Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Study Group Day 1

[Aviston]

[ QUOTE ]
Lemme give this a shot.

Pot = $50, you're on a flush draw.
Villain leads $25. You're getting 3-1, but need over 4-1.
Somehow, you're going to need to extract over $25 more out of villain if you're card hits on the turn.

The pot will be $100 so it looks to me like you need him to call a 1/4 pot size bet at least to break even. With the most weak-tightish of opponents who run from aggression as you mention, that's gonna be kinda hard given you're draw isn't very well hidden.

I think this may be exactly what Matt is talking about when he says most NL players overvalue implied odds.

Onaflag.........

[/ QUOTE ]
Yep, that's what I'm thinking as well. As I said, a nice, simple mathematical way of using table image, type of opponent, how 'hidden' your draw is, their tendency to bluff, etc would be a great way to quickly estimate your implied odds. My original post was mainly looking at which factors to include and how much to weight each one. Now, I have work to do.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Where I make most of my mistakes is when I bet 1/2 pot giving villain implied odds only to hit either his flush or straight draw and then paying off a little bit when he does by maybe calling a smallish turn bet.

Here's my question - if you're trying to price out a draw and that draw appears to come in, do you just give up to ensure you're not giving implied odds to your opponent?

ex: 100BB effective stacks. You raise black aces 4x OTB and get one caller. Pot is 8BB. Flop has 2 hearts, no straight draws. Checked to you and you bet 1/2 pot. Villain calls.

Turn completes the flush and villain leads repping the flush. To deny implied odds, is this an auto fold?

Why do I get the feeling I'm leaving something out and "it depends" is the correct answer?

Thanks for this thread. We all appreciate it.

Onaflag...........

[/ QUOTE ]


sadly it still depends. mostly it depends on how often he bluffs. if he doesn't bluff much you can lay down every time and not lose much.

if he does bluff a lot and you're pretty sure he wouldn't value bet a hand that's stronger than yours but less than the flush (actually pretty common situation in low limits but not with all players), a small raise can work well.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say a "small raise", are we talking like minraise town or what?

[/ QUOTE ]


a limon special (minraising a turn bet)? it's a really evil play. great fun.

often more than a minraise if they'll call with one-card flush draws, but if minraising works then fine.

for some reason minraises still fluster people and "feel" strong, probably because so many microstakes players used to do that when they had huge hands. if that's the case in your games then you've also discovered an excellent bluff size, at least until your better opponents figure you out.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I’m not good at maths. I notice that sometimes we include our calls to figure things out and other times we don’t. Example is on page 23, we include our call to come up with $9009 pot and figure out what our equity is worth. However, on page 18, we don’t include our $10 call in order to figure out the pot odds/implied odds. Is that the difference, we include our money when figure out the value of our equity and we don’t include our money when we’re figuring out the odds?


[/ QUOTE ]
In the page 18 example, you're figuring out pot odds. The only thing you're concerned with is the current pot. You're comparing the current pot to what you have to put into it (immediate odds).

It the page 23 example, keep in mind that there will not be any future betting since everyone is all in. So, you're figuring out your equity for the final pot. You have to include your call in order to get the size of the final pot that you stand to win if you hit your draw. Then, you figure out your equity based on the chances you'll win. If it's more than the amount you need to put in to call, you call. Otherwise, you fold (it's harder to do this in a regular game since you don't know what the final pot will be and you don't know how much total you'll have to put in it).

[ QUOTE ]
2. We say that a 2/3 psb is a good compromise, but rarely the best bet. I’d like to see a couple example hands where the best bet is NOT a 2/3 psb and why.

[/ QUOTE ]
You could pretty much use any hand as an example. If you know the other player's cards and how they like to play, you can figure out exactly how big a bet is ideal. You very rarely (if ever) know what their cards are, so you have to estimate and make a bet that is profitable. That's why they say to bet 2/3 when in doubt - it's not usually going to be mathematically perfect, but it also won't be mathematically horrible, like a 1/2 pot bet would be if someone had a flush draw.

[SMACK BOOTY]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Another question for discussion:
When playing, particularly multitabling online, how often do you find yourself reverting to a standard 2/3 PSB instead of taking other considerations in to account?




often. get a good mouse lol i have accidentally gone all in a few times.


[/ QUOTE ]

2/3rds is money if you are looking for Sklansky bucks, but at low limits, if you want to win a pot every once in a while and narrow the field, you better make it 3/4's to a full pot on draw heavy boards with multiple opponents.
Me personally, I have enough Sklansky bucks to last a lifetime... [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
How much to bet leads you right into the mutually exclusive concepts of small pots/small hands vs. value betting. I call this conundrum pot control vs donk control, and its my #1 issue at low limits. I know were not there yet, but Matt, when we reach that subject, you need to come up with some magic, because this issue is absolutely killing me. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
That's why they say to bet 2/3 when in doubt - it's not usually going to be mathematically perfect, but it also won't be mathematically horrible, like a 1/2 pot bet would be if someone had a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is that mathematically horrible? You're giving villain 3-1 when he needs over 4-1.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is that mathematically horrible? You're giving villain 3-1 when he needs over 4-1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I was referring mostly to betting on the flop. Betting 1/2 pot usually isn't very good unless you have a great read on the opponent and you can lay down your hand when the draw comes in.

[Triggerle]

I wrote down a few words on cbets and bet sizing.

General thoughts
Raising pre-flop and then following it up with a cbet is a pretty standard move in the uNL games. In fact, it is so standard that many players don't even think about why they are doing it. In my opinion this is a leak.

Those who do think about it often think that cbetting serves us to take down a pot on the flop and leave it at that. After all, winning a pot is good, right? In many games this is indeed a +EV plan, especially if you are up against weak players.

The picture changes a bit once we are up against more aggressive players. They will often know about the "standard" nature of the raise/cbet line and call flop bets liberally in order to put you to the test on the turn.

Similarily, weak but loose players often call way too much with weak holdings (that are still better than yours if you missed the flop) and thus also deny you the immediate profit from cbetting.

Both the latter groups require a different plan for our cbets. Against aggressive types you often cbet in order to disguise big hands that you may play later at the table. Often, this will make the cbets more or less a break even move by itself with hopefully a big payoff later when you hit a flop. This means you should not needlessly throw money at your opponent with cbets. Instead you should cbet just as often as is needed to disguise your hands.

The loose types will probably pay you off on your good hands anyway, so there is no need to cbet to disguise future hand strength. In extreme cases of donkeyness you might not cbet at all if you miss.

Bet sizing
How much to cbet is often discussed and there is no clear consensus. Generally, bigger cbets produce more folds but they also need more folds to be effective as you are risking more with the same amount of dead money in the pot. So there is a sweet spot with regard to amount risked and success frequency.

This sweet spot is different on each table. Against weak, folding players you can make small cbets, for example 2/3 of the pot, on almost all flops. The more boldly they call you the bigger the cbet needs to be. This is true both for aggressive as well as calling station players. Sometimes it even takes pot-sized cbets to have any chance of success. But the risk is still higher, so your EV goes down.

You can adjust to this by not cbetting so much. Once you start not cbetting every flop there is a dynamic kicking in as opponents believe your cbets more. If you have checked behind or check/folded several flops in a row the effectiveness of a cbet goes way up.

In extreme cases cbetting can even be -EV so you don't do it at all against the calling stations and do it as much as you must against the aggressive players.

Another adjustment for the must-do cbets against agressive players is to make cbets that are designed to "look big". If you have a pot with $4.75 in it a bet of $4 still looks big even though it is not pot-sized. A bet of $3.9 would not look as big. Remember this is a set-up in order to be able to bet $4 or more on future flops where we have a good hand and not arouse suspicion.

[Matt Flynn]

Ah skip this post and read Warhammer's above. He answered it better than I did.


[ QUOTE ]
I have a couple questions:

1. I’m not good at maths. I notice that sometimes we include our calls to figure things out and other times we don’t. Example is on page 23, we include our call to come up with $9009 pot and figure out what our equity is worth. However, on page 18, we don’t include our $10 call in order to figure out the pot odds/implied odds. Is that the difference, we include our money when figure out the value of our equity and we don’t include our money when we’re figuring out the odds?

2. We say that a 2/3 psb is a good compromise, but rarely the best bet. I’d like to see a couple example hands where the best bet is NOT a 2/3 psb and why.

Thx a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]


1. When calling for pot odds use only the money in the pot and not your call. When figuring out equity you use that whole pot including your call.

2. Thing is there is always a perfect bet size and delivery, but we don't know what it is most of the time.

For example, imagine you have a big hand on the turn and really want to get all-in. Your opponent has shown some strength and doesn't lay down often. Best bet may be to overbet the pot to make it look suspicious and give you a better shot at getting his stack. Or same situation but there's 1.5 pot-sized bets behind and a dry board. If he's more likely to call half-pot / half-pot all-in than he is to call 2/3 pot / smallbet all-in, you're better off half-potting it.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Either way, you've denied villain odds to call. Now, the card hits and he leads. Do you give up at that point and believe him barring any specific reads like this particular donk always bets scare cards regardless of his holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. It seems like a tricky spot, because if you're committed to folding when the scare card hits, then you lose regardless of whether or not he was actually on the flush draw...it's as if he's *always* on the draw, if that's the line.

This is harder in NL than limit, and that's what I'm struggling with.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a critical difference between the games. once the pot gets big, limit becomes easy to play. the opposite is true in no-limit when you aren't committed.

[Check_The_Nuts]

[ QUOTE ]


a limon special (minraising a turn bet)? it's a really evil play. great fun.

often more than a minraise if they'll call with one-card flush draws, but if minraising works then fine.

for some reason minraises still fluster people and "feel" strong, probably because so many microstakes players used to do that when they had huge hands. if that's the case in your games then you've also discovered an excellent bluff size, at least until your better opponents figure you out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had a weird hand that happened versus some tag.

The flop came 998r, I bet he check/called OOP. Turn came a T, he check/minraised me.

I hold ATo. Assume that I somehow know magically that he is bluffing a very large portion of the time here. With ~PSB remaining is it better to push or fold? Also I do not know whether he bluff pushes the river often or only pushes with a better hand, but at the time I assumed he would bluff more often than check.