Thanks.

I appreciate the advice coming from someone more experienced in pot-limit play than I am.

This would be an easy play for me in a tournament, either fixed-limit, pot-limit, or no-limit. With Hero's hand after this flop, I'd simply check/fold. (For me, the most important consideration in tournaments has been survival).

But in a cash game, when everyone but CO has folded before the flop, it feels exploitable and a leak to be check/folding here.

Playing fixed-limit, I prefer putting pressure on CO, who probably doesn't like this JJ2 flop much. By betting after this flop, I'm utilizing "the right of first bluff." CO will usually fold, and when he doesn't, I can deal with that. If I get caught bluffing, then I'll probably get paid off more when I have the goods.

But pot-limit is a different ball game. I'll have to re-think this. Anyhow, thanks for your advice.

Buzz

Certainly, weak players will fold to your bet much more than they should. The biggest issue in the strategy you describe is that your checks become too weak and he can attack them with his full range. If you always start with a check, your range remains strong.

on flops where there does not change a lot on turn (call it dry flops or w/e) you can use a simple rule that it is a bad idea to bet oop when you dont have a range vs range equity advantages.

Yep. I'd basically never lead this flop with any hand. (in a cash game)
Yep.
Yep.

Much easier to stay balanced checking your whole range there.

You didn't specify nut low, so I was just pointing out that any low was better than 1 in 7. But we're not really trying to get to showdown with the nut low here as OmahaDonk said, so any equity works.

You mention multiple opponents a couple of times, but I'm only referring to this hand where we are HU.

You also talk about paying for 2 more rounds and how that factors into your difficulty with equity, but like omybike posted earlier, it is (or should be) unlikely that Villain will barrel on a low turn. That is my assumption as well, so I'm not figuring on having to pay on the turn at least. Again, specific to this hand.

Yes, I mean check/raise. I used to usually check/fold here but now I'm more likely to check/raise. But I'm with amok - never betting this flop.

Ah.

And you're right, it is.

I see, for example, Hero possibly ending up with 8432A for low with Villain possibly unable to make a better low... and thus the 8A combo adds to Hero's equity (and then Hero would also have jacks and treys with an ace kicker for high... and that also adds to Hero's equity). Part of my difficulty would be assigning an equity to Hero's hand on the river facing a pot sized bet from Villain if Hero did have, say, 8432A for low and JJ33A for high. Villain probably wouldn't have everything, but neither would he need much.

I shouldn't have done that. I might be able to tell you what I was thinking, but it doesn't matter.

It does. The idea of equity is fine, of course, but my difficulty is knowing Hero's equity without knowing Villain's cards. (And even if I did know Villain's cards, I think I'd have trouble assessing Hero's equity... but that's my problem... no reason for it to hang you up).

Hero checked and subsequently Villain bet the flop.
• If Hero just calls Villain's flop bet, it's not at all clear to me what Villain will do after the turn, low card or no. So I don't like Hero check/calling the flop.
• (I don't like check/folding either).
• If Hero check/raises the flop, then does Hero check the turn?

Thanks for explaining.

I like that better than check/fold, but it's scary too.

You and everyone else, I think. I have to re-think this some more.

Thanks for your reply.

Buzz

Well, if you bet the flop, you're doing it under the assumption that you have enough equity to do so, right? I think just assessing whether you have enough equity - whether you're betting, check-calling or check-raising - is all that is needed here.

I would probably bet a club or an 8 on the turn. I would probably check/call almost everything else, although I expect Villain to mostly check the turn as well.

When you bet flop and Villain calls, how would you play the turn?

Not really. I'm not even thinking about equity. I'm trying to read my opponent. What my equity is after the flop is entirely dependent on what my opponent's holding is. If I bet a (J2)J flop when holding A(83)2, I'm hoping my opponent will fold. (He's not likely to be holding a jack or a pair of deuces). But now I'm having second thoughts about betting the flop in a pot-limit game. I can see how I can get in trouble betting the flop in pot-limit. (Pretty hard for me to get in trouble betting the flop in fixed-limit).

I see equity as the amount of money in the pot multiplied by my chance of winning. For example, if there is $100 in the pot and I have a 33% chance of winning, then my equity is $33.

But to me equity is an unknown number because without knowing what cards Villain holds, I cannot know what my % chance of winning is. For example, if there is $100 in the pot and I have an X% chance of winning, then my equity is $100X... ie. unknown to me.

In other words I'm thinking of equity as a number. I don't see how I can use equity without knowing the number.

You tell me what Hero's equity is after a flop of (J2)J, if holding A(83)2. I honestly wouldn't have the foggiest idea.

In a fixed-limit game I would bet in order to try to read Villain's reaction. (That's obviously tricky and very dependent on the particular opponent). As stated, I'm aware this is pot-limit and currently thinking playing pot-limit is entirely different from playing fixed-limit. Well... I always knew it was different.

In addition, this post involves a hand played on bovada, an on-line site. But most of my poker is played sitting at the table looking at my opponents... and that's clearly quite different from playing strangers on a computer site. (I've played computer poker but prefer live play... to each his own).

OK. That makes sense to me.

Warily, but not necessarily cautiously... still trying to get a read.

In a fixed-limit game, for me it's very opponent dependent and read dependent. In a pot-limit game I'm currently thinking maybe betting the flop is not such a good idea.

Thanks for replying.

Buzz

Well, I would counter that you are since you are hoping he will fold (i.e. think he has less equity than you), but I guess just a difference in terminology.


I can understand that you associate equity with a specific %/$; as do I when I'm analyzing hands at a later time. But when I'm in the hand, I see it as a much more abstract concept. So in this specific hand:

1. do I have split-pot equity with my low? Yes.
2. do I have fold equity to scoop the pot on a dry board against someone who c-bets at a high % (and I assume relatively deep-stacked, though OP doesn't say)? Yes. This is essentially the equity you are counting on when betting the flop, though I'm not sure you see it that way.

Others explained the specifics better than I but the point is I don't know the exact equity I have either; I just need to know if it seems to be enough to play the hand. That's how I use equity while sitting at the table at any rate.


According to propokertools (if I did it right), you have 39% equity against a top 25% hand without a J or 2. I would have guessed it would be right around 33%, with about 1/2 of that coming from our 'nut low/any low' calculations previously. Since I'm not thrilled with trying to get to showdown with 33%ish $ equity (and that's only if I know he doesn't have a J or 2), I either fold or look for ways to increase my equity. Fold equity seems a good way to do that to me. Though I think I get the idea behind calling so as to not cap your range, so I feel like maybe I should be check/calling instead.

Certainly you don't need to think quite this way for fixed limit, where true $ equity matters more. And if you can read your opponents better than I can calculate my equity, I imagine you'll keep doing fine.

OK.

Actually I'm hoping he'll fold a hand with more equity than my hand. But since I'd rather not continue, I suppose I hope he'll fold any hand whether he has more equity or not.

Ah.

"Fold equity" is unfamiliar to me.

I understand that if I think my opponent will fold to a bet 30% of the time in a $100 pot, then I have $30 in "fold equity." But I don't quite see how to use that. I mean, what does it matter whether I have $20 in fold equity or $40 in fold equity. And without extensive statistical data, I'd have trouble knowing the percentage of the time my opponent will fold. Moreover, wouldn't whether my opponent folded or not depend on his particular cards and how well they fit with the flop... and that's what is impossible for me to know when the flop is (J2)J and I'm holding A(83)2. I guess I need to think about that some more.

Ah. Thank you.

Since you must always have some fold equity, always betting must increase your overall equity.

I would usually bet this (J2)J flop, with or without a jack. But I wouldn't be thinking I was increasing my equity by doing so... but OK, semantics.

That seems the prevailing view.

Does it? Whether it does or not, I don't like check/calling, except as a change of pace, after this flop in fixed-limit. Maybe it's my playing style.

Thanks.

Buzz

Well, he'll only fold it if he thinks he has less equity, so maybe that's how I should have worded it.

Not necessarily - as the SPR goes down, so does your fold equity. i.e. if he just has a pot-size bet left after he leads the flop here, there's little to no chance he folds when you raise, so you don't have any fold equity. That's why I'm only assuming that was not the case here, but if it was then that would change my line.

Interesting way to look at it. Makes sense.

That makes sense too.

Buzz

I understand and like the reasons for c/r on this flop. What turns are we barreling?

My choice would probably be any 4-8 and the 9,T,Q,K of clubs. Does anyone like giving up on the 4-8 of spades (even though we will have many full houses in our range)?

Are we always betting river when we brick? Bricks will higher cards and change the nuts. Will we be going with a larger size (rapping a very polarized range) or a smaller size since the nuts have changed and he need to be more merged, yet giving the villain a better price?

I know these are newb questions but I'm trying to get some fundamental concepts down. TIA.