I don't understand the rationale for checking the flop. It's true in that gigantic pot a bet doesn't protect our hand but it doesn't get value for it either. Are we checking back a safe turn too? If so, we're opening ourselves up for a checkraise on the TURN which is more expensive and DOES give the "creative" villains a chance to protect their hands. And now we've given gutshots, 6-out draws like 2 overs and 5-out hands like second and third pair TWO free cards if they DON'T checkraise us.

Why bother coldcalling pre if we're going to fold TPTK on a safe board?

Nvm your last post daltx.
You play the hand great and asmitty has it right

Check. Are you trying to get x/r by KK on every street?

I'd like to re-open the discussion about whether or not the villain was correct to check the flop, regardless of what he limp-3betted.

In his case, I *think* he checked hoping the WTFcapper would bet and was disappointed he didn't, and wanted to fistpump that of all the players at the table the button (me) bet, giving him the chance to face everyone with 2 bets cold.

But let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the WTFcapper WTFcoldcalled instead, and UTG went to the flop as the PF aggressor. Are there *any* value hands he's checking the flop with? I can't imagine checking the flop with any hand that has any chance whatsoever to win the hand.

The more players there are in the hand, the worse checking the flop with strong hands becomes.
I'm gonna be a bit picky with your wording if you don't mind.

The bold is problematic. You're rarely drawing dead; Think about the profitability of checking and calling bets with sub 25% equity hands in four way pots. Like if the preflop aggressor here checks the flop and ends up with a backdoor nut flushdraw and some decent top pair and or second pair outs. That adds up to a decent overlay coming from the preflop investments when you check call; check calling also has the hidden benefit of the admittedly small chance of the street checking through. How sweet is hitting top pair with overcards for free in a huge pot? It's somewhere between all natural honey comb straight outta the hive, or apple cyder imo.

Compare that with betting. I think about betting that hand and broccoli comes to mind. It's not quite horrible, but it's not a 12 oz steak or anything.

You're right Bob. I perhaps could have said, "I can't imagine checking the flop with any hand that has any chance whatsoever to be the best hand at the time."

For another, separate example, let's say for the sake of argument that UTG+1 limp-WTFCapped AA, and UTG donked into him on the flop. Is *that* a spot where it might be smarter to wait until the turn to raise? With about 21sb in the pot after a UTG+1 raise the villains are still going to be correct to call with gutshots and second- or third-pair type hands.

But if we wait for the turn to raise we'll be looking at (if my math is right) forcing the field to coldcall two big bets into a 15BB pot - now the gutshots and second-pair type hands do NOT have immediate odds (though in that huge pot where nobody's going to fold anything they might have IMPLIED odds).

Hope that made sense.

I see A3s, J9s, and 56s sometimes as well. Also, the back cap from the other player is like 0% AA/KK.

WTF? I don't understand the action of this hand from OP's post. But if I understand the flop right, it's a bet-3-bet. And I don't think I've ever posted anything that would imply otherwise.

UTG limp-reraised and as I understand, that's AA/KK 99% of the time.

Absent reads I'd say its more like AA 80% of the time KK 10% of the time and 10% spaz. After they check the flop with that many players I'm especially curious.

Oh OK. Hand was hard to understand as posted.

Why is it curious that he checked the flop? Wouldn't it be standard to hope the WTFcapper bets? Or would it be better to bet and hope the WTFcapper raises?

wtf-cappers almost never c-bet because their hand is usually garbage.

One of the reason I asked the question I asked in post #29 is because it's similar to an example I saw in a book. In Mason Malmuth's book "Real Poker Psychology" on pages 23-24 he describes a hand where the hero had QJs in early position, the flop came Q72r, the hero bet-bet-bet and lost to a baby two pair. Malmuth says the hero played his hand WRONG.

I asked him about it and he said the answer was in Hold'em Poker for Advanced Players in the section Playing in Loose Games.

In the Loose Games section of that book, and in as few words as possible for the moment, he says that one of the "problems" with building large pots before the flop is that you make it correct for villains to call flop bets with bottom pair or even a gutshot, so if there's an opportunity to make a move where you can face villains with two bets cold on the flop that can sometimes be better. I'm oversimplifying of course but the examples seemed more extreme than a simple flopping of top pair.

Before going into those other examples, I'd like to discuss the QJs hand. I am limping that in early position in a no fold'em game. I know others like lawdude or Bob148 or possibly jdr0317 would raise that in early position, but in my games I'm limping it.

So I get 5 callers including both blinds and it's checked to me on the Q72r flop. If I bet, the first villain is faced with 7 to 1 odds, if he calls the next is getting 8 to 1 etc etc etc. Doesn't a gutshot (4 outs) need about 11 to 1 odds, bottom or second pair (5 outs) need about 9 to 1 etc? How could betting out here POSSIBLY be incorrect?

Now let's say lawdude or Bob148 raise QJs in early position, get two coldcallers and both blinds. Now the first villain is getting 11 to 1, then 12 to 1 etc. So they're actually CORRECT to call with their bottom pairs, gutshots, and close with their naked As or Ks. But who cares? At a PASSIVE table where you're not likely to get someone else to bet for you why risk losing an entire street of value?

I think Mason's position is silly. You raise QJs, you get a bunch of callers, and you flop Q72r. It's true- these callers are probably going to get the right price to chase down their 5 out draws (if they have them) all the way down to the river.

But you know what? I'm an 80-20 favorite against each of those 5 out draws. And that assumes nobody covers someone else's outs. If someone has J7, or two opponents have 87 and 76, I'm getting even more than an 80-20 price.

And further, I'm also getting calls in that no fold'em game from hands I completely crush like 66 and 88. Not to mention perhaps even some players chasing backdoor draws like 98s with a backdoor flush draw.

All those people are putting Sklansky dollars into my pot.

Mason apparently thinks it is a tragedy that some of the time I will lose the hand because someone hits their draw. But most of the time I will win the hand putting in lots of money as a 60 or 70 or 80 percent favorite.

My thoughts exactly lawdude.

With all of that said, I can see that there are RARE instances where "start shoveling chips into the pot as soon as possible" is NOT the right play, and I think that the "Two Overpair Hands" and "When a raise will not protect your hand" sections in SSHE do a much better job of explaining them than the HEPFAP book does.

One other example in HEPFAP that I'm having a really hard time agreeing with is on page 167. In that book they say that with KK or QQ in the BB, if there is a raise from early position and several (let's say 4 including the SB) coldcallers, just call from the BB, bet out on the flop (unless it contains an ace) and let the PF aggressor raise and give everyone the wrong odds to call. At least in the games *I* play, I can't imagine this being the correct play. If I 3-bet QQ or KK from the BB, the raiser might WTFcap it for me. Also, in the games I play, a PFR who gets donked into usually slows down unless he has a monster himself.

Personally, if I have a chance to build an 18- or 24-small-bet pot before the flop and it's usually only going to cost me 5sb to get to showdown, and I have a hand like QQ that has massive equity 6 ways, just calling HOPING to get someone else to raise the flop feels like FPS.

I'm open to being told I'm wrong.

You are right.

Once again, at Winstar this IS NOT THE CASE. Players L/RR with all sorts of random and spec hands for the sole sake of upping the juice. Perhaps it's different at other casinos, it's certainly different online. But if you haven't played 4/8 at Winstar please stop saying it's a monster every time, because it's not true.

This is the correct attitude. The alternative is that you check and offer the players infinite odds to outdraw you. You might check if you really, really thought someone would bet and allow you to check-raise (either for value or to get the pot heads up... both can be good and it depends on who the villain is and so forth).

The updated section for loose games in HPFAP was never really seen as a strong section by a lot of players. Even at the time it was written, there were people who saw some weaknesses in the advice. Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold'em was a massive improvement for dealing with loose games.

I can't see how this could possibly be correct. Yes, you aren't a favorite versus the field, but being able to 3 bet 6 ways w/ 35%-40% equity is a money print. Plus, there's no guarantee you'd even want a raise when holding QQ/KK v. an UTG opponent at these limits, as I'm not particularly thrilled w/ JJ if someone bets into 5 people on T82r

One of the more unexplored leaks in poker is the fear of losing on the river. Psychological studies show that loss-aversion is much stronger than the desire for gains. This is why people could oppose Obamacare when enacted, and then oppose taking it away once it was law.

So some players (including perhaps some authors) approach a situation like this and say "OMG, I've got to protect my hand and stop them from sucking out" rather than simply thinking about getting maximum value over the long term.

This issue comes up in no limit even more. Players will flop, say, top pair and overbet the pot because there are flush and straight draws out there, forcing opponents to fold. They don't realize how much money you make all the times you get them to peel with those draws and miss, because it's so frustrating for many players when you are in the lead and then they hit.

Agreed. Obvious math example is that KK has around 82% equity versus QQ preflop, which is about the same as it has against QhTh on Jh3h5d-2s. Yet if you make a 3 bet pre in NL and get QQ to call when at a bigger price, it would've folded, then a lot of players intuitively know they did a good thing, even if the flop has a queen on it. But on the turn, they'd much rather just "take the money" versus have someone call for their 19.3% shot. It is an emotional reaction to have invested so much money, and been so far in front, only to get rivered in a large pot. Obviously this is an extreme case, but if you'll always play river perfectly (never put a cent in when behind), you'd so much rather them call your 60% PSB versus fold to your PSB. Sometimes they even river top pair and you can stick another big bet out there for them to call. If they call with bad odds and hit, oh well.

This is why I think a lot of top players are total variance-boxes; they'll take huge situations where they may win less often, but win much much more when they hit.

People also get emotionally triggered when picking up or making a big hand. KK+ only happens once every 110.5 hands, or over 3 hours of live play at even a fast acting 20/40 table. Then when you do enter a pot, it's hard to make a big hand like 2 pair plus. So people get dealt their KK and decide that they're going to win this pot, because their marginal utility isn't linear ($3 won in a $1/$2 game isn't 1/100th as good as $300, it's more like 1/10th). So they play their hand in such a way where the only difference between it and, say, 72o, is that the hand they have blocks hands that can continue against them.

Yes if you can engineer a scenario where you have KK and someone else has AJ and the flop is J72r and you can fold them out while still being in the lead, that's great, but the money in LHE comes from getting them to makes calls and raises with AJ and punishing them to hit on of their five outs against you.

The problem in no limit is even worse, as players tend not to think about the problems they're in when they put in those big bets AND get called. In trying to win a small pot by putting a lot of money in, they inadvertently put themselves in a world of hurt a non-trivial amount of the time. This is because when they get called, they basically always have the worst hand, and they're usually setting themselves up for a turn shove and lose a big pot.

Just spitballing numbers here: Suppose that there's a $50 pot and someone bets $100 to win it. And lets say that 90% of the time they just pick it up. But the 10% of the time they get called, they're crushed. Let's not even think about extra action.

90% of the time they win $50 --> +$45 EV
10% of the time they lose $100 --> -$10 EV
Total profit = $35 EV
Percent of hands lost = 10%

Now let's say that they bet $25. They get called 50% of the time, but when they're called they still win 50% of the time. Again, ignoring future action...

50% of the time they win $50 --> +$25 EV
50% of 50% of the time, they win $75 --> +$18.75 EV
50% of 50% of the time, they lose $25 --> -$6.25 EV
Total profit = $37.50 EV
Percent of hands lost = 25%

(This is an improvement of about 7% equity, which is fairly significant.)

Obviously, numbers pulled out of thin air and not looking at turn/river action may not exactly correspond to reality, but this illustrates the idea. You win money when players call with weaker hands, EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE ODDS TO DO IT. Yes, it means you lose more hands, but it also means you win more money. (And money is what matters.)