free chance to flop a set.

I say free, because villain made an aggressive action by 3betting, not a passive action. Meaning that as opposed to calling a reraise, which has only ONE mode of expected value (that being to draw out to a better hand and win a showdown), he made an action that has TWO OR MORE modes of expected value (those namely being folding equity this street, or drawing out to a better hand the next street and winning a showdown).

The truth is, in most cases when villain makes an aggressive action in position with 4 or more outs after we've shown weakness, his play is +ev, and in most cases when we make a bet and he calls it with the same hands, he has a lot harder time making money, which is why he is said to have been "charged" to see that card.

[Specialwon]

[ QUOTE ]

Returning to the example of open-shoving 27 off and getting called by AA being the same as getting 5 free cards, do you see how this definition is contrary to logic? Here I'm "getting five free-cards" with 27 off and opp is "paying" with AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really turned into an illuminating discussion, thanks to all and partic. Renton for taking the time to drive home this really fundamental point and to ATC for insisting on a proper definition.

So, if I understand it all correctly, "Free" in poker doesn't mean a price of zero. That's a narrow economic definition of the word.

Renton is saying free = not being forced to do something by your opponent. It has nothing to do with price, rather it has to do with who gets to impose their will on the hand.

The 72o example illustrates the point just as well. I open-shove 72o intending to induce a fold. If I am called, my plan has basically failed, but it's not all bad because I just qualified for a lucky freeroll where I am guaranteed to see all 5 cards. Now if the flop comes 7 2 x monotone in my suit and I suddenly have a bunch of outs my opponent really would like to bet me out of the pot, but he can't. So, in that sense, all 5 board cards are "free" for me.

I do think Renton is right to bang on, because this is the heart of aggressive poker - doing what you want, not what your opponent wants, in order to bend the outcome of the hand in your favour.

[BotOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread delivers! Renton thanks for all your very informative posts. And yea im 100% with renton on the fact that paying only involves calling. If the villan gets to bet they are naming their price, and prob gets check to on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]


+ 1 (Although I thought the free lunch discussion was a bit redundant..)

vnh Renton! I like how clearly you describe the situations. If you write a book about poker I'd buy it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]