$1000 eff. 2 limpers, I complete SB with 4d3d, BB completes. Tight/nitty table.

Flop: 3h5c6s Pot ~ $40

Do you lead out or not and why?

Fold pre, lead flop.

Pre is fine

Agree with leading

Olaff
What do you think the best option is post flop? And why?

I think your hand is pretty garbage and I don't see that many benefits to leading. It isn't as if you have mad implied odds when you hit your two pair on a 4 straight board or one card straight on a 7653 board. You can't even make a flush.

I guess you get some protection and hopefully fold out a 6 or 5 or some runouts but you pay a lot of rake along the way in this tiny pot. I would check and possibly make a big squeeze vs a bet+call, but generally hope for a check through and to play a small pot on the turn/river.

I think for leading to have value your hand needs to possibly improve to something worth putting three bets in. All of the possibilities for 43 only enable you to put in two bets before you're overplaying your hand so getting the flop checked around is a good thing.

folding pre is absurd. the only way leading the flop is good is if we are planning on barreling a lot of runouts.

Worst position with 4 high, nothing wrong with being tight.

I think if you check/folded every flop that wasn't exactly a flush, combo draw, trips/2pair, or straight, and followed the robotic strategy of bet/folding 3/4 pot every street no matter what comes whenever you do hit one of those, you would easily recoup half of a big blind with this hand.

Well since I posted this, I'm obviously not sure. We have a Pair + OESD. That's a ton of equity; if we just check and brick turn - a lot of our equity just goes poof. But our position sucks. Betting and getting raised could easily happen in a 4-way pot. I think checking is a safe option. But I think leading might be an edgier line which may be higher variance but higher EV overall. If second position bets and 2 others fold, CR HU would be a good option imo.

What if we flopped a FD+pair? Equity would be similar. Would you just check it in first position?

Your equity doesn't go poof. Flop equity is distributed to the various turns that could come, some turns give you 90% equity and some drop you to 25%. It averages out to the 45 or so you had on the flop.

A pair plus flush draw would be MUCH more valuable than this hand. Possibly 3 to 4 times more valuable.

7 to 1 with suited connector vs weak opponents....doing anything other than flicking in a call seems pretty abysmal

If it's a turn that bricks it does go poof.

How so? I'm pretty sure I can ran a sample in PokerStove and equities will be similar. And I just did it.. and they are.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

5,940 games 0.072 secs 82,499 games/sec

Board: 3h 5c 6s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 45.859% 44.65% 01.21% 2652 72.00 { 4d3d }
Hand 1: 54.141% 52.93% 01.21% 3144 72.00 { AA }

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

5,940 games 0.056 secs 106,071 games/sec

Board: 3c Td Kd
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 47.020% 47.02% 00.00% 2793 0.00 { 4d3d }
Hand 1: 52.980% 52.98% 00.00% 3147 0.00 { AA }

Ok there's this thing in poker called ex showdown equity. It refers to a hand's ability to extract value from worse hands or fold out better hands on all the future possible boards that could come out. Pair + flush draw makes a hand worth putting in tons of money in with (a flush) a large amount of the time. Bottom pair plus open ender almost never makes such a hand. So your equity on the flop is pretty much meaningless in this context.

Having the flop check through and the turn blank off doesn't substantially reduce the value of your hand because the value of your hand was quite low to begin with. The only time your 46% equity would have mattered is if you somehow could have shoved all in on the flop and forced him to flip with you or fold and give you dead money. In a 4 big blind pot that is never going to happen. More than likely he's just gonna call your lead and play quite well vs your hand on a huge majority of the turns and rivers that come, folding when he's beat and making you fold when you don't improve. In other words your hand has an ex-showdown equity disadvantage out of position where a flush draw would not.

Easy c/c on the flop and given this player pool just lead if you hit a straight on the turn, it's not like anyone will try to bluff or valuebet worse for you, so the best you can hope for is someone makes a bad peal (which will tend to happen quite often). C/R and barrel off on the small side on bricks is not bad either, the goal would be to bet with such sizings as to allow your opponent to peal pair+draw type hands on both flop and turn and then make him fold those on the river, so something like 3/5 pot raise OTF and 3/5 pot bet OTT and then 2/3 pot OTR would work I think (and you obviously rep sets / straights pretty well)

I fail to see how that is. We already agree that OTF equities are similar in both cases. Now "ex-showdown equity" is introduced into the discussion and it's somehow proposed that "ESE" of one is significantly lower than the other and I fail to see why. How so?

flushes are worth more than one card straights when you hit them, you will get paid off by a wider range. So the future possibilities are just a lot more profitable with the flush draw than with the draw to a one card straight.

In poker we extract value by making people fold incorrectly and call incorrectly, the pair + flush draw figures to do both of these things more effectively than the pair plus one card oesd does, so it is worth more in spite of having similar raw equity numbers.

Run a stove against a realistic range of hands that want to play a big pot on this tex.

Are you saying that 1-card str8s are more obvious and people perceive villains as more likely to have them than flushes and therefore flushes get paid off more?

This is my best shot. I assigned random to BB and ranged the other 2 the same and ran a Monte Carlo. Please adjust my ranges if needed:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

25,218,229 games 70.481 secs 357,801 games/sec

Board: 3h 6s 5c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 23.852% 18.40% 05.45% 4641246 1373790.75 { 4d3d }
Hand 1: 13.197% 11.28% 01.92% 2843469 484572.08 { random }
Hand 2: 31.479% 26.72% 04.76% 6738832 1199573.08 { 66-55, 33, A6s, 87s, 64s+, 53s, 43s, A6o }
Hand 3: 31.473% 26.71% 04.76% 6736586 1200311.67 { 66-55, 33, A6s, 87s, 64s+, 53s, 43s, A6o }

What you say is true to some extent Rentin however it is also pretty rare we hit our straight and lose to higher straight to specifically 47 or, in the event we hit the 6 to 78, whereas 4 high flush is getting coolered to higher flush far more often.

Tough to quantify but a lot of the table may not even play 47o and some not 47s and some may fold 78 gutshot on flop.

Fairly safe to say people are playing every axs and maybe a total of 20 flush draw combos and never folding any on flop. Also flushes are fairly obvious to most opponents and by some live players seem to be overweighted in ranges in my experience so not like top pair is autosnappin down when we do hit flush either.

Realistically, only BB may have 74.

Yes, two card flushes never duplicated (although dominated occasionally) and more likely to get paid off by any decent pair or two pair in a fishy live game. With a one card straight on a board where there's already a well represented two card straight, even live donks may fold two pair against you.

Implied odds if you turn or river a 4 are quite terrible, and there is a significant chance in that case that you will end up folding the best hand.