Some poker philosophy. Basically- is this good or bad?

[bigslikk]

Effective stacks are 20 BB.

Hero looks down at



and opens for a standard raise (3x BB) on the button.

Villain on the BB calls.

Flop (7BB)
:Ad:

Villain checks. Hero bets 7 BB. Villain re-raises all-in to 17 BB.
Hero has to call 10 BB into a 30 BB pot (3 to 1). He calls.

So how was hero's play?

[bigspenda73]

Are you looking for an argument to check this flop?

[Miffed22001]

the fish has a pair or an ace. Id put him in on anything without an ace and continue to do so.

[bigslikk]

Hmm. well here it is.

I was the villain, I had an ace... yeah another suckout story. But here's what I want to discuss:

The guy has odds to call the flush draw- clearly we're calling the c/r with a 36%-to-hit nut flush draw every time. That's +EV. But since you essentially got it all-in with the worst of it, isn't the call just salvaging a few +EV points out of a signficantly -EV play?

If this situation were to be repeated indefinitely (same flop and actions every time), Hero will lose money. Am I right?

[bigspenda73]

what? If he needs 2:1 to call and is getting better than that than folding is a losing play and calling is a +EV play.

BTW, are you playing with 20bb stacks or was villain? It makes a diff. really, I'd like to know who the bigger donkey is.

[jyms]

Villain re-raises all-in to 17 BB.

I was the villain, I had an ace

BTW, are you playing with 20bb stacks or was villain? It makes a diff. really, I'd like to know who the bigger donkey is.

hmmmm

[bigspenda73]

lol shortstackaments

[Cocco_Bill]

hero played it fne, he is even ahead of part of your range (67 bluff lower flush draw)

[NLHE lahooozaher]

The guy has odds to call the flush draw- clearly we're calling the c/r with a 36%-to-hit nut flush draw every time. That's +EV. But since you essentially got it all-in with the worst of it, isn't the call just salvaging a few +EV points out of a signficantly -EV play?

The c-bet has it's own ev and since he bet pot it has to work 50% of the time to show anything. I think we can agree that him being in position and you just calling in the blinds that his c-bet will work >50% of the time so he's not making a "significantly -EV play" regardless of the fact you had the best hand this time.

What Ace did you have? I'd have reraised w/stacks like these if I wanted to play.

[Chopper]

if you were 20bb's short, i want to know why you didnt lead out with 7-10 bb's? if he raises, so what, youre committed, but at least you took HIS odds away, and he made the mistake by raising your A w/ a draw.

or, if youre short-stacking, why didnt you raise the button to 6X so you could shove any flop you liked?

when you are short-stacking, imo, you cant be slowplaying anything...which is essentially what you did with your c/r.

[bigspenda73]

if you're shortstacking you should prolly just 3bet shove PF.

[Chopper]

if you're shortstacking you should prolly just 3bet shove PF.

surely not with any A? with your weaker ones, dont you want to see a flop first?

i figure shorting looks for TP+ on the flop or mid pair on dry boards, and shoves then, not before.

either way, your original raise needs to set it up to a point you cant overbet so much you blow everyone out. you want callers on the flop.

[bigspenda73]

see this is what I'm missing, did we raise to 3bb or did the actual villain? If I'm on 20bb and the button open to 3bb I'd just shove over with KQs

[Chopper]

hero had KQs on button and raised 3X. villain was bb and called with the A. flop came A with 2 of heros suit, giving hero the draw and position. villain c/red with the A, but hero was priced in to call because villain was short.

villain (actual hero) should have avoided the draw coming along by betting out on flop. or 3-betting from blinds. i just didnt think that was smart short-stacking strategy, personally, to push preflop with AX. i want TP, personally.

however, i am not a great shorty...im a deep-stacked nit, by trade.

[bigslikk]

1. I had the 20BB shortsack

Now, for my real comments:

Can no one see how, if this hand were played indefinitely, the hero (KQs flush draw chaser) will lose? He has 1/3 chance to win 40 BB. VIllain has 2/3 chance to win 40BB. Villain is profitting here regardless how the money gets allin, as long as gets allin on this street.

I think the confusion stems from this:
A. KQ / flush chaser / hero has odds to call the check-raise, which is +EV.

However, he is merely lessening the huge suckage of his -EV play, which is his cbet. Sure, one could argue that his cbet has a chance to win the pot uncontested. Except here, with a decent ace, I'm never folding. Essentially, IN THIS SITUATION, his fold equity is zero (given my cards). If his cbet fails every time, he is making a -EV play. The flush draw gives him +EV, but not enough make up for his -EV cbet.

Now, the hero (KQ chaser) could get an argument for a cbet here. In fact, it's probably a pretty good time to cbet- the shortstacked villain's range predicts that he will fold often. Unfortunately, in this situation, the villain (pair of bullets) holds a hand that falls in the higher end of his range. The villain (aces) has taken Sklansky dollars from the hero (KQs).


Okay here's an analogous hand:
Hero has Pocket Kings.
Villain has Pocket Aces.
Effective stacks are 15BB.

Hero (KK) raises to 3BB, Villain (AA) re-raises to 5BB. Hero re-raises to 7 BB. Villain re-raises to 9BB. Hero re-raises to 11BB. Villain re-raises to 15BB, allin. Hero calls 4 BB.

Now, the Hero (pocket kings) is getting proper odds on the last bet, since the only hand that beats him is aces, and at this point he is getting laid (26BB:4BB or more than 6:1) -He's a 4 to 1 dog at worst, v the rockets.

This hand is pretty similar to the one I described.

First... something else:

For every +EV move someone makes, somebody else made a -EV move (the money is coming from somewhere people).

Devil's Advocate: So what about those situations in which the pot becomes so bloated that everyone has the odds to call with draws / crap, and so EVERYONE is making +EV moves by calling on that street?

Response: Everyone can make +EV moves in a bloated pot b/c of all the dead money in the middle. ON PREVIOUS STREETS, some player(s) got money in good while others got it in bad.

Back to the pocket Kings hand...
Kings has odds to call last minbet +EV shipit. However, the donk move was bloating the pot while behind. Sure, he may have been beating Mr. Aces' range (let's say the guy with the aces was a loose donk maniac and could've had any two). however, in this situation, in terms of the slansky dollars, the aces got the best of it. EVEN THOUGH KINGS HAD THE ODDS TO CALL ON THE VERY LAST BET BECAUSE OF HIS ""SUCCESS"" IN BLOATING THE POT EARLIER WHILE BEHIND. I also like this hand b/c notice how the guy with kings as absolutely no fold equity (as in my hand).



See, I posted a question earlier this year about the difference between using "ranges" and "sklansky results dollars" in analyzing hands. I had debate with someone about it, I was actually arguing in favor of using "ranges":

extreme example:
If a tight player with a tight image randomly decides one hand to move allin for 1000BB's in an unraisesd pot with 23offsuit and Johnny Bignutz calls the rediculous overbet with 24 offsuit, was that a good play? (Sklansky's method says yes, he had him dominated; "ranges" are more accurate: no it was a bad play because the very strong likelihood was that 24o was eating shit.



So what's the point of all this tedious crap?
A: The check-raise in the original hand is a better play than leading out. The check-raise has a much higher probability to end up with the desired result :

-getting the most money in possible while ahead-

Devil's Advocate: But, isn't the hero (KQs), though behind your hand, ahead of your RANGE? Many smart players would cbet in that spot, rightly. Only rarely is that play negative EV (such as, given the small chance villain has an ace)

Response: Isn't that the reason the check-raise here with Ax is such a damn good play?

[salsa4ever]

your argument is flawed:

if the situation was repeated indefinitely, you won't have Ax every time.

WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE Ax, HE WILL LOSE. BUT HE LOSES LESS BY CALLING THE PUSH THAN FOLDING

WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE Ax, HE WILL WIN


If he somehow knew you had an ace, then his play is wrong. But he doesn't. As long as his gain from the times you don't have an ace outweighs his loss from the times you do, his bet is +EV.

read greenstein's Ace on the River, specifically his comments re: distinguishing the 'correct' play from the 'perfect' play.

As for your final sentence: what are you going to do the times you call without an ace? Are you going to bet then? And if you bet then, but check raise Ax, they ain't folding.

[Chopper]

i like all of your thoughts, i do, but...

you are talking about a specific situation where you dont know the exact cards your villain (hero) holds (he could have had a middle set, Aces up, AK, or any other possibility here that had YOU beat...and you didnt know that for a fact when you made your move...it just worked out), and he doesnt, and cant, know the exact cards you (villain) hold. therefore, you are only correct, imo, about one piece of several equations.

people here always are telling me, "you play and make moves against ranges, not specific holdings because you can never be 100% sure about the cards your opponent holds," nor him yours.

[bigslikk]

Thanks guys I think I'm starting to understand. Got to think it over a bit.