Getting your money in: Flop v Turn

[JeffreyGB]

I've been pondering some situations lately, stemming from spots wherein you're theoretically happy to get your money in with an unmade hand. On that vein, let's discuss a few concepts:

1) If you're on a draw with at least 45% to win the hand, you're happy to get your money in on the flop. The theory here is that you're going to win a fair portion of the time, so winning big pots is good. Plus by betting aggressively you get some of the hands that will beat you 55% of the time (single pair hands, for instance) to fold, increasing your equity. The counter argument is that you'll know by the turn whether you're going to hit half of those outs, meaning that if you play it smaller, you stand to lose less the 77% of the time you aren't winning by the turn. The question here becomes how to balance winning more when you win (and got the money in) with losing less when you lose (and didn't get the money in). Plus the fact that trying to get money in after hitting the turn becomes more difficult...

2) If your opponent is on a draw with at least 45% to win the hand, you're happy to get your money in on the flop, as you're still going to be at least 45% with your made hand. The theory here is much the same as above. The counterargument is exactly the opposite, however. If we wait to get money in on the turn, then we can provide a reduced variance play. Since on the flop we're only 45-55% to win, but on the turn we're 66-80% to win, we're much further ahead on the turn. Plus, we're 100% to win if our opponent folds, and we win a bigger pot if this happens on the turn (assuming some money went in on the flop). The quest here becomes how to balance getting your money in when slightly ahead versus when way ahead, and how factor in paying off draws vs folding incorrectly.

[gingerwizard]

Question about situation 2.

What sort of hand are we happy to get all in with knowing we're only 55% ahead? If we have a set, and there is a flush draw, are we not doing better than that? (If I knew I was 55% im happy to get in, but im just not sure where that would happen)

[Pelion]

Board: Kc 8d 7d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 53.636% 53.03% 00.61% 525 6.00 { AsKs }
Hand 1: 46.364% 45.76% 00.61% 453 6.00 { KdQd }


meh. close enough.

Im not good enough at hand reading to put most people on as tight a range as pair + FD though.

[Liam^]

If I'm in late position, I always always bet the flop if it's a flush draw. Not only are you getting money in the pot, but you're increasing your chances everyone will check to you on the turn, thus buying a freecard if you need it. If i'm OOP, I still might raise, something near a third to half of the pot, in order to prevent anyone trying to price me out, and thus folding everyone else as well. Honestly, I think you -have- to bet. If you lose 1 bet 55% of the time, and win 3 bets 45% of the time...well it's math!

On the second question, if someone is drawing, I'm making it expensive if I'm ahead. If your opponent calls you everytime, he's making a big mistake, and thus you're correct in your bet. If you do the same on the turn and they call again, you're making even more. Plus, it's easy to see if the flush hits on the turn, so you'll have no trouble getting out of the hand.

[gingerwizard]

Board: Kc 8d 7d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 53.636% 53.03% 00.61% 525 6.00 { AsKs }
Hand 1: 46.364% 45.76% 00.61% 453 6.00 { KdQd }


meh. close enough.

Im not good enough at hand reading to put most people on as tight a range as pair + FD though.

Thats what I mean, I can never read that I am 55%. Obv if I have a set and there is a flush draw, with an obvious flat call on the flop, im gonna put him on that hand and get it all in. But I don't think I'm a mere 55% (As you proved), I'm like 70% (at least. Too much effort and too late at night to do the calcs)

[JeffreyGB]

I was going for a theoretical discussion, starting with near break even spots.

[zenbitz]

Can situation 1 & 2 be +EV for both players? I think this is impossible. In a 0 EV situations you are probably better off waiting for the turn to reduce variance.

Usually what happens though is there is a raise or two and we get committed one way or another.

metagame and balance (getting a/i with sets and combo draws on flop) are important if you play decent players repeatedly (i.e not so much at 50NL)

[pgil]

I think with nearly every regular/semi regular playing with PT/HuD balancing is taking on a bit more importance at 50NL. Granted most won't know how to use it (or use it well) at this level, but they will have some numbers on your play.

I was going to say that if you have a bit more than a PSB behind when the action gets to you in situation 1 then shoving would be best, but that probably means that there has been a bet and a raise already for the pot to be so big. So you aren't going to be folding out many hands, and you may not have as much difficulty getting paid if you hit the turn.

More important would seem to be position. If you are last to act then you can more easily get the money in over the turn and river, while limiting losses if things go awry in both situations.

Both situations could easily be +EV for both players depending on how much money is behind. If you are a favourite to win, getting AI is +EV. If you are getting the right odds on a draw then it is +EV. More important than just having a positive expectation though is maximizing the expectation for the given situation, and I have very little idea of how to do that.

[pgil]

other post was getting long and I just thought of this, so rather than edit, double post...

In situation 2, if you can keep enough behind to give your opponent incorrect odds to call a turn push, but just barely, then do so. This means you get the most in on the flop that you can, while still being able to fold if the obvious draw hits.

Also means that you will be forcing your opponent to play incorrectly more often by giving him a close decision for a large amount of chips. If he folds you win the biggest pot possible, and if he calls he makes a mistake. win-win.

Applying this to situation 1 we would want to avoid going to the turn where this is the case. we would either want to be deeper, or shallower.

[JeffreyGB]

Here's an example (to comment on the hand itself, go to http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=522368#522368): Assuming my read is right and both my A and my flush outs are good, I'm 45% to win here. It's unlikely he's folding after his checkraise. Better to get it all in at that point, or to call and re-evaluate on the turn?

Full Tilt No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

MP3 ($78)
Hero ($349.55)
Button ($102.60)
SB ($40)
BB ($116.90)
UTG ($447.20)
UTG+1 ($170.75)
MP1 ($191.75)
MP2 ($156)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, J. UTG posts a blind of $2.
3 folds, MP3 calls $2, Hero raises to $9, 1 fold, BB calls $8, 2 folds.

Flop: ($22) Q, 8, 3 (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $20, BB raises to $40, Hero raises to $130, BB calls $67.90 (All-In).

Turn: ($259.90) Q (3 players, 1 all-in)

River: ($259.90) 7 (3 players, 1 all-in)

Final Pot: $259.90

[miracleriver]

If you are 45% to win at showdown and he's not folding, wouldn't it be -EV to push?

[Fnord]

You're pretty much pot-struck on the turn anyway and have a little fold equity on the flop. My only thought here is re-thinking your c-bet sizing.

[Lithium]

Like you said, you are not likely to get a laydown from the checkraiser, particularly with his stack size. Certainly, TPTK or better is not mucking, and anything other than a flush draw is ahead. At best call, see if you hit on the turn, and if not, go away. I don't see how getting it all-in when you are behind on the flop is the right play in this situation.

[JeffreyGB]

Ok, since we all ignored the part where I specifically asked comments specific to the hand...here's what I posted to the thread actually about that hand. It pertains here too.

That's what I was suspecting...ran some numbers though:
If my opponent folds 5% of the time, this is the best way to play it whether or not my ace is live. If my ace is live, then it's even more +EV.

Call w/ ace live (fold missed turn) nets $5.5, assuming no implied odds.
.25(82)+.75(-20)=5.5

Shoving here nets $32.5, assuming no fold equity (around $40 with 5% folding).
.45(82+67.9)-.55(87.90)=32.5

Call w/ ace not live (fold missed turn) nets -$1.64, assuming no implied odds (with modest implied odds, it's probably break even).
.18(82)+.82(-20)=-1.64

Shove w/ ace not live nets -$4.67, assuming no fold equity (nets +$3.5ish if we grant 5% folding).
35(82+67.9)-.60(87.9)+.05(82)=-4.67

In essense, as Zenbitz said, it's +EV for both of us to get all-in because of the dead money.

[JeffreyGB]

You're pretty much pot-struck on the turn anyway and have a little fold equity on the flop. My only thought here is re-thinking your c-bet sizing.

I actually chose my c-bet size specifically to allow for getting it all-in, as well as to make it look like I was trying to price out draws (since theoretically that would imply more of a made hand). Generally, I do tend to bet less than this.

Would I be potstuck on the turn if I just called?
18-22% equity...we'll call it 20%. If we assume he shoves, calling $68 into $170 with only 20% equity seems pretty bad...

The only benefit to not getting it in on the flop would be that we lose less here. But the question then becomes whether or not we get paid as much when we do hit on the turn.

[JeffreyGB]

If you are 45% to win at showdown and he's not folding, wouldn't it be -EV to push?

No. Because of the dead money. See the above math.

[zenbitz]

In essense, as Zenbitz said, it's +EV for both of us to get all-in because of the dead money.

Wait... I thought I said that was impossible.

Hmm... Let's see. If there is $10 in the pot, and each player has a 50% chance of winning - the EV for both is +$5 no matter what they bet. As long as neither folds.

[Lithium]

All right, so you are saying that, in general, when it is a 45%-55% postflop heads-up, both players should go ahead and get all-in right away? Seems counterintuitive (or logically false, as in: a = ~a).

I believe if you run this same scenario over 10000 hands with the exact same stack sizes and actions, the person 45% behind will end up losing 5% of his money over the long run. It gets even worse if your ace is a counterfeit. That is trivial though, so I doubt it is what you are saying.

Maybe I am missing something, since I don't see three players in the pot, though (only two people are acting postflop). Start getting pot odds (particularly if someone else is on the K-flush draw), and then it changes.

[Lithium]

In essense, as Zenbitz said, it's +EV for both of us to get all-in because of the dead money.

Wait... I thought I said that was impossible.

Hmm... Let's see. If there is $10 in the pot, and each player has a 50% chance of winning - the EV for both is +$5 no matter what they bet. As long as neither folds.

I think pgil said it was possible for both to be +EV (the person ahead and the one on the top draw) as long as what is behind/pot odds are there.

[zenbitz]

[quote="Lithium"
I believe if you run this same scenario over 10000 hands with the exact same stack sizes and actions, the person 45% behind will end up losing 5% of his money over the long run. It gets even worse if your ace is a counterfeit. That is trivial though, so I doubt it is what you are saying..[/quote]

If 5% of the bet size is > 45 % of the dead money already in the pot, then they will take the worst of it.

[JeffreyGB]

I believe if you run this same scenario over 10000 hands with the exact same stack sizes and actions, the person 45% behind will end up losing 5% of his money over the long run. It gets even worse if your ace is a counterfeit. That is trivial though, so I doubt it is what you are saying..

If 5% of the bet size is > 45 % of the dead money already in the pot, then they will take the worst of it.

To clarify what Zenbitz is saying (I hope), I'll give some examples:
1. Assume we're playing a game with no blinds or antes. Everyone gets to see the flop for free, and then betting commences. Two players decide to play: P45 (45% chance to win) and P55 (55% chance to win). Over the long term, if they get all-in, P45 will lose 5%. If, however, P45 can get P55 to fold more than 5% of the time, then P45 will now profit. This profit (over a 5% loss) is the $$$ realization of fold equity.

2. Assume we're playing a game where the blinds are $25/$50 and each player has only $100. Again, postflop, we have only two players (each with $50 left). Now there is at least $100 in the pot (possibly $175, depending on whether or not these players were in the blinds). If either player has better than a 25% chance at winning (50:150) he profits by getting all-in. Both P45 and P55 profit* here if they are all-in, because of the $100+ already in the pot.

*You could say that P45 lost money by playing preflop to the extent that he contributed to the initial pot. That "loss" is negligible, however, because 1) it is in the past and 2) it occurred before the flop - meaning that the equity in the hand was almost certainly different than it is now.

[Grndr101]

I usually like to see the turn, if you're reading your opponent right and put him on a draw then you can let him call a pot sized bet with his 45% chance of winning, if he makes his hand, then you can still bail and save some money. The main reason i like to do this is that i consider 45-55% to be a coinflip and if you keep getting in those situations your bankroll will take huge swings ( i kow what im saying i did it before ). If you opponent doesnt make his hand on the turn you can go all in with your monster and if he calls, then he'll be a huge underdog ( 70-30?) and most of the time hell even fold and never know if he made his hand on the river, and you will take down three times the pot size of what what was in on the flop.

Another reason for making your move on the turn is that (most novices dont know this ) if you opponent has overcards or a straight draw with his flush draw and you have top pair without a draw and a good kicker you will be a 45% or less underdog. So moving in on the flop with top pair against a flush draw isnt a great idea most of the time.
Hope this helped you, gl and see you at the table.

[Halv]

This doesn't really make a difference as to the flop decision, but one thing that is worth keeping in mind is that if you consistently get in situations like these where both players are equal EV when it gets all in on the flop then someone is still losing money on the hand because they took the worst of it preflop.

Edit: now I see that jeffrey acually mentioned this in one of the posts.

[JeffreyGB]

I usually like to see the turn, if you're reading your opponent right and put him on a draw then you can let him call a pot sized bet with his 45% chance of winning, if he makes his hand, then you can still bail and save some money. The main reason i like to do this is that i consider 45-55% to be a coinflip and if you keep getting in those situations your bankroll will take huge swings ( i kow what im saying i did it before ). If you opponent doesnt make his hand on the turn you can go all in with your monster and if he calls, then he'll be a huge underdog ( 70-30?) and most of the time hell even fold and never know if he made his hand on the river, and you will take down three times the pot size of what what was in on the flop.

This is exactly the concept I was proposing the question for. I believe that your reasoning is flawed, however. Did you check out the numbers I posted above? While calling and proceeding only if you hit/your opp didn't hit is profitable, due to the odds the pot is generally laying you, it is not often as profitable as moving in. As far as resultant BR fluncuations, I'd argue that part of being properly rolled is having enough to withstand these swings.

Another reason for making your move on the turn is that (most novices dont know this ) if you opponent has overcards or a straight draw with his flush draw and you have top pair without a draw and a good kicker you will be a 45% or less underdog. So moving in on the flop with top pair against a flush draw isnt a great idea most of the time.
Hope this helped you, gl and see you at the table.

That's actually exactly the situations I'm talking about in this post. You're slightly off though - with TPGK against a flush draw + single over TPGK is 55% and FD+SO is 45%. Same against FD+gutshot. Against FD+two overs or FD+OESD, then you become the dog and they become the favorite.

[Grndr101]

I usually like to see the turn, if you're reading your opponent right and put him on a draw then you can let him call a pot sized bet with his 45% chance of winning, if he makes his hand, then you can still bail and save some money. The main reason i like to do this is that i consider 45-55% to be a coinflip and if you keep getting in those situations your bankroll will take huge swings ( i kow what im saying i did it before ). If you opponent doesnt make his hand on the turn you can go all in with your monster and if he calls, then he'll be a huge underdog ( 70-30?) and most of the time hell even fold and never know if he made his hand on the river, and you will take down three times the pot size of what what was in on the flop.

This is exactly the concept I was proposing the question for. I believe that your reasoning is flawed, however. Did you check out the numbers I posted above? While calling and proceeding only if you hit/your opp didn't hit is profitable, due to the odds the pot is generally laying you, it is not often as profitable as moving in. As far as resultant BR fluncuations, I'd argue that part of being properly rolled is having enough to withstand these swings.

The thing is i like to have a much bigger advantage in lower limits (those i play mostly) instead of that 5% advantage you get from pushing, at the games i play people will take that gamble most of the time. Also i'd say my way of proceeding is more profitable if you are positive you can get your opponent to fold on the turn, because then you will win the hand ~25% more often since he only has the 25% chance of hitting his flush on the turn.
Basically you take from your opponent the chance away of hitting the river, and thus you improve your odds of winning(winning the hand i mean). In the games i play the pot is already huge when the turn comes and then or i get him to commit the rest of his stack as an underdog or he folds and loses a monster pot.
I just guess its a choice you have to make, i personally like my style because it allows me to have more winning sessions. And everybody likes to win