Live 1-2NL AA -- the fur flies on the flop

[Mr.K]

Live 1-2NL game ($300 max buy-in) at Borgata in Atlantic City. Table is full, stacks are generally semi-deep, and play has been loose pre-flop with play tightening postflop in most (but not all) hands. Hero's image is tighter than most other players at the table, and he's been sitting long enough with the others that they are well aware of this. MP3 is a higher limit (NL$1000 on party, 25/50 limit hold'em on Poker Room) pro who is slumming the 1-2 game with friends. MP1 has shown some skill in earlier hands, has a clear grasp of position and odds, but seems to be prone to FPS every now and then. MP1 is clearly much better than most 1-2 NL opponents in AC, but he does not seem to be a full-on TAG, fwiw.

The grand question for you all is: what is your action on the flop once it's back to you, and why? In order to answer that question, I believe you've got to also be able to identify MP1's range of hands, and why MP3 did what he did.

Hero is sitting with $480, MP1 with $350, MP3 with $300.

Hero is Button with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Preflop:
2 folds, 1 limp, MP1 calls, 1 fold, MP3 makes it $8 (a standard raise for him), 1 fold, Hero makes it $30, all fold to MP1 who calls, MP3 calls.

Flop (3 players, $91): K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
MP1 checks, MP3 checks, Hero bets $70, MP1 pauses and then makes it $140, MP3 pushes for a total of $270, Hero...

The first thing I did in this spot was try to sort out the minraise from MP1. I started talking to him, trying to see what his body language and attitude was. Not much of a response. None of the obvious tells you look for in a bluff (heavy neck pulse, difficulty breathing, etc.), and certainly no sign of the glassy calm that comes with a set. Just silence. FWIW, I believed I had the best of it against MP3 if it was heads-up, putting him on some kind of draw/pair combo. Could be he had a set, but I wasn't necessarily sold on that based on previous play. Plus, the money doesn't mean much to him given the stakes he usually plays, so I believed I'd see a "move" here more than from "normal" 1-2 live game opponents.

I'll post a little more about my thought process and what unfolded in a little bit once others have had a chance to comment. I don't want to bias the conversation with results just yet. Thanks for the input folks.

[djoyce003]

if you are ahead, it's only by a tiny tiny bit. I fold.

[Mr.K]

Do we really need to be "ahead" here? I don't think that's the criteria for a call or fold. I guess what I mean is, why not think about our equity in the pot and what the price to call is relative to the reward we'll reap if we win. Certainly, we're going to be up against a set some of the time, in which case we're [censored], but many other times we'll see two pair, a flush draw, AK, KQs, KQ with a heart, open enders, and so on.

If we're not "ahead" but are getting 2.5:1 or more, then hell, we can think that we're "ahead" maybe 40% of the time and behind 60% and its still good. Afterall, there is $570 in the pot and it's $220 to go when hero faces his decision.

[JohnnyLaw]

Here's what I think the others are holding.

MP1 has a set of 3's or 5's. I can't see him cold calling $28 preflop with a marginal king or anything that makes 2 pair on this board. I could understand him calling with a wired pair for set value. His mini check-raise screams strength.

MP3 probably has some sort of drawing hand. I think 67 hearts. Maybe KQ hearts or 46 hearts (or not hearts). If he's an internet pro, he has to know that a raise to $8 with 2 limpers isn't going to narrow the field. It seems more like a pot-building raise with a drawing hand like a suited connector. You said $8 is his standard raise, but it seems smallish to me. What hands have you seen him showdown when he raise this much?

I think MP1 has me beat in this pot and I'd fold.

[Machavelli]

You can find a much better spot. With 2 people all-in I think you see a set minimum 30% of the time here. Just fold, risking your stack with 1 pair is almost never a great thing. Find a better spot.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
You can find a much better spot. With 2 people all-in I think you see a set minimum 30% of the time here. Just fold, risking your stack with 1 pair is almost never a great thing. Find a better spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I note your emphasis on "finding a better spot." I take it what you are saying is that while I might or might not have an edge on this bet, I will almost certainly have a much larger edge on a future bet, thus I should fold here and wait for that "better spot" in the future. Let me know if I am wrong about what you meant to say...

There is a massive problem with this "better spot" logic, in that it ignores the real question facing hero at the time when he has to either call or fold. In cash games, we will always face bets where there will likely be a "better spot" in the future (unless we've made a straight flush higher than an opponent's straight flush, and we've both bought into the Wynn's uncapped NL game for millions). When we have a boat and we're sure our opponent has a flush, we're in a great spot -- great because it is profitable. When we river two pair against our opponent's suspected TPTK, we're in a good spot -- though perhaps less profitable than the boat vs flush situation. Would we fail to call in the latter situation simply because the former was "a better spot"? A player searching for maximum value certainly wouldn't look at it that way.

A player searching for maximum value will, instead, evaluate each bet in terms of whether it offers positive EV. He doesn't care if a "better spot" will come in the future or not, because the future has no impact on whether calling or folding to a particular bet has a positive expectation. Waiting for "better spots," to me, is a lot like walking down a street with all kinds of quarters and dimes lying around on the sidewalk for the taking, but passing them all by knowing that a one dollar bill is probably somewhere nearby. As long as you're properly bankrolled, you can take the chances necessary to pick up the dimes AND the dollars. An EV maximizing player will never wait for a better spot. He will simply be sure that any spot he picks is profitable, even if only by a small margin.

Sklansky comments on this in one of his books (maybe TOP or his book on limit hold'em tournaments). He talks about forgoing a small profit if doing so will guarnatee you access to a much larger profit in the future. If you are offered 2:1 on a $1 bet today, but know you will be offered $7:1 on a $1 bet tomorrow, you'd be wise to decline the bet today IF AND ONLY IF you have only $1 in your pocket. If you have $2 or more, you should obviously accept both bets. No limit cash games are not tournaments, and yet I see a lot of players acting as though they are. In a tournament, passing up a small edge knowing you'll likely see a larger one later makes sense. Afterall, if you go broke chasing the small edge, you can't take advantage of the larger one. Cash games, however, are situations in which you should NEVER "go broke," in the sense that if you're bankrolled and lose a pot despite having a small positive margin, you can just reload and play the next hand.

Now, if you want to argue that calling (or raising) in the hand I posted is not +EV, that's something I think is highly relevant (unlike finding "a better spot"). In fact I'd agree with you if you said that calling/raising is -EV. So anyhow, I hope my little tirade here makes some sense and may even shed some light on what I think is an essential mindset for very profitable (as opposed to just merely profitable) play in NLHE.

[quarkncover]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can find a much better spot. With 2 people all-in I think you see a set minimum 30% of the time here. Just fold, risking your stack with 1 pair is almost never a great thing. Find a better spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I note your emphasis on "finding a better spot." I take it what you are saying is that while I might or might not have an edge on this bet, I will almost certainly have a much larger edge on a future bet, thus I should fold here and wait for that "better spot" in the future. Let me know if I am wrong about what you meant to say...

There is a massive problem with this "better spot" logic, in that it ignores the real question facing hero at the time when he has to either call or fold. In cash games, we will always face bets where there will likely be a "better spot" in the future (unless we've made a straight flush higher than an opponent's straight flush, and we've both bought into the Wynn's uncapped NL game for millions). When we have a boat and we're sure our opponent has a flush, we're in a great spot -- great because it is profitable. When we river two pair against our opponent's suspected TPTK, we're in a good spot -- though perhaps less profitable than the boat vs flush situation. Would we fail to call in the latter situation simply because the former was "a better spot"? A player searching for maximum value certainly wouldn't look at it that way.

A player searching for maximum value will, instead, evaluate each bet in terms of whether it offers positive EV. He doesn't care if a "better spot" will come in the future or not, because the future has no impact on whether calling or folding to a particular bet has a positive expectation. Waiting for "better spots," to me, is a lot like walking down a street with all kinds of quarters and dimes lying around on the sidewalk for the taking, but passing them all by knowing that a one dollar bill is probably somewhere nearby. As long as you're properly bankrolled, you can take the chances necessary to pick up the dimes AND the dollars. An EV maximizing player will never wait for a better spot. He will simply be sure that any spot he picks is profitable, even if only by a small margin.

Sklansky comments on this in one of his books (maybe TOP or his book on limit hold'em tournaments). He talks about forgoing a small profit if doing so will guarnatee you access to a much larger profit in the future. If you are offered 2:1 on a $1 bet today, but know you will be offered $7:1 on a $1 bet tomorrow, you'd be wise to decline the bet today IF AND ONLY IF you have only $1 in your pocket. If you have $2 or more, you should obviously accept both bets. No limit cash games are not tournaments, and yet I see a lot of players acting as though they are. In a tournament, passing up a small edge knowing you'll likely see a larger one later makes sense. Afterall, if you go broke chasing the small edge, you can't take advantage of the larger one. Cash games, however, are situations in which you should NEVER "go broke," in the sense that if you're bankrolled and lose a pot despite having a small positive margin, you can just reload and play the next hand.

Now, if you want to argue that calling (or raising) in the hand I posted is not +EV, that's something I think is highly relevant (unlike finding "a better spot"). In fact I'd agree with you if you said that calling/raising is -EV. So anyhow, I hope my little tirade here makes some sense and may even shed some light on what I think is an essential mindset for very profitable (as opposed to just merely profitable) play in NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling here is most definitely not an +EV maximizing play. Given the action there is no way you're even a slight favorite here. IMO you're drawing to two outs/runner runner here.

[djoyce003]

If one of the players has an OESFD and the other has Top pair, we are have 38% equity. If either of the players has top pair, and the other has 2 pair or a set, we have about 11% equity. I think it's HIGHLY likely that at a minimum you are up against a flush draw, and 2pair or a set. You made a strong raise preflop, you made a strong continuation bet and that got checkraised, and PUSHED over the top of the raise....what can they possibly have that makes us a favorite here. Sorry, there is no way that you have the equity you need to make this EV even though the pot is huge, I think we are drawing to 2 outs way too often. What if one of them has 2h 4h and the other has something like 53? Even our ace outs aren't good here. This is a pretty easy fold.

[MaddHatter]

Call me a donk, but from your description I'd put MP1 on KK-TT and was trying to feel where he was in the hand if he had the QQ-TT with the check/min-raise. I think MP3 would be on an AK possibly trying to push out flush draws. I'd push on top, b/c even at worst if you're up against KK, you have redraws for a set or flush.

Bad play by me?

[noggindoc]

[ QUOTE ]

There is a massive problem with this "better spot" logic, in that it ignores the real question facing hero at the time when he has to either call or fold. In cash games, we will always face bets where there will likely be a "better spot" in the future (unless we've made a straight flush higher than an opponent's straight flush, and we've both bought into the Wynn's uncapped NL game for millions). When we have a boat and we're sure our opponent has a flush, we're in a great spot -- great because it is profitable. When we river two pair against our opponent's suspected TPTK, we're in a good spot -- though perhaps less profitable than the boat vs flush situation. Would we fail to call in the latter situation simply because the former was "a better spot"? A player searching for maximum value certainly wouldn't look at it that way.

A player searching for maximum value will, instead, evaluate each bet in terms of whether it offers positive EV. He doesn't care if a "better spot" will come in the future or not, because the future has no impact on whether calling or folding to a particular bet has a positive expectation. Waiting for "better spots," to me, is a lot like walking down a street with all kinds of quarters and dimes lying around on the sidewalk for the taking, but passing them all by knowing that a one dollar bill is probably somewhere nearby. As long as you're properly bankrolled, you can take the chances necessary to pick up the dimes AND the dollars. An EV maximizing player will never wait for a better spot. He will simply be sure that any spot he picks is profitable, even if only by a small margin.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your sentiment here for the most part. The "wait for a better spot" advice is horribly overdone here as weak tightness seems to prevail. However, I think you can fold this one and move on.