Why to bet your sets on the flop (brag thread)

[gergery]

I think the lesson is "Dont focus on results".
But that's just me.

-g

[januarymute]

I think Ciderman played it fine; I would've folded your hand on the turn.

[Drizztdj]

Those last two people into the hand. Oy. One has a wrap straight draw with two to a flush on the board, the other I think took the wrong pills that morning.

[Mendacious]

There was no flush draw on the board.

[Drizztdj]

Oh, I read the 7d as the 7h.

Maybe I'm the one who needs to check his meds.

[Mendacious]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Ciderman played it fine; I would've folded your hand on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ] WM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the lesson is "Dont focus on results".
But that's just me.


[/ QUOTE ] Gerg

1) I didn't criticize Ciderman's turn play, but if you take the "don't focus on the result" line of reasoning, Ciderman could have been drawing mostly dead, he had middle trips and a gutshot redraw to the second best straight. All the more reason in my mind why he should have bet the flop to chase hands like mine, and potential flush draws, AND to define where he was in the hand.

2) As for folding my hand on the turn, that would have been a mistake under the circumstances irrespective of the "result". Was it possible I had less equity than I did? Yes! Was it likely I had insufficient equity to make the call? I think no.

WM-- I understand you would have folded my hand on the turn, but do you think I made a mistake calling Ciderman's pot bet on the turn? If so, make the case. I think I played it correctly, but that wasn't the purpose of the post.

[januarymute]

My thinking on the hand is the following... with several opponents in a hand, and Ciderman sitting in MP, his flop check is an OK option. That line goes like this: check-call a flop bet, and check-raise all-in on any turn that doesn't complete a straight... this meets with varying degrees of success depending on opponents, the worst case scenario being that the turn checks through and the river completes draws. But another way it can work out well is if the flop checks through and then an EP opponent takes a stab on the turn, allowing Ciderman to raise when that turn card is safe. Anyway, the whole point of taking things easy on the flop is to avoid getting committed before the turn bricks nicely. I'd admit that this board is among the safer boards to catch a set on, but there is still merit to his play.

On the turn, I do think you made a mistake calling that pot-size bet. It's a pretty miniscule mistake, because the hand is multiway and because your hand is decently strong--and so you'll never be such a huge dog that you'll be giving up a tremendous amount of EV to your opponents. However, considering how rare it will be that your nut low draw and OESD are both not being shared by opponents, I think in general you will be giving up a little EV here over the long run.

I think I ought to rephrase what I said before like this... if I was playing my very best, I would fold this on the turn. 90% of the time though, I'd call like you did.

[januarymute]

This is a pretty interesting hand, and I started to rethink what I wrote a little while ago so thought it over some more. And reread your post. In the end I convinced myself even more that Ciderman played the hand fine, and you should've folded... in fact I decided that I had actually underestimated the magnitude of the mistake in your call in my previous post, as it turns out. Again, not trying to be a dick here, just think is an interesting hand and non-trivial to see your fold, and worthwhile exercise for myself to try to illuminate.

[ QUOTE ]
1) I didn't criticize Ciderman's turn play, but if you take the "don't focus on the result" line of reasoning, Ciderman could have been drawing mostly dead, he had middle trips and a gutshot redraw to the second best straight. All the more reason in my mind why he should have bet the flop to chase hands like mine, and potential flush draws, AND to define where he was in the hand.

2) As for folding my hand on the turn, that would have been a mistake under the circumstances irrespective of the "result". Was it possible I had less equity than I did? Yes! Was it likely I had insufficient equity to make the call? I think no.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I think you're making an error in reasnoning, because I disagree with both statements pretty strongly. I know you're not saying it's likely that Ciderman is drawing nearly dead, but only saying it's possible. Fine, that's technically true. But that scenario isn't probable enough to have much impact at all on his range-of-scenarios type theoretical equity calculation. Why? Well, Ciderman is only drawing nearly dead to one possible hand--top set. That is very unlikely given that the flop checked through, because as you know virtually nobody at these levels has the discipline to sit on top set. It could still happen, but the flop action and moreover the prior probability of someone being dealt QQ and sticking in the hand, etc, makes it extremely unlikely. Significantly, against just about every other hand matchup out there, he is a significant favorite, or at the very least making a strongly +EV play still while not being the favorite, due to weird multiway action (as in this case, due to very bad luck for him).

On the flipside, I believe you actually were very fortunate to have as much pot equity as you did on the turn. Here's the equity situation as the hand went down:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 32 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc 9c Jd Kh 6 14 17 1 0 0 0 0.328
2c Ad 6h 5h 4 4 28 0 19 0 0 0.359
Ks 9s Tc Td 4 11 20 1 0 0 0 0.250
6s Qd Th 4h 2 2 30 0 0 0 0 0.062

The source of your "good fortune" in equity here is twofold. One, the 6QT4 idiot is killing a couple outs to your reasonable opponents' draws, and the JJJ guy is killing some of the wrap guy's str outs as well. Secondly, you not only have the only nut low draw, you have the only low draw period. We might be able to toggle a couple other cards to make the situation even better for you, but realistically this equity situation is virtually the absolute best possible situation you could've hoped for.

OK, now let's relax these fortuitous coincidences for a second and see what happens. First, let's take out the moron and pretend he folds (and that Q & T are still live):

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc 9c Jd Kh 10 19 15 2 0 0 0 0.431
2c Ad 6h 5h 4 4 32 0 20 0 0 0.333
Ks 9s Tc Td 4 11 23 2 0 0 0 0.236

Still +EV for you, but barely, since the pot is small relative to stacks.

Now let's give the top set guy any low, instead of the gutshot str outs:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc 6c Jd 2h 10 17 19 0 0 14 0 0.375
2c Ad 6h 5h 4 4 32 0 18 0 0 0.306
Ks 9s Tc Td 8 15 21 0 0 0 0 0.319

Note that he CANNOT win the low with this matchup, but that just by taking some of your low outs away, your equity now is neutral EV at best. Give him a live low draw that *just quarters* you if you c-feit the deuce:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc 5c Jd Ah 10 18 18 0 0 11 3 0.410
2c Ad 6h 5h 4 4 32 0 15 0 3 0.285
Ks 9s Tc Td 8 14 22 0 0 0 0 0.306

Now you're making a -EV play. By the way, I'd put a marker at this point for a reasonable middle-of-range scenario for how your hand stacks up against the hands of opponents who are betting and raising at this point in the hand. However, it can get a lot worse:

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc Jd 3d Ah 13 19 17 0 3 10 0 0.444
2c Ad 6h 5h 3 3 33 0 15 3 0 0.250
Ks 9s Tc Td 8 14 22 0 0 0 0 0.306

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc Jd 2d Ah 10 18 18 0 0 0 14 0.486
2c Ad 6h 5h 0 4 32 0 4 0 14 0.208
Ks 9s Tc Td 8 14 22 0 0 0 0 0.306

Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 36 enumerated boards containing Js 4c 7d Qh
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Jc 3d 2d Ah 13 19 17 0 4 0 13 0.562
2c Ad 6h 5h 0 3 33 0 0 4 13 0.132
Ks 9s Tc Td 8 14 22 0 0 0 0 0.306

And, neither of these last two scenarios are nearly as improbable as is the scenario where Ciderman is up against a hand that dominates his... he will virtually never not be a substantial favorite over the field with that board after the turn, and so on balance he is making a sure-thing +EV bet, and a substantially +EV one at that, over the long run. On the flipside, your scenario range takes you pretty far into the disaster zone without becoming ridiculously unlikely. Sure, sometimes you will hit an EV homerun like you did here, but I'm afraid not often enough to make it a positive expectation play.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
1) I didn't criticize Ciderman's turn play,

[/ QUOTE ]

You criticized his flop play. I think betting out on the flop is generally better than checking, but that checking the flop is an acceptable line as well. So i don't really agree with your criticism. I think his preflop play is worse than his flop play, FWIW.

[ QUOTE ]
Ciderman could have been drawing mostly dead,

[/ QUOTE ]

More mistakes in poker analysis begin with the phrase "but the other guy COULD have [insert disaster scenario]". There is no "could". There is only "how likely", and "how much" (equity you have).

[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason in my mind why he should have bet the flop to chase hands like mine, and potential flush draws, AND to define where he was in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are the only one with a low draw, then yes he would prefer you get knocked out so no one can win low. BUT, if one of the other guys has a low draw, then he would prefer you stay in, since your low equity doesn't steal from him but instead from the other low draw. And the chances that one of the other two guys has some sort of low is usually very high.

for example on the actual hand, change one of his two opponents hands to have any sort of low at all and he definitely prefers you to call rather than fold.

[ QUOTE ]
2) As for folding my hand on the turn, that would have been a mistake given the actual cards, which were at the very far end of favorable to you given their hand ranges irrespective of the "result".

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[ QUOTE ]
Was it likely I had insufficient equity to make the call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its fairly close to neutral EV-wise over a reasonable range of opponent hands. I do not agree if you think you clearly had good odds to call.

Congrats on your biggest pot ever -- feels pretty good i bet! You've got a tough audience here....

-g

[Mendacious]

Gerg & Mute thx. for the analysis. I agree with most of it. I think you underestimate the amount of times another player will have QQ-- I have found that people play AA KK and QQ pretty religiously, so to have the 2nd best set when an A, K, or Q is on board is a hand that you cannot assume you are on top with.

I still think the check on the flop was awful, but I concede that there were plenty of situations where my call on the turn could have been -EV. In this situation, however it ruled, both from an EV and results standpoint. Give a dog a bone.