Does it matter how the $ gets in?

This is a hand that was posted in nl short handed forum in the context of another discussion.
It seems to me that 2 basic principles conflict, i.e.
get your opponent to make mistakes, and
get the money in while you're ahead.

Yes, the hero got the $ in while he's ahead. But, by letting the opponent bet the turn, he allowed the opponent to get more or less committed and therefore not make a big mistake in calling to suck out.

So, does it matter?



0/0 TEXASHTGAMETABLE (NL) - WED FEB 15 18:38:34 EDT 2006
Table Wattsville (Real Money) -- Seat 1 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: Svammel ( $157.00)
Seat 2: ceyreste ( $71.20)
Seat 3: perfekt ( $35.72)
Seat 4: HERO ( $194.00)
Seat 5: ShermanPie ( $584.98)
Seat 6: jeffp2270 ( $200.00)
ceyreste posts small blind (1.00)
perfekt posts big blind (2.00)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to HERO [ Qd, Qc ]
HERO raises (8.00)
ShermanPie calls (8.00)
jeffp2270 folds.
Svammel calls (8.00)
ceyreste folds.
perfekt calls (6.00)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 4d, 2d, 2c ]
perfekt checks.
HERO bets (20.00)
ShermanPie folds.
Svammel calls (20.00)
perfekt folds.
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 7s ]
HERO checks.
Svammel bets (50.00)
HERO bets (166.00)
HERO is all-In.
Svammel bets (79.00)
Svammel is all-In.
** Dealing River ** : [ Td ]
** Summary **
Main Pot: $365.00 | Rake: $3.00
Board: [ 4d 2d 2c 7s Td ]
Svammel balance $328.00, bet $157.00, collected $328.00, net +$171.00 [5d 6d] [ flush ]
ceyreste balance $70.20, lost $1.00 (folded)
perfekt balance $27.72, lost $8.00 (folded)
HERO balance $37.00, bet $194.00, collected $37.00, net +$-157.00 [Qd Qc] [ two pairs ]
ShermanPie balance $576.98, lost $8.00 (folded)

I always lead the turn in a spot like this, and I lead it hard.

Also by checking the turn he gave villain the opportunity to take the free card.

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I always lead the turn in a spot like this, and I lead it hard.

I tend to agree. A glimpse at the logic would be interesting, though.

If you strongly suspect your opponet will bet the turn, why not let him hang himself? It gives you a chance to get your $ in with the best hand, right?

Originally Posted by metaxy6

Yes, the hero got the $ in while he's ahead. But, by letting the opponent bet the turn, he allowed the opponent to get more or less committed and therefore not make a big mistake in calling to suck out.

Hero did get villain to make an expensive mistake, namely to bet the turn and potcommit himself.

For those of you who didnt read the other thread, HERO had a read on the villain as a floater who can have a very wide range here and would bet the turn if checked to. Default line is obviously to lead the turn. My definition of a floater is someone who calls flop bets in position with the intention of stealing the pot later on in the hand if his opponent shows weakness. Will often do this with a draw which means he can win the hand by hitting his draw or by stealing it if his opponent shows weakness. Also known as delayed bluffing.

Lets assume villain is a floater who knows what he is doing.
If we lead the turn strong ($50+) again we have announced to villain that we like our hand and that we are more than likely willing to play for stacks here which leaves villain with a easy decision (becomes a pot+implied odds problem) and allows him to play perfectly against us (our hand is quite easy to read given the UTG raise + flop bet + turn bet). In this particular hand villain had a lot of outs because the turn gave him an open ended straight draw with his flush draw so villain would probably call (pot odds would be 2:1 or better and his odds of hitting his draw is about 2:1 so if he can extract some value on the river when he hits it becomes +EV). If hero overbets the pot so as to give villain incorrect odds villain will fold (this is a bad play by hero though because villain will have trips\full house here a small % of the time and fold the rest of the time). By checking (feigning weakness) and inducing the semibluff hero has tricked villain into paying $50 for his draw and keeping the betting open which allows hero to raise all in and charge villain another $79 to hit his draw. Even though from villain's perspective it looks like he didn't make a mistake hero has effectively layed villain 1.35:1 odds on hitting his 2:1 draw. The mistake villain made was betting the turn when checked to, which appeared to be +EV because villain was under the impression that he had folding equity with the bet.

Originally Posted by metaxy6

Yes, the hero got the $ in while he's ahead. But, by letting the opponent bet the turn, he allowed the opponent to get more or less committed and therefore not make a big mistake in calling to suck out.

So if i overbet push the turn and villian calls what would you think of his play? Would you think he made a big mistake? If i know villain will call a pot bet (getting correct odds), fold to an overbet push (correctly since i give him incorrect odds) but will bet when i check it to him (incorrect because hero is not folding - he does not know this though) and call the all in raise what is the best play?

Originally Posted by krimson

Hero did get villain to make an expensive mistake, namely to bet the turn and potcommit himself.

Exactly.

If I sit on your left and you always bet flop + bet turn with strong hands and bet flop + check turn with marginal-weak hands how easy is it for me to win all the pots where you dont have a strong hand by calling the flop bet and seeing what you do on the turn? Check raising is the best weapon an out of position player has vs an aggressive player who is in position and if you never use it floaters will rob you blind.

Originally Posted by arkana

Originally Posted by krimson

Hero did get villain to make an expensive mistake, namely to bet the turn and potcommit himself.

Exactly.

It's a mistake in the classic sense where the opponent wouldn't have done it if he knew the hero's hand.
Yet, once he's done it, he's getting better odds to call the push and try to hit his draw than if he was facing a straight overbet.

Arkana, I know that the metagame considerations you're talking about drove the decision-making, but is it fair to leave them aside for the purpose of discussion?

Originally Posted by metaxy6

Arkana, I know that the metagame considerations you're talking about drove the decision-making, but is it fair to leave them aside for the purpose of discussion?

No the metagame considerations did not drive the decision making process, even without the metagame considerations check raising is the best play.

Originally Posted by metaxy6

It's a mistake in the classic sense where the opponent wouldn't have done it if he knew the hero's hand.
Yet, once he's done it, he's getting better odds to call the push and try to hit his draw than if he was facing a straight overbet.

Do you agree that if I open push the turn and he calls he is making a huge mistake? Calling $179 with a 33% chance to win $243 is -EV. If check raising has the same net effect how can villain not be making a mistake?

Originally Posted by arkana

Do you agree that if I open push the turn and he calls he is making a huge mistake? Calling $179 with a 33% chance to win $243 is -EV. If check raising has the same net effect how can villain not be making a mistake?

Of course he's making a mistake to call an open push.
Calling $179 to win $243 is a big mistake. Calling $79 to win $328 is actually correct, though. Just because check raising has the same *net effect* doesn't mean it's the same thing.
That's what I'm getting at.

The 79$ call doesn't matter, he pot committed himself with the initial bet. The 50$ bet was really for 129$ and with the worst hand. Hero induced a huge mistake from his opponent to get all the money in as a 70-30 favorite.

No one is disputing the fact that he was getting the correct odds to make the final call but why do you think this means I made a mistake in the hand? I am a favourite, i want as much money in the pot as possible. Do you know what compounding errors are?

Maybe this example will make it clear to you:

HU game. You and your opponent have $100 stacks each and you know that he likes raising to $99 dollars on the first hand for some reason if you just call in the SB. You have pocket aces. You just call and he raises to $99, you raise him all in. He calls his last dollar. He was clearly getting the correct odds to call and hero would prefer him to fold (aces is at best a 80% something favourite) but this does not mean hero made a mistake.

Originally Posted by metaxy6

Calling $179 to win $243 is a big mistake. Calling $79 to win $328 is actually correct, though. Just because check raising has the same *net effect* doesn't mean it's the same thing.
That's what I'm getting at.

you can look at this from an ev perspective or a mistakes perspective. It is +EV for hero to check, because he knows the guy will bet and call maybe call a push, but a plain bet will result in a fold more often than not. Hero is making a smaller mistake by check raising than by betting, as he's getting all of the money he reasonably can. Villain is making a huge mistake by making a very -EV bet, and a very small (minor +EV) correct decision by subsequently calling the push.

The example isn't really instructive.

So, it more or less boils down to whether one views the villian's inital $50 bet as of a piece with the $79 behind call - ??
If one sees it as essentially one bet - as it sounds like people are inclined to do - then the hero got the opponent to hang himself and call against pot odds on a draw.
If one views them in isolation - as I am saying it's possible to do (but which I am not stuck on doing) - then the hero allowed the opponent to price himself into making a correct call to hit the draw.

Just to support the idea of viewing the $50 separately from the $179, the villian hopes to accomplish something with the turn bet. He can reasonably expect to take down the pot uncontested with that bet some of the time (against AK, for instance). That didn't work, but something new developed - i.e., the chance to now call with correct pot odds.

And, just to clarify, I wouldn't think twice if the staks were 3-4 x as deep, and the all-in CR would actually price the villian out of any draw.

Arkana and I have gone back and forth on it. I know where he's coming from, and he knows where I'm coming from - even if he thinks I'm dense. I'd genuinely like to hear what others think. Not trying to be obtuse (lol, I just am)...just really wondering if it matters how the money gets in.

Originally Posted by metaxy6

Just to support the idea of viewing the $50 separately from the $179, the villian hopes to accomplish something with the turn bet. He can reasonably expect to take down the pot uncontested with that bet some of the time (against AK, for instance). That didn't work, but something new developed - i.e., the chance to now call with correct pot odds.

In this hand there was no way i was folding therefore it was a very -EV bet and he is only just priced in for the draw because of that bet so the sum of the two actions is -EV. What is the difference between this hand and the example? Just because its an extreme example it doesnt mean the principles are different, in the example hero also allowed villain to price himself in.

Did the villain make a mistake by not pushing all in as a semi bluff on the turn if he thought he had fold equity?
I mean if he is going to call an all in reraise (which any hand that won't fold to his $50 bet will probably do) why doesn't he just push it all in?