Very unusual, straightforward, kinda passive game. 9 handed.

Tight/weak player limps utg...an unknown calls...I call in the cutoff with TJQK(with the QT). Button and small blind fold..big blind checks.

(4 players) Flop: 9 4 2 rainbow. One diamond(9)

Big blind and utg check, unknown bets, and somehow(for a reason unbeknownst to me) make this call. Big blind folds, utg calls.

(3 players) Turn: J

That's probably one of my best cards but I have zero indicators as to how strong/weak utg's fit actually is. He checks again, next guy bets, and, I'm pretty certain the bettor has a low draw/wheel draw, maybe a pair to go along with it(I'm really not certain).

Are we flatting here or raising our top pair and the open-ended straight flush draw? And why.

Comments are appreciated throughout but I'm really not that interested in my flop play despite it being a rather questionable choice.

I can't think of any card that would give you more scoop outs. It's the perfect card (out of 45 possibilities).

We're raising.

The reason we're raising is we have favorable fresh money odds to initiate money into the pot. Our opponents will collectively put two dollars into the pot for every dollar we put into the pot. At that rate, we only have to scoop one time in three to break even... and we figure to scoop more often than one time in three.

It's true that only the straight flush diamonds are sure things for us, but we should expect a card that makes a queen high diamond flush, a high straight, or a card that pairs the board will probably win for us. (Of these, a card that pairs the board seems the shakiest).

Of the unseen possibilities for the river, 5*3=15 low non-diamonds do not improve our hand. (Figure we simply fold if the river doesn't improve our hand). All the other cards improve our hand in some way, albeit perhaps not to a winner.
Thus 44-15=29 unseen possible river cards improve our hand in some way. Of these, 9 cards (eights plus low diamonds that don't pair the board) enable low while 20 cards do not enable low.

Figure if we win with one of the twenty high outs, we scoop. Figure if we win with one of the nine low outs, we split.

Figure two opponents are staying for the showdown if the river is a low card, but only one opponent is staying for the showdown if the river does not enable low. If there's no low, figure a scoop win here is worth 13 sb. It there is a low, figure a half pot win for high here is worth 5.5 sb. (I often use the approximation that a half pot win is worth 40% of what your opponents put in the pot).

But we don't count our own money that we get back when we win as won money.

You can only "win" what your opponents put into the pot. If you scoop, you get all of your own money back, but if you split, half of your money goes to an opponent.

Anyhow, if two opponents match the money you put into the pot, you're getting 2 to 1 fresh money odds. If you scoop one time in three and lose the other two times in three, you'll break even.

And you figure to do better than that.

Interesting, though, that the turn card can so improve your hand that you're an overwhelming favorite going into the river.

Wow! What a sensational turn card for Hero!

Buzz

Buzz...this was one of those "****, why didn't you raise the turn?!" situations for me. I think I got a little caught up with peeling on the flop that I fell asleep now that my gin card hit.

I hate to give the results of the hand as I don't want to appear to be results oriented, but, knowing that the utg player was very weak/tight, I absolutely should have NOT allowed him a cheap river with a hand that could've been a questionable call to begin with(flop). As you said, I'm getting 2 to 1 fresh money odds on the turn and even if they were both on low/straight draws, I'm still correct to raise here.

Your post solidified what I was thinking, so thanks.

Calling your flop call "a rather questionable choice", is pretty generous .

I'd also lean towards raising. But lots of the rivers are not good for you, so river play often sucks either way. Though it sucks less when HU than multiway, and when you raise turn and have the betting lead.
However the pros of flatting is that you're often more likely to get (more) value when hitting your high scooping river cards, and also you likely get more from them on things like low diamonds, if they weren't going to fold the turn anyway to your raise. And also you obv lose minimum when something like a 5x or Ax comes on the river and you face a bet.

I would raise, both to build the pot for when I do hit my hand and to make it more likely that I can win without a showdown (or get to showdown without having to call a river bet) when I don't.

As I understand Buzz's response, his calculations assume that both opponents will call the raise. They may, but the UTG player (who checked) may fold to your raise. And that could be a good thing.

Let's say the UTG player has a hand like A246, AA2x, or A2KK. With all of these hands, he has you beat for high right now, but he's likely to read your turn raise as a flopped set, or top two pair anyway. Even with a hand like A25x, if he thinks the bettor has the nut-low draw, he may fold to your raise. Now when a pair comes on the river—or when a 3 comes, which would have given the UTG player a wheel but actually counterfeits the bettor's nut-low draw—your two pair or trips could be the best high hand remaining.

And even when it's not, you've set yourself up perfectly to bluff the river. Let's say the original bettor has a hand like A35J. He's ahead of you for high on the turn. But if a 2, 4, or 9 comes on the end, he will most likely check, and when you bet, you've made it harder for him to call (with his Jacks up, better kicker) by representing a flopped set with your turn raise. So you may be able to pick up a few more scoop outs by raising the turn.

Alternatively, let's say the bettor is on a low draw/straight draw combo, with something like A35x or A36x. He will certainly call your raise on the turn. But now when the river brings a low card that doesn't also give him a straight, he may simply check, fearing that he's up against another nut low and could be getting quartered. You can then check behind with your unimproved pair of Jacks and potentially win the high half of the pot without having to call a bet on the end.

So what actually happened in the hand?

Good points.

By raising, assuming anyone calls Hero's raise, Hero loses one more big bet, the big bet it costs to raise (because Hero folds to a bet if the river is a non-diamond five or a non-diamond ace).

I thought they probably would. (It's a fixed-limit game). But if they don't, Hero gets some fold equity, which may be good for Hero. I was thinking that and should have written it.

Good point. UTG can't know if seeing the river will cost him two big bets or possibly four big bets and may opt out to the raise.

But for only a single bet he may be getting great odds to close out the action. Do we want to give him what are probably great odds to call? (I think not). Let's try to make him put in more than he should to continue. I think it's a mistake to allow an opponent favorable odds to continue.

I think so too.

Two pairs or trips probably has a better chance against one opponent than against two opponents.

Interesting idea. Not what I'd generally do, but might be a good play against certain skitterish opponents.

Buzz

i call.
where's this game at?

Its close, we only want to raise if it stays multiway, but not getting more money in if it stays multiway costs us more so I'd raise

Buzz - how come you don't account for the 7.5sb already in the pot before the turn? I get the 2-to-1 fresh money odds calculations, but it seems like you would need to be good only about 20% of the time here to make raising correct. x% of the time you win $300 + $160 + $160, and (1-x)% of the time you lose $160, so x is about 20%. This leaves out the 8s and low diamonds where splits are possible, and other scenarios like getting called by lower straights/worse flushes, so it isn't precise by any means.


I would have said to call to keep it multiway and get more value on the river when a high card hits and lose less when it doesn't like HV mentioned, but monikrazy's math has convinced me that raising is better.

Betting doesn't change your equity in the pot. Assuming no one folds, the pot's size is irrelevant.

Because assuming nobody folds, that money already belongs to whomever is destined to win the pot.

You only need to be good 20% of the time to call.

Agreed.

I advocated raising, but against certain opponents, Hero might optimize his play by merely calling here. (But I still prefer raising here).

Meh. (shrug).

Buzz

Irrelevant to what? It sounds like you are saying that since your equity is exactly x% when you have no fold equity, pot size doesn't matter. But certainly x% equity of (4bb) is different from the same x% equity of (4bb + 7.5sb).


If you call, you win $300 + $80 + $80, right? And then you lose the $80 on an unfavorable river. So x% you win $460 and (x-1)% you lose $80, which is x ~ 15%. Again, I'm simplifying the scenario so it assumes no more money goes in on the river - you fold to low non-diamonds and they fold to high cards.

Pot size is relevant to the decision of whether or not to fold. It is irrelevant to the decision between calling and raising (if you assume no one will fold because of your raise).

That sounds like pot size would be relevant if they will fold to your raise, which doesn't make sense to me either. This is starting to seem like a discussion I've been in before, so I'll have to go back and look at some of my older posts.

Irrelevant to your odds for raising.

There are seven small bets plus the small blind in the pot after the first two betting rounds. That amounts to $300. This is the third betting round. I don't know about the $80+$80 because the betting won't be over until the end of the fourth betting round. (I think you'll actually win another $80 with a favorable card on the river because I think your opponent will be "stuck in the pot" because of the size of the pot and will call your river bet). But OK, I'll accept your $460 as how much you'll win.

No. x% you win $460 and (100-X)% you lose $80.

Or you could use fractions and say x you'll win $460 and (1-x) you'll lose $80.

I don't follow. That doesn't look correct to me.

I wouldn't do that, but OK.

A 20% chance of winning means you expect to win one time in five and lose the other four times in five. Right?

Suppose
a. you have a 20% chance of scooping the whole pot,
b. there will be $460 in the pot at the showdown,
c. the bet to you is $80, and
d. that's your last $80.

If there will be $460 in the pot on the river, then the one time in five you win, you will win $460. And the four times you lose, you will lose a total of $320. Since you will win more dollars than you will lose, you have favorable odds to call.

But if
a. you only expect to win one time in five,
b. you only win $80 more when you win, and
c. it costs you $80 to raise,
then the four times out of five you lose, you'll lose a total of $320 more (than if you had not bet) and the one time you win, you'll only win $80 more.

If you only expect to win one time in five, to do more than call, you need four opponents putting an equal amount of fresh money into the pot.

Thus there can be enough money already in the pot so that you have favorable odds to call, while at the same time you have unfavorable odds to raise. That's being "stuck in the pot," and it's fairly common in fixed-limit poker, albeit rarer in pot-limit or no-limit poker.

Buzz

Exactly! And that's a better way of phrasing the concept than the words I chose. Thanks.

Exactly!

Buzz

That is correct; pot size would be relevant if they may fold to your raise.

For an extreme example:

If there is only a 1% chance both other players will fold to your raise, under most cases this would be negligible. But if the pot was somehow $100,000 (Super Splash Pot day of the century!), it would be a mandatory raise just for the 1% of the time that you could win the pot uncontested.

You are right - I was using (100-x)% in my calcs but didn't show it as that here. So the x~15% is just the equity needed to make a +EV call in my scenario.

Well, you win $160 more since there's 2 opponents, but you're right that it's still a bad bet.


So it wouldn't really ever be relevant in limit, but I get your point.

I was calculating that you don't need 33% equity to make raising +EV because of the dead money, but the point is it's not better than calling, so it's a useless calculation. You would think raising i/o calling would be my leak at FLO8 instead of the other way around...

It wouldn't be relevant in limit if there is only a 1% chance opponents will fold, but there will usually be a higher chance than that. And even getting one of two opponents to fold can improve one's equity significantly.

Wondering what's our action if it becomes 3 bets back to hero on the turn, whether heads up or three way? Slow down time? Or 4-bet it?

Flat call and hope to improve on the end.

The main thing is not to fold.

But whether to slow down or 4-bet, I think, depends on the specific opponent who has 3-bet.

If he's a solid player who wouldn't 3-bet without a solid draw, some of our outs that looked good against passive play don't look as good. For example, we counted diamonds as winners but in the face of this new information, maybe they're not. Against such a player, I'd just call.

But if the 3-bettor is known for over-betting his hands, then maybe I'd jam. (Or maybe I'd back off).

Buzz

<insert Bovada joke here>. Agreed, but if we raise and get at least 2 calls, any call on the river will be getting better than 10:1, so you'd have to have a pretty good read on such a dynamic flop to consider folding. Obviously there is some fold equity here when the low misses on the river, especially considering Rush's read on the bettor.

My read on the bettor was nut low/wheel draw. I had no idea what utg had.

My thinking, if I'm going to try and justify peeling this flop even a little bit, then I should allow myself the best possible chance to win it, and imo, that should've been with a raise thrown in there on the turn.

I can't allow utg to draw cheaply and hit an accidental two pair while he's holding a non nut low draw and a smallish pair(those hands/situations come up all the time, but, the way you put a stop to that, especially when your opponents aren't really loose, is to raise when you hit what you believe is the best hand and give yourself a much better shot to scoop or to take half, at worst).

Even if after my raise utg doesnt fold, or even if it gets reraised...I still have plenty of scoop outs anyway.

The bottom line: I don't want to HAVE to make a five card hand in order to win the pot. I want to put in one more big bet in hopes of(not just getting half) but to scoop.



Another reason why I dont think that flatting the turn is correct, is because, the implied odds when I do hit my hand aren't really there as much as some of you may think they are; if my read on the bettor is nut low/wheel draw, then not too many of my winning rivers are going to be cards that either one of them are going to call me with, so imo, I might as well be looking to just win it right there(ott) or at least, TRY to. Calling is almost never the correct play when you're contemplating between a call and a raise.

Utg had AA w/ two bananas and took the high when the river brought a low and both players checked.