Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:31 am GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
No reads, just sat down.
PokerStars Game #7551835544: Hold'em No Limit ($1/$2) - 2006/12/22 - 03:12:07 (ET)
Table 'Ornamenta V' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: bdubhc ($200 in chips)
Seat 2: Turn_Prophet ($197 in chips)
Seat 3: chelsea16 ($136 in chips)
Seat 4: LoveSurgery ($105.35 in chips)
Seat 5: Tru_Dat ($252.75 in chips)
Seat 6: SrGuapo2 ($115.10 in chips)
Seat 8: tomtom2 ($232 in chips)
Seat 9: The #1 Rogue ($360.10 in chips)
chelsea16: posts small blind $1
LoveSurgery: posts big blind $2
KarlSpakler: sits out
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Turn_Prophet  
Tru_Dat: folds
SrGuapo2: folds
tomtom2: folds
The #1 Rogue: calls $2
bdubhc: folds
Turn_Prophet: calls $2
chelsea16: folds
LoveSurgery: checks
*** FLOP ***   
LoveSurgery: bets $2
The #1 Rogue: calls $2
Turn_Prophet: raises $6 to $8
LoveSurgery: folds
The #1 Rogue: calls $6
*** TURN *** 
The #1 Rogue: checks
Turn_Prophet: bets $16
The #1 Rogue: calls $16
*** RIVER *** 
The #1 Rogue: bets $20
Turn_Prophet: ????
My guess here is this is either a block bet with something like two pair, or he started with a pair and back-doored a flush.
If I'm raising here, what's a good amount?
How's my line the rest of the hand?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:35 am GMT by TheSalche
I hope we can rule out King 10 here ... that'd be ridiculous and he'd be so balla I'd have to pay him off.
Maybe king 9 of diamonds? I really don't think so.
Push it
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:03 am GMT by MrDarling
I just call. I'm guessing he made 2 pairs, but am too chicken to push in the small chance he have a flush and the even smaller chance he has a better str8.
hands he could have that beat us: 89s , 78s, K9s (doubt it) KT (played badly)
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:29 am GMT by Ciso_B
K-10 might gamble here ya know....Double belly buster on flop, turn call would be mathematically wrong since I think hes getting about 2.5-1 or something but if you re raise and he pushes you're beat and he might chuck 2 pair to a raise anyway. I guess you could re raise $25 or the minimum to ensure a worser hand calls. 8-9d or something like that is a hand he might play like that too like you pointed out. I dont put him on a Jack the way hes played this, A-9 is the pretty much only two pair hand I could see here that he might call on turn to value bet river.
I think you're betting throughout was fine here, I think calling is best option though.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 8:49 am GMT by aaronw
This may be a dumb post, but I am not too sure if I like the overcall PF. I think with this hand on the button after a limper I am going to raise the pot and try to take it down PF. (Just a suggestions).
As played I think I would have to raise on the river here. If he back doored a flush, so be it. I think it will be more likely that he hit a weird two pair here, like A9 or Q9 or something weird like that. I think I want to raise to something that he could call with his two pair here. I think I like a raise to about $55 or $60 here. I think if he pushes after this, it is fair to say that we are beat by a higher straight or flush and we need to fold. So, raise to $55 - $60 and fold to a push.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:12 am GMT by shorn7
This is a tough one. As Ciso points out, he could have KT here because of the DBB on the flop. But I think it is more likely he has two pair now (AJ comes to mind).
Bottom line though, I would not raise here unless I am prepared to call a push from him. So, whether you raise or not is very read dependent on what you have seen villain do in the past. With no read, I just call here.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:19 am GMT by aaronw
| shorn7 wrote: | This is a tough one. As Ciso points out, he could have KT here because of the DBB on the flop. But I think it is more likely he has two pair now (AJ comes to mind).
Bottom line though, I would not raise here unless I am prepared to call a push from him. So, whether you raise or not is very read dependent on what you have seen villain do in the past. With no read, I just call here. |
Don't you think that you would lose a lot of value from 2 pair hands which would call a raise here? I also think he really would only push with a flush in this position. Considering it was a backdoor flush as well, I don't know if I want to be so quick and give him credit for the flush. I may be way off in my thinking as usual, but... I think we are ahead here and get some value out of 2 pair hands.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:30 am GMT by shorn7
Yes, you will lose vaue from two pair hands, no question. The point is, if you raise and he pushes, you probably lose all of your equity in the pot which is a larger # than what you coud win with the extra raise. Also, you simply can't assume that he will call with two pair here as well. Blocking bets (which this appears to be) hate raises and often will fold to a raise. So, making the assumption that the opponent will call the raise 100% of the time is a bad one. Finally, you can't assume that he has two pair either. He might just have an ace or a very weak two pair and wants a cheap showdown...he will definitely fold to a raise with those hands. Sometimes, the EV of calling is higher than that of raising when your hand can't stand a push and the pot is already bigger than what your raise would be.
Again, as you bolded in my post, with no read here I just call. If I had seen this opponent do this kind of thing before with two pair, then a raise becomes more palatable. But, without that, I think the EV of calling is definitely higher than that of raising in this spot.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:47 am GMT by aaronw
Yeah, thats true... I never really thought of it that way. That makes sense. After reading that, I think calling is superior due to the fact that we really have to fold to a push here.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:02 pm GMT by suitedaces84
Shorn,
If DC's hand is almost never good vs. a river 3-bet why not raise and plan to fold to the river 3-bet?
If you raise to $50 and assume he pays off but plays optimally otherwise (that is, his bluff 3-betting frequency is perfect) raising the river is best if your hand is good 85% of the time or more.
Of course, assuming that his bluff 3-betting frequency is optimal is unrealistic. This allows you to raise the river more as long as you know what side of optimal his bluff 3-betting would fall on. The vast majority of players bluff 3-bet this river a far less than optimal amount.
*An optimal play is not necessarily best.
The probability that DC's hand is best is p
The frequency that he'll getting bluffed out of the pot is f
If his DC's opponent puts DC all-in DC will be getting 2:1, so if DC's opponent uses an optimal bluffing frequency his value betting to bluffing ratio will be 2:1.
2:1 = (1-p):f*p
f = (1-p)/2p
EV_c is the EV of calling. EV_r is the EV of raising.
EV_c = p*100 - 20
EV_r = p*160 - 50 - f*130
EV_r = p*160 - 50 - (1-p)/2p*130
algebra magic...
EV_r - EV_c > 0 when p > 0.85
If you change f to be 0.25f:
EV_r - EV_c > 0 when p > 0.65
If you change f to be 0.1f:
EV_r - EV_c > 0 when p > 0.57
If f is changed to 0.1f and he folds his losers half the time:
EV_r - EV_c > 0 when p > 0.70
Anyway, IMO, DC's hand is easily good often enough to raise vs. a predictable player, but it's close vs. a tricky player.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:19 pm GMT by supafrey
suited you're actually the strangest person on these forums, by far.
in case nobody thanks you for the effort you do with your math and stuff, thanks =)
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:40 pm GMT by shorn7
Suited-
Good analysis and I agree. That is why my original thought was call if you had no read or experience with this guy. And also, don't raise if you don't want to call a push. If you have a read and are OK with calling a push, then a raise is optimal.
Your math enhances my argument, so thanks.
Shorn
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 5:26 pm GMT by snoogins47
| shorn7 wrote: | Suited-
Good analysis and I agree. That is why my original thought was call if you had no read or experience with this guy. And also, don't raise if you don't want to call a push. If you have a read and are OK with calling a push, then a raise is optimal.
Your math enhances my argument, so thanks.
Shorn |
This is confusing. If you're not okay with calling a push, that means that you're in a situation where he's rarely, if ever, pushing with a worse hand than yours. That seems to actually be a good thing. Like, very good, as far as the EV of a raise goes.
I understand your point about weak one-pair hands and occasionally weak two-pairs folding... but that really isn't a very damning case against a raise, seeing as there is zero difference in the EV between calling his bet when he has a shitty hand that he won't call a raise with, and raising him out of the pot, are exactly the same.
I'm not going to think about this much farther at the moment, and am not even necessarily disagreeing... but it seems on the surface that what Suited is advocating may well, depending on some variables, be the precise opposite of what you're saying... raise when you can fold to a push, but call when you can't. And I think that point alone might merit some good further discussion.
And for the hand in question, as played against an unknown, I vote raise ~$40-50 and fold to a push, and I'm not really sure it's that close of a decision.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:37 pm GMT by TheSalche
| snoogins47 wrote: | I'm not going to think about this much farther at the moment, and am not even necessarily disagreeing... but it seems on the surface that what Suited is advocating may well, depending on some variables, be the precise opposite of what you're saying... raise when you can fold to a push, but call when you can't. And I think that point alone might merit some good further discussion.
|
This certainly relates to how much value do we gain by raising and getting called by weaker hands vs. the money we lose when we raise and call/fold to the 3-bet. That is a mathematical question that requires us guessing the percentage of the time that villain holds a better straight/flush vs. the percentage they have two pair/trips.
Of course, could villain raise here with trips or two pair? Certainly they have ruled out us having the flush as well, and the two straights are somewhat "hidden" because they come from one and two gap cards. If they 3-bet all-in with trips, this is certainly bad for us, especially without a read that they are a maniac/they are capable of making this play.
Suited certainly had a good point that snoogins brought out here, if we raise we "need" to be able to fold to a push. If we don't have the stomach for it we should call. Of course if we simply push the river we eliminate the 3-betting trips/two pair play our villain has. At the same time we lose more value to a higher straight/flush.
Damn ... who knew river play could get this complicated when you flop the nuts 
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:17 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
Thank you all for your comments.
End result: I smooth called. He had A6, and I was right about the block bet. Maybe if I min-raised I could have got him to call, but I doubt much more than that.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:14 pm GMT by Phil14312
What about the psychological effects of having to fold that hand when he 3-bet pushes. I mean, when I flop a straight and fold, its seriously damaging. Perfect world nobody tilts, but I want to committ suicide when I have to fold this hand on the river.
Posted Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:22 pm GMT by suitedaces84
There seems to be some confusion about what the word optimal means. An optimal strategy is not the necessarily best strategy; and if it turns out to be the best strategy you're in a lot of trouble (because it means your opponent plays very well).
In a non symetric game (like hold'em) I use strategy A. My opponent knows my exact strategy and develops strategy B to play against me. I know strategy B and realize that strategy A needs to be altered. I change to strategy C, which is the perfect strategy vs. strategy B. My opponent then alters his strategy to be perfect vs. strategy C. We keep on doing this until I'm using some strategy X that is perfect vs. his strategy Y; at the same time his strategy Y is perfect vs. my strategy X. Now we are both using optimal strategies. Neither one of us can do any better by changing our strategy.
Note that if my opponent decides he's sick of playing with an optimal strategy and changes then I should also change my strategy. Now in order to maximize my winnings I should find a strategy that is not optimal.
Your opponents do not use an optimal strategy (if they did you'd have no chance at being a long term winner). As a result, you should not use an optimal strategy to play against them.
A simple example: I'm playing rock-paper-scissors. I'm a rock-paper-scissors expert, btw. I use the perfect optimal strategy of randomly playing rock, paper and scissors with equal probability. My opponent is a total noob who has no idea what he's doing. He uses a terrible strategy; he plays rock every single time. Do I have an edge in this game? No, we'll break even in the long term. In order to maximize my winnings I need use a strategy that is not optimal.
The same is not exactly true in poker. If I was using the optimal strategy and my opponent wasn't I would still win (unlike rock-paper-scissors where I'd only break even). I just wouldn't win as much as I could.
One of the things I was getting in my original post was that your opponent won't play optimally on this river. In specific, he won't bluff 3-bet anywhere near enough. You can take advantage of this raising more frequently than you would otherwise. You could also take advantage of an opponent who bluff 3-bet far too much.
Assuming your opponent is playing optimally is a base line worst case scenario. If something is close to +EV when your opponent is playing optimally, it will be +EV by quite a bit vs. a real opponent (as long as you know which side of optimal they're on). In this spot the average opponent will be on the not bluff enough side by quite a bit.
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 12:35 am GMT by TheSalche
Nother good theory post suited ... you should write books under Sklansky's name ... anyways
The real question here is what is the optimal strategy on this river against an unknown opponent. As you point out, its unlikely that they 3-bet bluff the river, but where the real VALUE in raising comes in is the frequency that they call with a weaker hand.
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:23 am GMT by suitedaces84
You may have noticed that when your opponent bluffs the river an optimal amount the EV of calling is equal to the EV of folding. That is, it really makes no difference whether you call or fold, in terms of EV. This is very similar to the rock-paper-scissors problem where if your opponent uses an optimal strategy any strategy you use will have the same long term expectation.
But think about what would happen if you played rock every single time. Chances are your opponent would alter his strategy, take advantage of your poor play and beat you.
So if your opponent is playing optimally (in terms of bluffing frequency) it won't matter to whether or not you call his river bets with his bluff catcher hands. But if you fail to catch his bluffs with the correct frequency he can alter his strategy and take advantage of you.
In order to prevent him from altering his strategy and taking advantage of you, you need to call often enough so he's indifferent to bluffing. That will make it so, the EV of bluffing is equal to the EV of giving up when you have nothing. If your opponent folds too often you'd favor bluffing; if he calls too often enough you'd favor not bluffing.
Since you'll be putting in $50 to take win $80 his fold to call ratio with bluff catcher hands should be 50:80. So he should be calling with his bluff catcher hands ~61% of the time.
*This neglects the bluff 3-bet possibility which when factored in makes the problem very tough.
But the fact that his bet is a blocker type bet with a probable bluff catcher makes it much less likely that he'll bluff 3-bet because he probably thinks he can win nearly as often by calling as he can by bluff 3-betting all-in. And against most players this reasoning on his part is correct.
The basic idea is that when your decision is obvious it's because your opponent is playing in a far from optimal way. In general you should raise rivers like this when it would be easy to fold to an all-in or easy to call an all-in. If the decision will be very tough it's because your opponent plays optimally or because you don't know what side of optimal he's on (which is just as bad).
Your opponent will be on the non-bluff-all-in side of optimal by quite a bit (and he has a couple good reasons to be).
Posted Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:55 pm GMT by Jefecaminador
i must say suited... your posts in this thread have been the best i've read on the entire forum. GJ
Must be variance.
|
|
