$40/80

This was part of a 7 handed rotation game. We're on the Omaha8 round.

I'm in the big blind with A297 rainbow.

UTG raises (tight player), followed by a call from another relatively tight player, the small blind folds and I call.

Ok, so 3 to the flop of:

348

I check, and it goes: bet, raise.

Easy fold?

imo yeah fold

The only way you can fold is if you think you're going to get seriously whipsawed on later streets. If it's likely to just cost the 3 big bets to call down, you will come out slightly ahead even when you are getting quartered. And you are almost certainly getting quartered. But calling down to quarter a 3-way pot is at worst a small mistake, while folding the small amount of the time where you would get half is a disaster.

Do we gain anything by leading the flop? What if I lead and then it gets raised or three bet? Or, are we trying to keep the pot small and thus, is c/c a better line? Note again, both players were tight but not so tight that they'd miss value on their nut low+pair hand(s) and/or their semi bluffs.

Good question.

After the flop, UTG bets and "relatively tight player" (I'll call him "RTP") raises.

There's a possibility in my mind (not knowing your opponents) that RTP is trying to isolate UTG after BB (you) checks. That is, after you check this flop, we don't know if RTP's raise is motivated by some great fit with this flop, a desire to play this hand one-on-one with UTG, or both.

That RTP is "relatively tight" doesn't mean he's incapable of raising to isolate.

Hard to say what happens if you lead. If UTG raises and then RTP makes it three bets, it seems less likely RTP is raising to isolate. Still hard to know for sure. Would UTG raise and RTP re-raise if they suspected you had A2**?

UTG raised before the flop and RTP called. Why did UTG raise and why did RTP call preflop? Does the preflop raise and subsequent call have more to do with the quality of your opponent's hands or is that the norm?

After this flop, we obviously don't want to be in this hand at all if one or both opponents also has A2**. Seven handed, I think the probability of getting fractionated (quartered or sixthed) for low is about 30%. That's high enough to seriously consider the danger of getting fractionated for low. (~28% quartered and ~2% sixthed, I think).

Hero has a playable, but not great, starting hand (lacks high card strength and counterfeit protection) and then gets a playable, but not great flop (diamond draw, no pair for Hero). Hero should prefer to be the one making the moves rather than the one reacting to them. But that's not what is happening here.

I would have bet this flop. And that possibly would have avoided this dilemma.

Meh.

Noted.

This is a tough spot.

Buzz

I agree, betting the flop probably would've been better; I think it may have put some doubt in RTP's hand and thus, he may have actually just called the flop opposed to trying to get me to fold.

UTG bet with his A2 and RTP raised with A34T(for bottom two pair). Had I chose to bet instead, I'm pretty sure he doesn't raise and there's a possibility(albeit a small possibility perhaps) that he actually just tosses it in the muck.

Also, by leading, it sometimes sends a signal to the other lock low to check the river when he fails to make a high hand. Naturally, I wouldn't say that a lock low should/will check the river and the turn (because there's still draws to make, pairs to spike etc., plus you'll lose too much value) but it usually winds up softening the blow a little bit when we wind up getting quartered.


Amen.

So I hope you didn't actually fold, right? Against naked A2 and A34T, you actually aren't in that bad a spot (unless you are against A26 or A25)...certainly not a situation where folding would be profitable.

I did not fold.

I check called two bets on the flop, and after that, me and UTG checked the rest of the way. I think he knew/presumed I had the same hand and neither one of us had good side cards or protection, so, I was able to keep both of them at bay.

i wouldn't fold. a T or 9 would be a good card on the turn.

It could be. (a lot better than a deuce).

I think don't a deuce is as bad as it initially appear. Yes, it counterfeits you. But it is likely that someone else has A2 as well, possibly without additonal backup (or an already counterfeit 3 or 4). There is a non-trivial chance that your 7-low could now be winning the low.

a deuce is a disaster. i would definitely c/f a deuce on the turn. and concerning the T and 9, i'm not saying that you'll be glad to shovel money into the pot, but it definitely gives you a lot better odds to continue.

So a deuce hits the turn. What do you do?

Assuming the flop raise was called by both me and UTG, I think I would check the turn, and then call a bet from the flop raiser, but fold to a donkbet from UTG. Definitely fold for 2 bets if it gets donkbet & raised.

I don't really get the argument for leading this flop.

I'd rather bet/fold on the turn because it makes it too difficult for another A2 to call even if he had something like A23, A27. So, if I'm putting the original raisor(UTG) on an A2, my turn bet should be able to go through him a good percentage of the time. Same goes for the last player with bottom two; if we both checked to him, he's FAR more likely to take a stab at it on the turn when the deuce hits, but, he's FAR less likely to make a move against you when you bet from first position. I feel, if I'm going to call anyway then I prefer betting. Bet/folding is super easy here anyway cause we don't have a hand to see the river with.

Only thing is that line ^ above becomes very exploitable to all but the most weakest opponents, but if it's balanced enough it becomes quite profitable particularly in smallish pots that involve only one or two players; for some reason no one wants these pots...

I believe what to do is very opponent dependent.

But speaking in generalities, I think aggressive play (but not overly aggressive play) fares better for Hero than passive play. I don't think it's overly aggressive for Hero to bet this flop. And betting is a more aggressive approach than check/calling. One could argue that check/raising is an even more aggressive approach, and there is the threat of a check/raise when Hero checks. That's true, but then when Hero ends up check/calling instead of check/raising, the overall final effect is more passive than aggressive.

In general, I think play is easier for your opponents when you check than when you bet. In general, it's easier for me to play a passive opponent than an aggressive one. In general, I think one fares better by making play as difficult as possible for one's opponents.

When you're going to call a bet anyhow, you give yourself an extra chance to win by betting yourself (because your opponent may fold what would have ended up a winner).

That is not to say it's always more correct to bet yourself than to check/call. Sometimes your opponent may be inclined to fold if you bet, but inclined to bet if you check. In that case, if you want to induce another bet from such an opponent, a check/call works better than directly betting.

It's hard to judge all this, to know when to zig and when to zag. But in this situation, with two opponents yet to act, Hero should realize there's a possibility the middle position opponent may bet while the last position opponent may raise simply with the intention of knocking Hero out of the action and isolating the middle position opponent.

And, as far as I can interpret the information provided by Rush17, in my humble opinion, that is one strong possibility, for what may have happened here.

Hard to say, especially without knowing these opponents, but if Hero had directly bet this flop, then I think Hero would be less likely to be facing a bet and a raise.

Can you make a stronger argument for check/calling this flop?

Buzz

If we lead the flop out of fear of facing two on the flop, then note that if we call any raise we are putting in the two bets we would have paid on the flop when check-calling two cold. My argument for not leading the flop is that our hand isn't quite strong enough. We also have some balance and disguise for the situations where we want to check-raise our monsters. Still, I can't say I feel that strongly about it.

I prefer the word "wariness" in place of the word "fear." It's like looking to make sure there is no oncoming car before backing a car out of a driveway. You don't actually feel "fear" (or at least I don't), but you do make sure it's safe (or at least I do) before entering the street. "Fear" is correct, I suppose, but it seems a bit misleading.

While it's true the price, in that case, would be the same, the psychological effect on your opponents may not be the same. I think you make some of your opponents somewhat more wary when you bet as opposed to when you call.

That point of view makes more sense in a pot-limit or no-limit game where we're more wary of getting fractionated (quartered or sixthed). But I think it's a reason many players would not lead with Hero's hand after this flop.

It's true that Hero's hand is not very strong after this particular flop. I call this type of flop an FD3 type flop. In addition to the nut low, (1) you prefer some decent high draw, and (2) of course you always like counterfeit protection. You have neither here.

But by aggressively but selectively and intelligently betting and raising with your nut low, you can often promote a half way hand into a scooper. Playing this way, you do risk losing money when you get fractionated, but I think the improved chance of scooping makes it worth the risk in a fixed-limit game. (In a pot-limit or no-limit game getting fractionated for low is a more serious concern).

Hero does somewhat misrepresent his hand when he bets this flop. In a showdown situation against two opponents, one of whom also has A2**, Hero is an underdog. And when seven players are dealt cards, Hero should figure on running into at least one opponent with A2** about three hands out of every ten. The level of activity here indicates this may be one of those times.

That's true. And in terms of mixing up one's play, an occasional check with this hand after this flop seems not unreasonable.

I have never played, and probably never will play, in a $40/$80 cash game. Successful strategy for many who do participate in $40/$80 cash games may involve waiting for a "fish" and then taking advantage of the weak opponent. But there is no mention of that in the opening post of this thread. I'm assuming these two opponents are peers (more or less poker skill equals) of Hero.

If so, I do feel strongly that Hero should, as a matter of overall playing style against peers, directly bet this flop.

Thanks for replying.

Buzz

Flop - I check my entire range (for a BB defense) vs TAG's opening range and TAG's cold-calling range on this board.

In other words, their ranges love this flop. Mine doesn't. If these players are any good (and not just tight), I expect to get punished in the long run with this leading-good-flops approach.

I also don't think that facing two bets and hating it was a result of checking the flop, rather than betting. I think it's a result of the position you have, the flop that came and the ranges you're up against... and you can do nothing about it. A small bet isn't going to change your position, the flop texture or the strong ranges you're up against.

as played, O8 literature (SSII, Zee) would tell you to strongly consider folding...

I'm not trying to argue with you. (I already wrote what I thought Hero should do). Instead I'm trying to understand. You're telling us when you're BB, after you defend against a pre-flop raise with two opponents, when the flop is
3,4,8, (FD3 type flop),
you're checking all hands with which you would have defended.

In other words after ending the betting on round #1 by calling a pre-flop raise as BB, with two opponents, when the flop is
3,4,8, you're always checking, regardless of the cards you hold.

Do I understand correctly what you are telling us?

If so, I have some questions.
(1). Does the number of opponents have any effect on this decision? (Would your decision be the same with one, two, three, or four opponents).
(2). Does the aggressiveness of your opponents effect on this decision?
(3). Does the type of flop affect this decision?
(4). Does the composition of your hand affect this decision?

What are their ranges?

What is your range for defending your big blind in this scenario. (fixed-limit seven-handed game, tight UTG raises, RTP calls, SB folds, you call (defend) from big blind).

I wonder why (and how). It's not like Hero has no fit with this flop. Admittedly Hero does not have much going for high, but his opponents cannot know that. But Hero has flopped the nut low (and his opponents cannot know that either).

Perhaps not. It's hard for me to tell. From my perspective, RTP raising UTG after Hero checked this flop purely in an attempt to knock out BB and thus isolate UTG is a distinct possibility.

But maybe RTP has raised here for some other reason.

I agree that position matters... not nearly as much as in a pot limit game, but some... and Hero is out of position.

A bet here might change how either or both opponents would react. (The reaction might not be the same as the reaction to a check... indeed I'd expect the reaction to a check to be different from the reaction to a bet).

Really? Would you tell us where they strongly suggest folding in this situation? (I don't see that anywhere).

Buzz

in this particular and similar type situations, yes.

against two tight opponents, yes.

yes

O.K

the number of opponents has a major effect on my decision. the more opponents I face, the more i'm going to play according to the strength of my actual hand rather than the strength of my range relative to my opponents' ranges.

to some extent. the more aggressive they are, the more i'm going to play the relative strength of my range. but even if they're less aggressive but decent (thinking players), i'm still going to play the relative strength of my range.

yes! the flop is very good for tight ranges, and less so for a typically looser range with which i'd defend from the BB.

not when I decide to play my relative range strength. of course this might have to change as the hand progresses...

i'd tentatively assign them ranges of top 20% of hands after the preflop action.

probably something close to top 30% of hands. i'm aware that many good players would defend wider...

my first decision after the flop would depend less on what I actually hold. I don't want to give away too much too quickly. instead, i'd play my range, which tends to be behind (or in numbers, has less than the break-even 33.33%)

yes, it's a good play. but let's not forget that he IS tight and that he DID cold-call a preflop raise. our task is to narrow his range with each decision he makes during the play of a hand. so far, I think his range comprises of many A2s, which we don't like...

maybe, hard to tell. we can't really tell what exact hand he holds, or even which is the strongest 2-card combo he holds. that's why we should put him on a range of hands and narrow that range with each decision he makes during the play of a hand.

the problem is that I expect them to have fairly strong ranges after the flop, and if they're good, they should realize that they have fairly strong ranges and use position to give us hard time.
also, betting really reveals that we have a fairly good hand. we wouldn't lead into strength with a poor hand, would we?

I read these poker materials so many times that I didn't even bother re-checking it...
but it should be there! discussion about folding the nuts, I guess...?
well, of course the authors won't describe the exact same scenario, but at least address the possibility of folding the made nut low, which should at least make hero consider the option of folding (which he did!)

now that I rethink it, I guess that even an offsuit 9 on the turn should give us pretty good shot at high. so with the 3-straight, I lean towards calling and calling down unless disaster turns...

Pansies to poker for me. Thanks for your well thought out response.

I don't see how playing the relative strength of your range means you should check this flop instead of betting this flop.

I see. Thank you.

I see. I agree RTP probably has a hand within this range. I don't know about UTG. (Depends). No matter. That approach seems reasonable. Thanks.

Thanks.

How does this range (your range) indicate check/calling is the optimal play?

OK.

That's the goal.

Doesn't whatever we do indicate a fairly good hand? Would we check/call with dung?

I guess we can both read the same thing and come away with different interpretations of what we have read.

That's why it's worth while to directly quote an author when you cite that author as a source.

Anyhow, thanks for your well thought out reply. Much appreciated.

Buzz

same here

because the opponents should have a better fit with this flop than we should, on average...

no problem. just want to say that a TAG's UTG raise does mean strength most of the time.

to me, it might indicate checking and then deciding given the action (which could change the ranges I assign to my opponents quite a bit) and how I think it's best to play my specific holding as part of the range I should have.
very complicated stuff! but it's fun to think about!

they don't know what we'll do until we do it. I agree it's a tough spot, but by trying to play in accordance with a general range and not a particular hand, we at least tend, on average, to be less exploitable, and hopefully, make it harder for our opponents, as well...

you're right, I'll look that up as soon as I have the books in front of me.

sure, and thank you! different opinions make things a lot more interesting...

Thanks.

Ah! I see! That makes total sense. Thanks. Something for me to think about.

Agreed.

Yes. (Agreed).

Interesting. I might not be giving some of my opponents enough credit. That is, my fixed-limit thinking has been it's better for me to bet following the flop in a fixed limit game than to check because it's easier on my opponents when they're confronted by a check than when they're confronted by a bet... (The disadvantage of usually betting the flop is usually betting has me sometimes betting a weaker hand than I really want to bet... semi-bluffing more than I really want to be semi-bluffing)... but usually betting rather than checking might actually make play easier for some opponents. But opponents thinking on different levels complicates matters. This merits more thought. Thanks.

Agreed. Thank you.

Buzz