I think that's a hugely losing play. I think if I posted calling down a bet and a raise, or betting and calling down with ace high, you'd say I'm crazy. You'd say villain probably has a set or 2-pair, and you might fold to a turn raise :-). Easier to say line is fos when you know the cards, but I've played my sets and two-pairs this way for the better part of my stupid poker career (which I agree was stupid, but which means the line is actually far from bs for this level) and so do a ton of other people :-).

If people are folding for one bet that frequently in larger pots, i would say fire away, even with draws worse than this one.

You know this game/table more than any of the posters here do. If you know this line works as lolslowplayed monster OTB, what's the point of posting this thread?

As last to act, I would have called you with any pair.

It's obviously situation-dependent. In a 4-8 game again unknowns I obviously wouldn't do this. In a lot of games I play in, check back flop raise turn is frequently a bluff or some stupid hand that is not committed to showing down. In most games I play, it is unusual to check back a set - people frequently "slowplay" them by calling rather than raising on the flop, but it is unusual for people to check back a set in position. I certainly would not say that most players do it.

I'm also not going to do this with second or third pair - I'm doing it with hands that have lots of outs but zero showdown value UI.

[QUOTE=nir2024;44207068]What percentage do you think I need to win the 11 big bets in order for that to be more profitable?

This calculation is a mathematical cluster **** that escapes my abilities. Let's use my estimate of 20% overlay on a turn call. That means that a bluff has to offer us 20% overlay to be just as profitable as calling. This overlay will come in the form of money that's already in the pot, our draw equity, and fold equity at frequencies determined by the opponent's calling and folding frequencies.

[(equitywhencalled)(callingfreq)(potwhencalled)+(fo ldequity)(foldfreq)(potwhenfolded)] = your pot share

then subtract your investment from your pot share and you find your total profit.

So if we assume 34% equity, 50% fold frequency for the big blind, and 40% fold frequency for the other guy, we find:

(.34)(.8)(11.5) + (1)(.2)(9.5) = 5.028 big bets of your pot share

5.028 - 2 = 3.028 big bets of profit by raising the turn in isolation.

Let's look at lower folding frequencies for our opponents. We'll give the big blind 30% fold frequency and the other guy 30% fold frequency.

(.3)(.3) = .09

(.34)(.91)(11.5) + (1)(.09)(9.5) = 4.4131 big bets of your pot share

4.4131 - 2 = 2.4131 big bets of profit. Perhaps I was wrong with my original response as this seems like an excellent result compared to just calling.

This model isn't perfect though because the opponent's calling are not independent events. This is just a rough simplification.

First, THANK YOU for going through all that hard work! I am way worse at math than you, so I'll have to take your word for it. It did occur to me that even if they fold 10 percent of rivers, that's an extra 11 big bets that I've won by putting in 2 extra bets. Add to that that 30 percent of the time I may have gotten extra bets I wouldn't have (one assumes a call on the turn, but it is harder to assume two calls on the river when my card hits) and it almost seems obvious. But wait, isn't that what our calculation should be? if they fold roughly 2 out of 11 times, that's immediately extra value from the play. Then if we add the extra value from hitting (do you agree there is extra value there?), it seems they would have to fold even less frequently. But then there is a big argument over what they would fold. I often check-raise turned big draws because I get insta-folds and frequently don't show down, but people seem to think this hand is an obvious bluff (not what the table thought, clearly)

50 & 40 percent combined = 20 percent?

Thank you -- I know my mathematical reasoning is extremely weak.

Partly to discover that it may very well not work elsewhere (I had no idea you guys read that line as weak in other players -- that's extremely useful information against opponents of your kind). Partly for the math question. They clearly won't fold every time, and they clearly fold some of the time , but I didn't know what percentage of the time they need to fold for it to work...

If they check one of the six combos of 777 or 555 on the button in a 6 Way raised pot they get my last $12.

I agree that there's extra value to be had on the river. I just think there's more implied odds on the river when we just call. You're right about the relationship between implied odds and bluffing frequency. I think it's a rather astute observation on your part.

Yeah, 50% of 40% is 20%. So if the big blind folds 10% of the time and the other guy folds 10% of the time, to figure out how often they both fold, you multiply them together:

10% of 10% = .01 or 1%

Maybe you're right. Maybe the guy keeps betting if a third club or a 9 hits (though if he has a ten and an ace hits he is usually checking), but in that case every time the other guy folds (50 % of the time, when we are still behind and he hasn't shown too much strength?) all we get is the 2 bets the turn-raise would have given us. If we get paid off 80 percent of the time by one player on the river (I doubt both players call very often), then those hands got us 1 extra bet. and are in fact a wash in the case that we do trap one player for an extra-bet (unless you envision both players calling two big-bets on the river? I don't see the limper ever calling the raise when the BB called it)
What do you think? Where is the extra value coming from? (do you see the turn bettor three-betting us some times? another player hitting a flush and raising?)

Since you seem to think that you have a lot of fold equity with a raise, then I think it's intuitive that you're getting called less often when you raise the turn compared to calling.

What would you raise preflop in this spot? I think this is a much more important takeaway from this hand than the present discussion because most of us here on this forum, if not all of us, would raise this hand preflop and many other hands that you're probably calling with in similar spots.

Good points ( I still can't raise qj PF when I see a tight player in early position. I realize that's stupid, but I am a cowardly cowardly man :-) ).

AK-AQ, JJ+ (not tens or 9's, though I raise those from EP/MP) , KQs (and when table is fairly loose, KQ).

You??

I'd raise 88+, ATo, A2s+, KJo, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T8s+, 97s+, 87s.

If 3 bet by a blind or a limp 3 bettor, then I'm capping or 4 betting 88+, AKo, ATs+, KJs+, QJs, JTs.

Raising suited connectors seems bananas to me :-) (which probably makes it the right play :-)) -- so many loose hands have an edge over yours, you fold post-flop so often, why put in the extra bet?

As for 88+ , what do you then do with all the flops that put two overcards to your pair -- just fold em when there's action?

Let's say that there are four other players in the pot. This means you're getting 4:1 on your raise. You only need to win the hand 20% of the time to show a profit on a preflop raise.

Two overcards to my pair on the flop? I'm estimating a range for my opponent and estimating my equity. Then I compare that estimated equity to the price I'm getting. If I'm getting a good price, or if my equity exceeds my %investment in the pot, then I call. If I'm getting a bad price, or if my %investment exceeds my equity, then I fold unless I think implied odds make up for the immediate loss.

Yeah 4 betting with suited connectors seems crazy at first, but with experience you'll learn to love playing in bloated pots in position in 5+ way pots.

How often do you think you will win the pot without showdown? If you have a reasonable chance to win on the river by betting again rasing turn is significantly more profitable than it would seem

The preflop raiser raised and 4bet AT high on a KK23 board yesterday after checking behind the flop 4 ways. 8/16 game. So there's that (and, in all fairness, he had the best hand ).

Haha -- what'd you have??

Yeah, that was my understanding -- I imagined a 10-20 percent fold rate, which isn't too generous in a table where 30 % of hands did not show down. What fold ratio would you need to make the raise there?

I will actually get 36 dollars from you :-). You would be a good player to slow-play against, which is bad for you because players love to slow-play their big hands...