Printable View
You have :qs: :qc:. You raised pre-flop from the CO and got 1 caller. How often do you bet these flops? Assume 100BB stacks and no reads on villain. Give answers for OOP and in position (meaning villain checked to you on the flop).
EDIT: Wheeeee I'm an FTR straight!
Flop 1
:ad: :9h: :th:
Flop 2
:ad: :9h: :3h:
Flop 3
:ad: :9h: :3c:
Flop 4
:ad: :9h: :9c:
Flop 5
:ac: :kd: :3d:
Flop 6
:ac: :kd: :qd:
I'd bet all those flops in any position. If I get more than 2 callers, thats when I slow down.
Oh really? 100% of the time against a random villain?Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
Yep, their range is huge at this point. Any PP or SC that dosen't hit auto-folds these flops and you'll take it down a high % of the time.
If your called or raised, then you can start playing poker.
Why make missed PP's and SC's auto-fold? I know I don't want to take down any of these flops right away against something like 22.Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
Pretty much all the time. You often times still have the best hand and, if not, at least can represent it enough to make leading profitbale.
Everyone's answer for Flop 3 in particular interests me the most I think. Do you bet it and why?
Getting tricky will only lead to messy situations where your no longer sure if their bluffing because you have shown weakness, or they have an A and your drawing almost dead. You could end up loosing a bigger pot or folding the best hand.
Don't get clever without reads. I'm always happy to take down a raised pot with an underpair.
So you are happy folding weaker hands and getting called by better hands?Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
how do you know your relative hand strength unless you rep the board?
Say you bet flop 3 and are called. Then what? What is villain's range? How does your hand compare to their range?Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
Then it depends on the board, position etc. Generally I'll be looking for a cheap showdown. I'm not too bothered about suckouts as I'm going to dump it to any serious aggression anyway.
We know the board and our position already. What is villain's range after the flop call? How does your hand compare?Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
Flop 1
:ad: :9h: :th:
could be a draw or a weak A, either way I'm not looking to play a big pot, check it down and call a river bet if no heart falls.
Flop 2
:ad: :9h: :3h:
Same as 1
Flop 3
:ad: :9h: :3c:
Most likely a weak A, without knowing if they can fold TP I'd probably check-fold.
Flop 4
:ad: :9h: :9c:
check, fold to any bet. If they have got a pair lower then QQ their probably not going to bet, otherwise your crushed.
Flop 5
:ac: :kd: :3d:
Check fold again, they could be on a draw but your hands not worth protecting with 2 overs.
Flop 6
:ac: :kd: :qd:
Depends on the turn card but I'd usually bet this to the river.
Most of the time you have to give up if you meet resistance but that does not mean you shouldn't bet the flop. You will take the pot down >50% of the time.
So why do you bet flops 3,4, & 5 if you are afraid of any hand that calls you? Is it a value bet? No. Is it a bluff? No. Is it to protect your hand? Definitely not on 3 & 4 - and on 5 it's not to protect because you go into check/fold mode even if the draw doesn't complete. Would you agree that , on flops 3 & 4 especially, you are either way ahead or way behind? Why would you want to bet in this situation if your best hope is to go into check/fold mode? If they fold then you were way ahead to begin with and lost out on some value by not getting weaker hands to put money into the pot. So, in short, you force out weaker hands and induce action from better hands.
Your hand may be good, but it's vulnerable. This is a situation where you want to end the hand quickly, and the perfect play may not be the best play for the situation.
I think the best explaination is in the math, so I'll take a specific situation.
NB:I'm guessing pretty bad at the hand percentages, so change them as you like, but I think we'll probably end up with the same conclusions.
You asked specifically about flop 3, so here goes:
:Ad::9h::3c:
Range for calling a preflop raise at lower limits (from 200nl-50nl and down depending on the site) would be something like any SC(15%), PP(25%), good aces(10%), random broadways(40%), Axs(5%), trash(5%).
SCs missed or hit the 9 and will probably fold(90%) or check/call(10%) it down. The perfect play is to bet and then check and fold because this hand will really only bet if it hits. If they're buying it, good for them.
PPs either missed and will fold (including kings)(90%) or they'll let you know(10%), so again we bet the flop then check/fold if we're called.
Good aces call here(100%), so the perfect play is to check/fold, but we need to know where we're at, so we bet first (math to come).
Random broadways call preflop at lower limits, they missed and they will fold(100%).
Axs checks and calls or bets back at you. We'll say you lose in a showdown, so 100% for a loss.
Trash folds (100%). If 93 called and hit, they play back and you put them on a set or a good ace and fold. This is rare enough that for the sake of this arguement, I'll toss it.
So:
We'll say there's 10 in the pot from a 4xbb raise, a caller and a blind.
You bet 7.50.
SCs fold 90% and check/call 10% so we have:
13% +10, 2% +17.50
PPs(25%) will fold 90% or win 10% so we have:
22% + 10, 3% -7.50
good aces and Axs are 15% total, and they win so:
15% -7.50
random broadways and trash(45%) fold so:
45% +10
All in all:
80% we win 10
2% we win 17.50
18% we lose 7.50
over 100 hands we are +700
remove the random broadways and trash we're like +350
So we bet and fold vs. any decent agro. It's not necessarily a value bet or a bluff, but it's right no matter what you label it.
Good analysis Dev.
Another way of thinking about it is that although you are not sure if a flop bet is a value bet or a bluff, it has the highest EV of any of the moves you can make. What are your alternatives?
Lately I've been thinking about check/calling flop 3 and 4.
The old "only hand that calls you, beats you" mentality.
What about the value you get from inducing bluffs from weaker hands?
I don't feel comfortable betting without a good reason. It seems like it would be a bet just for the sake of betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
We have no reads. The average low stakes player calls more then he raises, you are more likely to be called by a mid pair then have them bet it at you. If you know a player will attack weakness then thats a different matter. Even still what if its checked to the river then your opp overbets the pot?Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
Your bet has a positive expected value, there is no greater reason.Quote:
I don't feel comfortable betting without a good reason. It seems like it would be a bet just for the sake of betting.
I don't think we should come to any conclusions based on "guessing pretty bad" at ranges." This doesn't prove that our bet is +EV. Do you guys regularly make bets that are only called by hands that beat you (or cause you to go into check/fold mode), and are you OK with that? If so then we just have a different style of play I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
Regardless of the accutacy of the calculations, HU you WILL take the pot down at least half the time probably much higher, if you bet less than the pot, your making money.
I guess we're not getting anywhere in this discussion. I was really hoping more would join in. So to sum up, you are happy with winning the pot when you are way ahead and getting your money in when you are way behind. Am I wrong about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
Basically, you have don't have a clear idea what you're up against on any of these flops. The only way to find out is by betting. If you're called or raised, you're probably beaten, and can give up on the hand, except for the set of Qs with which I'd try to get all in on the flop (the redraw is enough to take aware any fear of hands that might beat you).
There is no point in trying to play fancy here. If you check and are bet into, you learn a lot less than if you were to just bet out. Inducing a bluff from a weaker hand should be saved for moments when you're more sure of where you stand.
Continue with the momentum that came from your PFR, and it will pay off a good part of the time.
I don't enjoy betting solely to find out if I am beat or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerFreak
Flop 1
1. If I raise and a limper calls, I bet out this flop every time if checked to, and I raise if the bet out is weak (1/4 of the pot).
2. If I raise and a blind calls, I bet/check this flop 50%/50% of the time respectively.
3. If I raise and the button calls, I bet/check this flop maybe 30%/70% of the time respectively.
Flop 2
1. If I raise and a limper calls, I bet out this flop every time if checked to, and I raise if the bet out is weak (1/4 of the pot).
2. If I raise and a blind calls, I bet/check this flop 75%/25% of the time respectively.
3. If I raise and the button calls, I bet/check this flop maybe 50%/50% of the time respectively.
Flop 3
Same as flops 2 and 3 except be a little more inclined to bet, and be more respectful to a call (considering only A or a set calls here).
Flop 4
Bet out 100% of the time against a random player.
Flop 5
1. If I raise and a limper calls, I bet out this flop every time if checked to.
2. OOP or if a blind calls PF, check/fold this flop every time.
Flop 6
Bet this flop aggressively. This is a fairly scary board and I don't give free cards.
When I said I was guessing, I followed up with a challenge for you to change the numbers as you saw fit. The mathematical aproach comes up with a rock solid answer, so use it!
You hear a lot of discussion over tight vs. loose play and which is better. You never hear that passive is better than aggressive. Agro is just better. If you don't bet, you don't know where you stand and you open the door for any moderately aware opponent to steal the pot from you.
If you're way ahead, you wont get much action. If you're behind, you wont know for sure unless you lead out.
This may not be the answer you were looking for, but it's how each of us deals with it. There is no question in my mind that a bet is the right move against players that you don't have any reads on.
If you check, you're asking for trouble. It's a game of information, and you don't get information by checking.
It's not solely to find out if you're beat or not. It's to take down the pot when you're not, which is the majority of the time. It's the same principle as the cbet. You're telling your opponents to fold unless they have something. If they don't you can assume they have a hand, and go from there.
What are your other real options? Try to get a cheap showdown. If you check the flop, this is unlikely. You're opponents will bet with or without a hand once you show weakness.
A c-bet is a bluff. You want your opponent to fold when you c-bet. In these examples you have a good hand. It's not great, but it is good. The info you gain by betting is:Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerFreak
A) Oh gee I was way ahead of them. It would have been nice for them to try a weak bluff attempt and extract the most $ possible in this situation.
B) Oh crap they called. I must be way behind. Another bet down the drain.
I don't think I can accurately come up with #'s for your example. I just don't think we should come to conclusions from "bad guessing."Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
Betting out with QQ on ANY flop can't be considered a c-bet. Its really a feeler bet. And you don't only get called when you are beat. A lot of those boards had draws on them. A draw calls and we are ahead of a draw. I think a bet on a flop with QQ is a value bet until proven beat.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
Renton I was saying that betting w QQ is not the same as a c-bet. And about being called only when you are beat - I am only referring to flops 3,4 & maybe 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
If you can't put your opponent on a hand or a range, you're never going to win much playing poker.
What answer were you looking for?
It's either bet the flop or check/fold. The bet has better EV. What else is there to discuss?
I think you can win plenty without an auto-bet in situations like flop 3 and 4. I'm not saying you can win plenty in these situations, because they suck to begin with, but I don't think raw aggression is the obvious and 100% correct decision all the time. This doesn't mean I never put a player on a range. I think the main point of discussion should be the fact that you are OK with being called only when you are way behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by dev
This is getting absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
If we're behind, we lose anyway!!!! We don't want any more cards, because they're not going to help any significant percentage of the time. We're ahead enough that the bet is +EV. This isn't complicated.
There is a pot here! We don't play for showdowns, we play for money. If you play it like they have 22 and are dumb enough to call you down, then you get stacked by any legitimate hand, and you're only making money off of complete idiots. If you play like they have a legitimate hand, you lose 100% of the time.
The best money play is the bet.
I c-bet any of these flops and most likely slow down on the turn if called.[/list]
Why do you bet flops 3 and 4? Why do you slow down if called?Quote:
Originally Posted by WhooFleuryScores
Here is a very interesting thread on this topic...
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...142&highlight=
Please give this a read because it is great.
I bet all these flops against one opponent. If called I slow down except Flop 6 where I am ready to go all in.
i think betting every one of these flops 100% of the time against a typical player is a leak
I have to respectfully disagree. I would say that not betting is a leak, it amounts to surrendering while possibly holding the best hand. Many, many times you will be called preflop with hands like 66, KQ and such and the ace on the flop is their reason to fold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Flop #1 is the only one I might surrender on.
Imagine this. You opponent called preflop with 66. If you bet the flop, he folds here most of the time unless he thinks you are full of crap. But if you occasionaly check behind this flop against villain with 66, he might bet out the turn with the worst hand to try and pick the pot up. Depending on his betting pattern you can then decide if HE has the ace or not and act accordingly, thereby extracting greater value from the best hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by myself
Also to say "I bet all these flops" is a far too general response. It doesn't only matter whether you are in or out of position, it also matters what position villain is in, and what his action was preflop. If he limps in EP, and calls your preflop raise, chances are real good he doesn't have an ace. However if you open raise in late and get called by the small blind, there is a significantly greater chance that he has an ace, which is why I wouldn't bet this flop very often against such a player.
People who call behind have a naturally greater chance of having big cards in their hand than people who limp/call.
the only one i always bet is #6, sometimes ill bet #1
I have to say that my previous response was influenced by my personal experience, my style of playing and my sense of what works and what does not. Betting all those flops might not work for players who play differently. Since my table image is tight people usually think I have good stuff. I can see that players who are perceived as full of crap can be called or check-raised there with wider range of hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I find that deciding at this point whether he has an ace is a very tricky business. The best way to find that out is betting the flop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I think it's a fine line and you can easily become either too paranoid your opp has a better hand, or too "meh he probably has nothing". Ofcourse neither is good.Quote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
I'd probably bet flops 1, 2 (don't wanna give the free cards to possible draws) and 6 (similar, but here I probably have the best hand) if I'm first up, and all of them except 5 if checked to me.
Why the first one and not the second one?Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
Are you not concerned about leaking information, not just in this hand but in the future? It's gonna be harder to get paid when youe AK hits next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
what do you meanQuote:
Originally Posted by finky
Maybe I'm over-estimating my opp's aggression. I do think the safest move is the bet, without reads and early in the session, why push it by checking and getting into the gray area? If I have a read on the player, I might only bet most of these flops 30-50% of the time, but without reads, I'm not taking chances.
For instance, in a loose/passive bar game where I'm in there with one other good player, I keep the pots small HU with them and try to check it down. Why go after the lion when there's lambs all around? Against the lambs, I bet and they give it away by how the money hits the pot.
On the other hand, if it's a good game full of taggs and good laggs, then it's about stack sizes. If we're short, I shut draws out on the flop and fold to keep the rest of my stack if I'm raised. It's poker from there. If we're deep, I let them decide how big it'll get and work on reads. I'm not losing a deep stack with ladies on an ace flop.
If the opposition is the scared kind, who might just check/call with TPTK or top two, I play for a small pot and check.
Without these reads, I peg them for average players. Their range is huge and I don't know where I stand, so I HAVE to bet in position.
I like the idea of checking drawless boards. It's a bit useless vs. passives though.
All of this is good to say I guess, but I just recalled a similar situation that happened a few months ago to me at foxwoods.
I knew a couple of the players, but not the one involved in the hand with me.
I straddled in on a 2/5 table.
utg+2 raises to $20, one LP caller, and I wake up to cowboys. I make it $50 to go and the raiser calls, lp folds.
We have 127 in the pot, the flop comes Axxr.
Many of the 2/5 games were tight/weak, so I checked because there didn't seem to be much danger of the guy buying it (even though I probably would in his spot).
He checks behind.
turn is a blank, I bet 60, he calls
river is a blank, I bet 60, he calls
I show the cowboys and he mucks. I remember thinking he had tens or nines.
So I guess it seems wrong to me in theory, maybe it's a good check, but it really depends on the game.
If you have position on these hands, and are checked to, I will bet all of these flops, because it's simply incorrect not to.
Out of the blue, I'll c/r flops 1, 2, and 5, and bet out strong on the rest trying to represent an A that doesn't want a call. Flop 6 is a bit of an exception; I hit a well-disguised monster, but I need to find out how my opponent wants to play so I can extract.
On the turn and river, with the way I've played, if any serious monies go in, I'm out, except of course hand 6. I put my opponent on JT only when his cards are flipped up.
Is it really that simple? Did you read all of the thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr
I think we're at the point where we can take something that looks simple and make sure it's complex like Napoleon by the end of the thread.
Just want everyone to know I respect your opinions. Hope I haven't come off looking like a jerk - just wanted to spark some discussion.
Because poker,ESP Hold Em is not simple.Quote:
I think we're at the point where we can take something that looks simple and make sure it's complex like Napoleon by the end of the thread.
But yeah it's been a good thread.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by aleksandr
betting is definitely -ev on some of these against the average player
But gabe it is simple silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
ya poker is totally EZ
don't remember the exact hand history, but this was pretty much it.
6 max 100nl.
I have KK.
3 folds. Guy1 raises to 5. Guy2 calls, I raise to 25, Guy1 calls, Guy2 folds.
Flop comes Axx. I check, Guy1 Bets 35, I ?
IMO this is a very tricky situation. I thought a lot about this situation though. What's my move? If he's loose/bad? if he's tag?
Regardless of the amount of the time that i'm beat against the average opp, why is betting BETTER than checking, even granted that both options suck for me.
If i bet, i take the pot down against ppl who i beat, and get reraised and fold to people who beat me.
If i check, I potentially get more money from people who i beat, and I save money against people who beat me. Sure, it might be difficult to do and i might mess up sometimes, but it sure beats the nearly worst case scenario that will happen every single time when i lead, right?
I guess I raise so I don't have to make greedo's decision. But if I do, I reraise the lagg, fold to the tagg. I have a habit of trying to outlagg laggs, can't tell if it's good or bad yet.
What I mean is that with a lot of these flops it would be clearly incorrect to check AK/AQ. A lot of players could then work out you don't have a strong A and blow you off the pot with turn and river bets.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
In future hands, if your known to check underpairs on and A high flop, when you do connect with AK and come out betting, they will be less inclined to to keep you honest with their TT etc.
table image?
Standard flop play (eg c-bet a lot whether you hit or not, always bet a flopped pair with overs including KQx flops with AQ)
do you check raise with tp? are you capable of it?
Once i know this ill consider if some flop are worth checking. (and i ll say that possibly know of them are!)
table image?
Standard flop play (eg c-bet a lot whether you hit or not, always bet a flopped pair with overs including KQx flops with AQ)
do you check raise with tp? are you capable of it?
Once i know this ill consider if some flop are worth checking. (and i ll say that possibly none of them are!)
the way you make money on these is by catching bulffs, and against 90% of players, they won't be able to bluff the turn and the river because they are scared of a slowplayed monster.Quote:
Originally Posted by finky
Most players won't bluff at all if they think your slowplaying and will take all the free cards they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by gabe
I think a lot of this situation depends on the standard of play at any particular site/limit (in absence of a specific read). At lower limits there are players who would happily call down with any PP but wouldn't ever consider raising. The higher up you go, the less likely they are to call with a worse hands and the more they will attack weakness.
I don't know if this one of my HH's that martindcx1e commented on prompted him to start this good thread (and it's so long already that it's un-hijackable, I think), but this hand has been bugging me.
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.15/$0.25
9 players
Converter
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.15/$0.25
9 players
Converter
Stack sizes:
UTG: $19.90
UTG+1: $17.22
MP1: $12.99
MP2: $31.88
MP3: $4.77
CO: $11
Hero: $24.50
SB: $33.78
BB: $21.30
Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is Button with Q:club: Q:spade:
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, 4 folds, Hero raises to $1.5, 2 folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls.
Flop: A:club: 6:diamond: 5:diamond: ($4.9, 3 players)
UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $3, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls.
Turn: T:spade: ($10.9, 2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $6, UTG+1 raises all-in $12.72, Hero??????
The pot's so bloated by now I couldn't see how I could get away from the hand for only $6.72 more. I look at my flop bet-- it's checked to me with 2nd pair on a drawing board. I can't see how I shouldn't bet here.
Advice? Should I have looked at stack sizes and pared down my betting to make an AI push less appetizing for me to call?
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, 4 folds, Hero raises to $1.5, 2 folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls.
then
UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $3, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls.
then
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets $6, UTG+1 raises all-in $12.72, Hero??????
tells me an ace is probably beat too.
Thats a fairly easy check behind on the turn IMO. People in 25nl limp A's all the time. You could also be way behind a typically played set. Use your position to your advantage and check behind to see what he does on the river. Based on the size of his bet on the river see if you can pick off a bluff, since thats all you beat. If he checks the river, just put in a small value bet to extract more value from your hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by drtofu66
I'd check the turn and call a bet on any non :diamond: river. This way you can still catch bluffs from busted draws but your minimising your losses against Ax.
I absolutly hate this line but that isnt to say its not the best, its just so predictable, exploitable and horrible.Quote:
Thats a fairly easy check behind on the turn IMO. People in 25nl limp A's all the time. You could also be way behind a typically played set. Use your position to your advantage and check behind to see what he does on the river. Based on the size of his bet on the river see if you can pick off a bluff, since thats all you beat. If he checks the river, just put in a small value bet to extract more value from your hand.
I agree but its definitely better than playing a big pot with second pair.
yes very true
is there a case for betting the turn enough to kill the draw but just enough to hope to get to checked to on the river and check behind? Im thinking this because the donks with Ax here prob wont bet the river either and we dont have to call some ugly bets on the river from any old junk. Essentialy we might be putting money in the pot behind but were doing it on our terms? How often does Ax donk bet the river hard not putting us on an ace.?
I think some people have a hard time checking the flop because they can't handle that there gorgeous starting hand might be beaten now. Betting builds the pot with a sub-par hand and makes it harder to get away from.
trueQuote:
Originally Posted by martindcx1e
but i dont like sticking up an obvious sign that says 'pot for sale' If im no good at times but good at others as in thsi situation i prefer to put a representative amount of cash in the pot with 2nd best rather than be forced into making obviously difficult calls.
How often will an ace from a fish/passive continue to just call down on all streets and let us benfit from our position as above or how often will the flush draw continue to chase oop for poor odds. On both accounts id say that our likelihood of controlling pot size and amounts are better if we bet enough rather than check.