Simple Question

[Phil153]

No ulterior motive - this is just one of those hands that comes up a few times.

Where's the long term money coming from with this hand, against an unknown opponent? Is it picking up the flop pot (small but frequent)? Being ready to get all in on the flop (rare but large amounts of money involved), when you could easily be dominated by raising hands? Building a pot for the turn/river(fairly common, but how does a larger pot and the flop action affect profitability when we hit)? Or some combination? How much is each of these lines worth, and how are they best achieved?

I feel like there should be a clear line that maximizes EV against an average, unknown opponent with common stack sizes.

[franknagaijr]

[ QUOTE ]
No ulterior motive - this is just one of those hands that comes up a few times.

[/ QUOTE ]
wrap, backdoor low and flush, no pair? Sure, these do come up often enough.

[ QUOTE ]


Where's the long term money coming from with this hand, against an unknown opponent? Is it picking up the flop pot (small but frequent)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. We don't have a pair, but we do have initiative. We should be perfectly happy to bet and take it down without improving.

[ QUOTE ]


Being ready to get all in on the flop (rare but large amounts of money involved), when you could easily be dominated by raising hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't see what hand would call a raise that would truly have us crushed much worse than 60/40 here. Help me out?

[ QUOTE ]

Building a pot for the turn/river(fairly common, but how does a larger pot and the flop action affect profitability when we hit)?

[/ QUOTE ] This seems like a more plausible action in the concrete than in the abstract. With certain pot to stack ratios we couldn't possibly fold the river If we only improve to nut low on the river. If our stack ration was such that we would jam the nut high but fold the nut low, it seems quite likely to me that the anony-villain will be capable of finding a fold to our large bet.

If the board pairs, can we really bluff into an unknown opponent on the river?

[ QUOTE ]

Or some combination? How much is each of these lines worth, and how are they best achieved?
I feel like there should be a clear line that maximizes EV against an average, unknown opponent with common stack sizes.

[/ QUOTE ] I probably don't play enough deep stack to truly understand the complexity here. With any stack size where 70% of the money is in by the river the appropriate line seems clear to me.

[I dunno]

Against an unknown I think it's safe to say that you can pick up the pot close to one time out of three at any level, and that's where the profit mostly comes from. That, along with keeping up an aggressive image, which makes it easier to get paid when you have a set.

Also, if he sees that you will c-bet made hands along with draws, he shouldn't be floating you very often.

[Cooker]

I think you probably want to lead out with a moderate sized bet, maybe half the pot or slightly under (maybe even closer to 1/3). This way, you probably fold out a lot of the total trash that could hit bingo on the turn while still getting money in against the hands you would like to play with.

This line also doesn't give away much info about your hand while it will likely define your opponent's hand which will pay huge benefits on later streets.

[Kuso]

phil, this is SUCH a loaded question, and i know you know that. i'm voting for some ulterior motive. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

anyway, a short list of some info i would like to have:

- stack sizes

- stakes (25plo8 plays differently than 400plo8)

- general texture of table (maybe villain is unknown due to the fact that he saw a stupidly juicy table and decided to jump in -- and this might influence villain's line).

- hero's image (esp. if pto tracking is possible and/or likely) -- if this is phil, then it's different than if it's someone else.



anyway, my "default lines" assuming 100 bb stacks:

- at a relatively tight-passive table, i bet out expecting to take it down and fold to a raise. if called, i probably bet most low turn cards and check (and likely fold to a bet) if the board pairs or a non-straight high card falls.

- at an aggressive table, i check and call or check and raise (some ratio of the two). if villain checks behind, that could have some fun implications for turn play, most of which have me betting out and likely jamming if raised (depends on card and table texture).

- fwiw, i don't think you frequently pick up a small pot if you bet out here in an aggressive game -- i know i'd often raise a flop bet due to the fact that as an lp caller vs an ep raiser, this flop is more likely to have hit my pf calling range than his pf raising range (as a general rule).

- if i knew that you were hero, then i'd often be willing to jam with something like tp + gutshot + a backdoor draw or two (e.g., A2Qx suited to spades) depending on how you were playing.


post more pls... kthx.

[franknagaijr]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


Being ready to get all in on the flop (rare but large amounts of money involved), when you could easily be dominated by raising hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't see what hand would call a raise that would truly have us crushed much worse than 60/40 here. Help me out?


[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, what hands would have called a preflop raise and have us crushed? I'm just not visualizing....

[franknagaijr]

Is 64% 'crushed'? I'm still scratching my head. What has us in bigger trouble than these hands?

Kd Ks Ah 2d = 58%
Kd Ks Qh Jd = 64%
Kd Ts Qh Jd = 60%

[Phil153]

I never used the word crushed. I said dominated. You're off on your own adventure there.

My only point being that at certain tables, pot betting invites raises from hands that have us dominated. Compare this line to seeing a turn and trapping an unwary set holder. I'm all for being willing to get your money in, but there's no money to be made here against hands that raise us (these are the very hands that are also likely to pay us when we make a hand).

[I dunno]

[ QUOTE ]
phil, this is SUCH a loaded question, and i know you know that. i'm voting for some ulterior motive. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

anyway, a short list of some info i would like to have:

- stack sizes

- stakes (25plo8 plays differently than 400plo8)

- general texture of table (maybe villain is unknown due to the fact that he saw a stupidly juicy table and decided to jump in -- and this might influence villain's line).

- hero's image (esp. if pto tracking is possible and/or likely) -- if this is phil, then it's different than if it's someone else.



anyway, my "default lines" assuming 100 bb stacks:

- at a relatively tight-passive table, i bet out expecting to take it down and fold to a raise. Why fold? You've got a lot of money left behind and probably something like 40% equity, if not more. i probably bet most low turn cards and check (and likely fold to a bet) if the board pairs or a non-straight high card falls. Every high card gives him a straight. I'm starting to think you don't realize he flopped a wrap. Also, if it's a truly tight passive table, you should be betting board pairs too some of the time.

- at an aggressive table, i check and call or check and raise (some ratio of the two). You still should be betting out with this hand a good portion of the time at an aggressive table for a number of reasons. if villain checks behind, that could have some fun implications for turn play, most of which have me betting out and likely jamming if raised (depends on card and table texture). You're probably just going to end up putting your stack in bad most of the time doing this.

- fwiw, i don't think you frequently pick up a small pot if you bet out here in an aggressive game -- i know i'd often raise a flop bet due to the fact that as an lp caller vs an ep raiser, this flop is more likely to have hit my pf calling range than his pf raising range (as a general rule).

If you lead out after raising preflop and get raised everytime it's a high flop, that's important information and something you should like to find out ASAP.

- if i knew that you were hero, then i'd often be willing to jam with something like tp + gutshot + a backdoor draw or two (e.g., A2Qx suited to spades) depending on how you were playing.

We're talking about unkown players, so you have to think about your action as the villain along with the heros action in terms of the general player pool.

post more pls... kthx.

[/ QUOTE ]

[I dunno]

[ QUOTE ]
I never used the word crushed. I said dominated. You're off on your own adventure there.

My only point being that at certain tables, pot betting invites raises from hands that have us dominated. Compare this line to seeing a turn and trapping an unwary set holder. I'm all for being willing to get your money in, but there's no money to be made here against hands that raise us (these are the very hands that are also likely to pay us when we make a hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

So your saying you think the optimal way to play this hand is to bet half the pot, or something less than the pot, so you don't have to commit as much of your stack on the flop when you're beat?

You'd have to figure out how much fold equitly you are giving up by doing this and see if the value to be gained by keeping the pot smaller is great enough to make it your standard line. I don't think you can make that case.

Also, if you do that, then you either tip off your hand when you come out firing for the pot, or you have to bet less than the pot when you have a set so people have a harder time putting you on a hand.

If you raise the pot preflop, c-bet the pot on the flop, get raised by the pot, and call, you should still have enough left behind that when you hit the turn, a naked set isn't getting the right price to call. Most of the time you'll get called anyway though. Plus there a few cards where your equity goes up to 50% without actually making a hand on the turn.