A common awkward spot

Originally Posted by Alexos

So basically, he folds 95% of his double barreling range to a turn raise...

If this was true I would agree strongly with a call.

He's not barreling enough to make shoving the turn profitable and I will GUARANTEE he doesn't fold AJ+ to a turn shove if he leads. The TAGGs at 50nl(assuption) still cannot fold TP.

I see him either b/c'ing turn or c/f'ing. The biggest issue is that we are flipping with pretty much his entire range on the flop. I like raising so I can fast-play a wider range for value against this player in the future.

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I like raising so I can fast-play a wider range for value against this player in the future.

lotta combos of 33 you can fast play for value in the future imo

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I like raising so I can fast-play a wider range for value against this player in the future.

lotta combos of 33 you can fast play for value in the future imo

it wouldnt have to be this exact board to be able to do that...

i dont really understand when you say that most of are range here we are calling the flop. i dont think im calling much on this flop with my range here. probably more raising than calling or atleast more of a mix than almost always calling.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Alexos

I think if we call flop and raise turn, we can get some bad aces to fold there for sure.

But I think both these options have good arguments, why not just mix it up we arn't robots. I prefer raise flop because we have 40% equity vs an ace, so this cant be bad wtf.

Maybe versus this certain player that can't read hands or something he'll fold an AT-AQ (but note he raised in MP and he's a tagg, i don't think he's going to show up with a bad kicker like A8)

The part bolded is just a poor argument, what does it even mean.

this is a great thread. While i havent contributed a damn thing, ive been thinking the same thing alexos said the whole time. While we want to make the most +EV play to extract as much money/win the hand as much as possible, it seems like mixing your play up here would be optimal. I think raising here is usually best, but i dont think calling is bad. Raise 65% call 35%.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

But this of course isn't close to enough of a reason to want to play our hand this way.

I've already established my reasons for calling.

1. Reap the maximum benefits of the implied odds of our hand. Wrong, once the flush hits and we suddenly want to play for stacks there's only one hand to put us on, and its not too hard to do You are completely ignoring the gutshot. Also, theres not gonna be one hand to put us on, we'll be making moves on a heart oftentimes whether we have a fd or not.
2. Allow villain to take a wide range to the turn, where the pot will be bigger and we'll get to show even more strength. I could say the exact same thing about raising the flop Why could u say the same thing? How is a flop raise showing a massive amount strength? How is he putting additional money into the pot with a weak ace or bluff when we are shutting him out before he gets the chance to?
3. Very consistent with how we'd play almost any hand in our range. This, on its own, isn't an argument. Why do we care? What benefits does this give us? Playing a credible and balanced range has obvious benefits. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

fun thread, i do support the flop raising team lol

Originally Posted by Renton

I've already established my reasons for calling.

1. Reap the maximum benefits of the implied odds of our hand.
2. Allow villain to take a wide range to the turn, where the pot will be bigger and we'll get to show even more strength.
3. Very consistent with how we'd play almost any hand in our range.

1). The deuce is as you said earlier the card with the most implied outs for our hand. When calling on the flop instead of raising, our heart outs may not be very valuable because:

- Our outs have little implied value. I think it's tough to imagine getting more than a medium sized bet called once a third heart falls on the turn/river.
- If we get a lot of action after the third card hits, it is very likely we are facing a bigger flush.

2). Solid point.

3). Hero's hand on a blank turn is worth a lot less than it was on the flop. If you were to wait to raise the hand on the turn, you are turning a hand that had actual value on the flop into a semibluff.

To the argument that Hero's raising range on the flop is going to be tight, then why not just raise air in that spot more often?

Originally Posted by Vi-Zer0Skill

To the argument that Hero's raising range on the flop is going to be tight, then why not just raise air in that spot more often?

yeah exactly, its a decent spot to bluff raise so that should be part of your range. and you would raise draws and 33. i dont think i call on this flop too much though.

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

But this of course isn't close to enough of a reason to want to play our hand this way.

I've already established my reasons for calling.

1. Reap the maximum benefits of the implied odds of our hand. Wrong, once the flush hits and we suddenly want to play for stacks there's only one hand to put us on, and its not too hard to do You are completely ignoring the gutshot. Also, theres not gonna be one hand to put us on, we'll be making moves on a heart oftentimes whether we have a fd or not.
2. Allow villain to take a wide range to the turn, where the pot will be bigger and we'll get to show even more strength. I could say the exact same thing about raising the flop Why could u say the same thing? How is a flop raise showing a massive amount strength? How is he putting additional money into the pot with a weak ace or bluff when we are shutting him out before he gets the chance to?
3. Very consistent with how we'd play almost any hand in our range. This, on its own, isn't an argument. Why do we care? What benefits does this give us? Playing a credible and balanced range has obvious benefits. I'm not even going to dignify this with a response.

Every point you just made argues equally for each side.

Originally Posted by Renton

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

I like raising so I can fast-play a wider range for value against this player in the future.

lotta combos of 33 you can fast play for value in the future imo

Actually there are like 3 combos of 33 so I wouldn't say a "lotta" combos. Kinda like the normal amount of 33 combos, yea, like the average amount of 33 combos on a 3xx flop. Like not the mode but the mean but could be the mode as well.

I hope you were leveling and actually kidding about "alotta" 33 combos, otherwise you're just being silly.

spenda he was being facetious and making a solid point, one that has been repeatedly stated in this thread.

oh I've read his point about 12 times in this thread which strangely, is 4 times the amount of 33 combos that are possible...

lol ok god I hope you really didnt get leveled by me and I also hope you aren't 3rd level leveling my 2nd level b/c them I am pwnt.

His point is valid, calling the flop has positive expectation only because of the strength of our hand. What his point doesn't illustrate is how being a pest OTB and raising a lot of flops, especially when we have upwards of 50% equity in a game that rewards aggression and putting our opponents to a decision is worse than calling the flop.

If anything we will make opponents like this passive OOP against us in the future, which is always nice.

ftr ive always been raising this flop just because "we got ~40% equity so we get it in, if not we take the pot" reason. But this thread opened my mind to other possibilities which might be +ev.

In the end, I think it's opponent dependant tbh. Are there any specific villains tendencies we could exploit using one strategy over another?

I also of course realize that raising this flop and calling are going to be similarly +ev plays. I truly believe that calling is slightly to significantly better vs most players, the only reason I'm making a giant fuss over the whole thing is because I think it sucks to use a blanket rule like OMG OUTS RAISE! to simplify your decision making process when playing situations like this that come up a lot.

I think that every single time this scenario comes up, you need to make an informed decision of whether to raise or call, and not just simply default to one play because its profitable.

Originally Posted by Renton

I also of course realize that raising this flop and calling are going to be similarly +ev plays. I truly believe that calling is slightly to significantly better vs most players, the only reason I'm making a giant fuss over the whole thing is because I think it sucks to use a blanket rule like OMG OUTS RAISE! to simplify your decision making process when playing situations like this that come up a lot.

I think that every single time this scenario comes up, you need to make an informed decision of whether to raise or call, and not just simply default to one play because its profitable.

I completely agree, besides the part about calling being better vs most players ofc.

Alright I did some EV calcs on this. I obv had to make some assumptions, but I mainly did this to see if I could get at least a semi conclusive conclusion.

If we raise:

Lets say Villain range UTG+1 is ~14-15%, or 22+,ATs+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KJo+ which is 14.3. Since Villain is ABC and probably because his bluffing range if any is negligable, I have removed any possibility of him bluffing.

Now the tricky part.
If we raise this flop 3x his flop bet of 8bbs, and he folds any hand that doesn't hit(remember no bluffing) that leaves 5.5% of his range, or KK+,33,ATs+,QhJh,QhTh,JhTh,AJo+.

Now lets say he is willing to stack of always with KK+,33,AKs,QhJh,QhTh,JhTh,AKo,AcQh,AdQh,AsQh, which is only 3.0% of his range and he folds the other 2.5% to a turn shove.

We get: EV = when villain folds flop + when villain shoves + when villain folds turn.

EV=17.5(.615)+(101.5(.37)-96(.63))(.21)+33.5(.175)
EV = 11.81

Now if we call:
We get 3 scenerios
#1: We hit our 2, non heart. 3 outs so 6%
#2: We hit our heart. 9 outs so 18%
#3: We miss. the rest of the time so 76%

Renton's plan is to shove any turn. Villain is never bluffing, so he c/f turn when he misses, bets turn when he hits, and folds same hands as above when we shove.

#1:EV=17.5*(0.615)+(101.5*(0.85)-96*(0.15))*(0.21)+38.5*(0.175)
EV = 32.59

#2: EV=17.5*(0.615)+(101.5*(0.75)-96*(0.25))*(0.21)+38.5*(0.175)
EV = 28.45

#3 EV =17.5*(.615)+(101.5*(.25)-96*(.75))*(.21)+38.5*(.175)
EV = 7.71

Totaling these give EV =32.59(.06)+28.45(.18)+7.71(.76)
So calling gives us EV = 12.94

Things to consider:
This does not acount for villain improving on the turn.
Even if we take away 2 hearts giving us only a 14% chance to hit the turn, we get EV = 12.11.
Notice how many more variables come into play by calling.
Any metagame advantages.

Conlcusion: We can clearly see that both plays are very +EV. From a pure EV standpoint it seems that calling is the better play here, 11.81(raising) to 12.94(calling). Due to the additional variables that come into play with calling, like villain makes a turn bet where you now clearly have zero FE, I believe the better play here MAY still be to raise the flop. However I am now much less sure.

i think we can safely call it a wash from an EV standpoint.

hell yea its a raise and why the fuck would i tell you my range? i would hope that you could guess my range if i told you that 45h is in it (assuming you know im kinda smart)

Vs active opps I play alot with I've been known to call with AQ/AJ or even air repping at minimum a flush draw, then flush if it hits, to see what they do on the turn. So I would call here vs them.

If the flop was low I might test reraise them rather wide as that flop goes better with my range, so in that case I would raise.

Given it's a non-active (low stakes) tag opp I would just raise here. At worst he has something big, but more likely either folds or gives over control of the pot to me. If memory serves me right, tags here might be sticky with AQ/AJ hands but dont get to creative with them.

Originally Posted by gabe

hell yea its a raise and why the fuck would i tell you my range? i would hope that you could guess my range if i told you that 45h is in it (assuming you know im kinda smart)

vs an abc tag at small stakes i assume a smart player's raise range (if he raises 54hh here) would be something like sets/draws and air. Its basically unoptimal to raise much else. Yes yes you can make a case for raising Ax here, but vs an abc player who isn't going to think on the nth level, i think its just overplaying and spew.

So what happens is you are raising a polar range, so all he has to do with any hand he has is determine whether he beats a bluff and play accordingly (by stacking off on the flop or on a blank turn, or by folding because he doesn't think you are bluffing often enough). Granted vs a good player, thats still going to be difficult to determine, but it at least simplifies his decision making process since Kx is roughly equal to AK in terms of strength vs your range.

Also it weakens your flop calling range to where he can bet the turn/river more thinly and bluff you more. In general when you call him down to the river you are going to have a narrow and predictably weak range.

I have a feeling since im typing and explaining all this to you and you're gabe that a) you already know all this and don't care because there are other factors that im not thinking about, or b) im totally wrong and my thought process sucks.

All im asking for is an explanation as to what makes raising so great other than these 5 word adages about how cool it is to be aggressive and how you should always put yourself in a position to win the pot blah blah blah, and all im getting back is animosity.

Renton,
We've looked at every single factor of the hand in this thread, and 90% or more, i mean idk the fucking figure but I know that most variables and concepts made it very clear that this is a raise. Somehow, you disagree about the merits of some of these variables and concepts to the point where you think calling is still better. I'm not going to put this entire thread together and do all the math calcs to explain exactly why raising is right, i did that throughout and im pretty sure i touched on every single one (besides obvious factors that i'd hope you'd know if you have any understanding about fundamental levels of poker, which i think you do). If you want to do something like a 1k prop bet with me if I can prove that raising is right, I will, but otherwise i just don't know what else to say. If you want me to make something clearer than tell me, but otherwise you're going to have to argue how certain concepts and factors of the game that i believe favored raising the flop, don't.

-Danny

Jager,
Thank you for doing that, but your range assesment is somewhat off. If you're going to include a hand like QTs, it's safe to say a hand like 89s may be there too. Also, we can't be sure he's raising either KTs, or KJo. If we want to establish exactly what vpip/pfr opp is we can, but tbh it'll make no difference, raising will be better with anything from a 17/16 or above (and probably less than 17/16)

At small stakes, you can't assume that your average villain is thinking at all about your hand... except that a raise on board with three hearts means a flush got there. You raise here versus a tight/passive who thinks he's a TAG- he's giving up.

I'm saying we raise because:
1. We have lots of FE
2. It's better to build a big pot with a monster draw
3. Let's not give out free cards like they're candy

Arguments for a call
1. We have the same amount of FE on the turn- inherently false, we're giving out free cards. By that logic, we should never bluff flops in which the villain has a non-drawy hand. (b/c the free card is neglible; he'll fold on the next street anyway!... um, I disagree)

2. Setting up some balanced range, so that the low-stakes tagfish (who has read, re-read, annotated, and understands the entire collection of TOP by David Sklansky) has a harder time, in analyzing our pre- and post-flop decisions, putting us on flush draw. *pretty much pointless IMO; in fact, to the TAG, calling = draw, raising = made hand.

3. We get to take down a small pot when our monster hits?

I see no reason to call here versus a donkstake TAG. Remember, it's Pokerstars 10/20, not the WSOP final table.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Jager,
Thank you for doing that, but your range assesment is somewhat off. If you're going to include a hand like QTs, it's safe to say a hand like 89s may be there too. Also, we can't be sure he's raising either KTs, or KJo. If we want to establish exactly what vpip/pfr opp is we can, but tbh it'll make no difference, raising will be better with anything from a 17/16 or above (and probably less than 17/16)

Actually it matters very little what exact range we put him on, because his range remained constant in all scenarios. I just used stove to get a range.

Originally Posted by bigslikk

I see no reason to call here versus a donkstake TAG. Remember, it's Pokerstars 10/20, not the WSOP final table.

i agree with raising but this doesnt make sense. this is low stakes not 10/20. and are you saying WSOP final table play would be better or am i just reading this wrong?

Originally Posted by Renton

All im asking for is an explanation as to what makes raising so great other than these 5 word adages

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

We've looked at every single factor of the hand in this thread... ...I'm not going to put this entire thread together and do all the math calcs to explain exactly why raising is right, i did that throughout and im pretty sure i touched on every single one.

ISF's and Gabe's Arguments for Raising by Renton

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Raise because he's not shoving you tards.

Originally Posted by gabe

raise your monster

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

There's clearly FE so raise, {then more stuff about how he's not shoving}

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

{more stuff about how he's not shoving}

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Do you understand FE and equity???? It has nothing to do with forming a good range.

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

if you can be aggressive and not be blown off a draw you should do it.

Originally Posted by gabe

hell yea its a raise

Renton,

Congrats on doing that, if you're going to call me out thats clearly the best way to do it. But here's my counter point.

1. Your argument sucks, I've disputed every point you've made, and most points you bring up apply equally to raising as it does calling. The only point you've made is you think that shoving the turn if he bets will fold out AQ-AT, which is a fine point, but again i think you're overrating your FE and the assurance that opp actually bets the turn with AT-AJ (probably does though). Every other argument of FE favors raising the flop.

2. You're constantly making points about how our range is killed and blah blah blah. Our range was killed when the flop came, our range is way behind opp. There's nothing we can do about that, whether we raise or call.

3. Do you understand that FE and equity and metagame is essentially all poker is? I think for some reason you don't. I'm not sure there is one decision of poker that can't be explained through those 3 points.

4. About me using 5 word adages, thats ridiculous. I write long posts in every thread and reply I make.
And Cmon for calling out gabe, out of every poster here gabe has helped me the most with my game with his short responses, actually allowing me to figure things out for myself. He's given his reasons for why he does it, and he doesn't owe anyone anything, so if you actually want help with something you should be respectful.

Your posts have been incredibly emotionally prying, facetious, and charged. If you want to get any good responses from questions, those three qualites aren't going to get you anywhere. It's taken a lot for me not just to give you a big **** you. However, if you want to be annoying and use your posts as a way of asserting your higher intellectual value, I'm not going to listen to them anymore.

If we both have AQ and we're the aggressor, whose chances do you like to win the pot?

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

If we both have AQ and we're the aggressor, whose chances do you like to win the pot?

On the flop clearly we're ahead of his range.

On the turn we're not in great shape....

I don't rly get the question.....

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

If we both have AQ and we're the aggressor, whose chances do you like to win the pot?

On the flop clearly we're ahead of his range.

On the turn we're not in great shape....

I don't rly get the question.....

oh just some tangent on how taking the aggressive route in the pot if we have the same hand will win us the pot and never lose it for us.

isf,

The closest I've come in this thread to being verbally nasty or condescending was in my "RAISE (NOT CLOSE IMO)!" post and when i was sarcastic with spenda about 33. Also if i recall correctly I haven't used profanity once.

You on the other hand, are the one making the emotionally prying posts, and are the one asserting the intellectual superiority here. Not once have I bashed anyones ability to play poker during this thread. Not once have I questioned anyones fundamentals. And fwiw, i don't mind at all that you are questioning mine, I'm just bringing it up since you mention it.

As for gabe, he came back with a nasty and sarcastic post after all I asked was what flop his raising range would consist of here.


My game is in an extremely weird state right now, where im questioning EVERYTHING. As you know, I've been receiving coaching lately from a lot of angles, and the way some of these people approach standard situations is fascinating, and is from a different angle than I ever looked at before, and also from a different angle than that of the other coaches im seeing. They all look at things differently, uniquely.

Now every time i open up a HH thread post, I read the hand, I form my opinions, then I read the comments, and I'm never satisfied anymore. I always have like 5 questions, about topics none of the posters even mentioned or perhaps even considered. I always wish I had a great player right here nearby who could answer them for me.

I'm really glad that I'm against the grain here, because it means whether im right or not I'm going to learn (and have learned) a lot.

But you know what, I'm not gonna learn anything at all if the people that disagree with me aren't gonna give me answers and instead are gonna be all pissed off and sarcastic.

Yes, you're right i have become emotional from this thread, and i probably started the whole issue so im sorry. But cmon Renton, to act like your responses to my posts have been calm cool and collective... I recommend you look over them again.

I'm trying my best to give all the points, i dont know what others to give.

hey guys you know you're allowed to balance your range right? and that whats best in the context of your game might not be the best in the context of someone else's game.

when me and isf talked, i said something like 80% raise, 20% call seemed good.

side note: nobody ever said a single thing in this thread (that i saw) about how big to make the raise or how to manipulate the pot on future streets. funny.

i think raising and calling run similar in value. very dependent on a lot of things, probably moreso than a typical spot like this.

against a great tagg, i'd probably call a lot more than against an average taggbot.

also i had a horrid night's sleep so just pretend there is a really friendly tone because i didnt realize how it sounded when i wrote it.

thanks

your friend,

lukie

Max did make point about raising size, i made a joking point though, i agree with Max's assessment.

What do you mean by manipulating the pot on future streets?