Lapidator,

You are extremely wrong here. You are in love with being aggressive for the sake of being aggressive. You think that spamming the bet button will magically turn you into a tough LAG. I, on the other hand, understand that aggression is best when there is a rhyme or reason behind it.

The funny thing is that I am probably 100 times more aggresssive than you in actual live NLHE games. Some people think that I am a maniac super-LAG, and some people think I am just a regular LAG. In any case, there is one thing that I am not -- a dumb TAG/LAG/aggro/whatever.

Auto-betting middle pair+Q-high FD 5-ways from BB in limped pot on Jc7x3c flop for no particular reason besides "aggressive = sexy" is being a dumb TAG/LAG/aggro/whatever.

The problem with your analysis about passive tables is that you are so afraid of getting raised and so happy to get called in multiple spots. It sounds like you think that betting middle pair+Queen high FD would be problematic on an aggressive table because you might get raised by a draw.

This is completely backwards. With middle pair+Queen high FD, you should be unhappy when it goes bet/call/call/call because you are often going to have second-best made hand and second-best draw (in other words, your equity will suck). You should be happier when you get semi-bluff raised by some aggro because it will often cause the pot to go heads-up (where you have decent/good equity unless the aggro has a set).

Cliff Notes: Betting into the whole field with middle pair + Queen high FD and getting called in 3 spots at passive table (bad), Betting into the whole field middle pair + Queen high FD and getting semi-bluff raised by a draw at aggressive table (good).

Hope you learned something new today, Lapidator. You should be checking Q7cc on passive tables and leading into the field on aggressive tables. In other words, you should be playing it exactly opposite of the way that you have been playing it.

What would you do if this was 50nl online? 50% C/f. 50% Bet & fold to a raise. If fd gets there on t or r then bet and fold to any heat.

Atsai, are you suggesting we do not stack off with the Q flush, should it hit?

Your point is heavily reliant on a massive overvalue of how great of a value hand we have. We are not crushing any hand K7 or better; not even close to it: we have 50.7% equity against J2. Sure, we make a small margin on every dollar that Jx puts into the pot on the flop (and FWIW, Jx puts as much into the pot when it b/fs as when it flats a bet from us), but that margin is so miniscule that our bet would have to be $0.17 or smaller for him to make a mistake by folding. So these disaster scenarios you point out are actually *good* for us.

Why don't you actually think about some actual good reasons for betting the flop before worrying about what to do with the 3rd nut flush if it comes in on the turn or river?

Not great equity 5-way, agreed. Nonetheless, I think we have enough equity to bet flop for value. We also have FE vs. hands like TT/99/88.

That is somewhat of a confusing statement. You said that we have enough equity to bet flop for value. Betting flop for value usually means something else than having "enough equity."

Do you mean that you have decent equity against better hands (good semi-bluff versus Jx/TT/99/88/K7/A7) while being a significant favorite to some hands like middle pair weak kicker or weaker draws (big equity favorite) ?

Very interesting indeed to read this discussion between Lapi and ATsai. I think both of them have good thoughtful points and arguments, and those kind of debates is a great opportunity to open up some reflectionprocesses.

ATsai: do you want to check the flop here because you are concerned there is a decent chance we are dominated in several spots here and want to keep this pot as small as possible, aka flop check as a kind of early pot control? Is that the main argument, keeping the pot small enough that we dont necesserly have to stackoff in the hand? Or are you maybe looking to raise it up if it goes HU instead of multiway to the turn?

Yes, as well as worse draws.

Good discussion. Can we see the action now DK?

i generally dislike when posts are chopped up/taken out of context, but i am trying to summarize the points i think you are making so i can respond. if i am misrepresenting something, please let me know.

re:2: i agree betting because we are often an equity favorite is not really a good reason to bet by itself

re:3: the reasoning you present here, taken at face value, is fairly weak, while the conclusion you draw is very strong ("obviously wrong"). while we should certainly consider the outcome you described, it is by no means dispositive, and you havent really provided any reason to believe that his will happen often, and thus outweigh some of the benefits we gain from betting (i do not think this will happen often). further, standing on its own, that statement might not even discourage us from betting. you seem to assume (in #2 & 3) that frequently when our opponents hold Jx and Axcc, that they will check after we check, which is a debatable assertion; if they bet, and we call, then we are in a similar position heading to the turn (adjusted for differences in range based on actions). we also have the option of checking or betting after betting and being called in both spots, and we really arent doing that poorly against their combined ranges (or, if you think we are, then c/f). finally, even if they hold those specific two hands, one of them may raise, which is actually a pretty good result for us (as you alluded to).

those arguments are really only addressing why i dont think betting is really bad, but dont address why it might be good. for brevity's sake here is a summary of them: when it checks through overcards get to realize some equity fo' free and draw out on us, and since we are 5 ways, this is actually quite significant- forcing these hands to either fold or pay is good; there are plenty of combos of lower flush draws that are drawing near dead against us and will call/raise; depending on runout, Jx will often not call down so we have some barreling opportunities; after betting flop people often play the turn passively, so we have the option to check and see a free card which is nice/cool/profitable; we have a really strong range here comparatively since were the only one with all the junky offsuit 2p combos, so we can bet/barrel pretty liberally here if want to, and this is a good hand to b/3b if we want

all that being said, i actually think its pretty close with this particular hand, i mostly just disagree with how not-close you think it is.

jvds, thanks for actually discussing a couple actual good reasons for betting from BB on this 5-ways Jc7x3c flop with Q7cc.

As far as lower FD combos versus higher FD combos, I think there are probably 10-12 combos of higher FDs (Axcc/Kxcc)and probably 12-14 combos of lower FDs, so there is some value to be had against draws as a whole...but not as much as you might think.

I do agree that we will have barreling opportunities. Good job mentioning that.

As far as having a strong range full of junky 2 pair combos, you are correct that our range is strong. However, having a strong range is pretty much irrelevant at a 2/5 NL game because the Villains in the hand are just Level 1 (they are only playing theie cards and how their card msrchvup to the board).

As far as bet/3bet, I doubt that we will have much in the way of good bet/3bet opportunities because the Villains on this table were described as passive. Usually, our bet/3bet will have little FOLD EQUITY if one of the passive Villains had decided to raise our flop bet.

If checking and betting both have their merits, then I like a check because it essentially buys us pseudo-position on a bunch of players whose actions are generally very face-up. All that's happened so far is we hit a mid pair and 1 out of 4 opponents checked. If the flop checks through, there are 32 turn cards I feel comfortable vbetting, which I think is pretty darn good, and we'll be able to do so once there have already been 5 checks. Of course, on most of these turns, the equity of the draw half of our hand has been cut in half, but our made hand is doing *so* much better against villains' calling ranges that I think our value margin is fatter.

Granted, this also means we miss a street of value when all the right conditions apply of 1) one of the 14 cards that improve our hand hits the turn, 2) villains have a worse hand that's worth calling two streets with.

To me, this is the most compelling reason to bet. Our draw is strong enough to have most FDs beat, but not strong enough to shovel all the money in once the draw hits without considerable RIO.

This is where I disagree with you the strongest. I think the only good bluffing runouts are the 6 non-club K/A and running 4/5/6 to a 4-straight (and even then, it'll be hard for villain to believe that we have a lot of 5s when we bet flop and turn, and it'll be tough for villain to put us on good Ks and As when BB always obvi has junk). Runners to a 7-J 4 straight are really bad for us because so much of the range we're trying to get villain to fold is 88-TT and J8-JT. Every other scary runout for Jx overlaps with our actual outs, which is bad for us, obviously, when the cards that villain is most likely to fold on are the ones that improve our hand.

If Jx gets checked into, on the other hand, they'll mostly bet, and we'll be able to put a lot more pressure on them with a x/r and barrel. If we think all of the value parts are a bit of a push (and I think they are), the fact that our bluffing line works far more often against Jx is what makes me like x/r'ing a lot more than leading.

I think this is mostly a push because the only time we put 2 bets in before the board runs out in full in the x/r instance is when villain has very good Jx or better, and these hands will mostly bet the turn when we take a bet / check line anyway. Of course, in practice, villains suck so much at value betting and sizing and all that that there are probably several instances where we get to the river cheaper, but I think it's mostly a push.

Again, I think x/r'ing makes villain put us on these hands much more pressingly. I think a x/r / big bet just makes players think, "Man, does he really have it? Well, what could he have? Oh right, he's the BB, he can have 73, 33, J7, J3, CHRIST HE CAN HAVE ANYTHING!" I think the thought process is similar when we fire three barrels, but by then they've survived such a favorable runout that it's easier for them to just think we missed or that we're getting desperate with our steal or whatever to call down.

Additionally, in case we care about our range and image, I make a lot of stabs out of the blinds and barrel down a lot in general, so I'm never really looking to expand my "bluff when all the draws miss" range.

I wish you would have numbered your points. I don't find them particularly compelling and I think Atsai has explained his points really well.

1. We don't have a hand we need to protect.

Sometimes someone has a pocket pair above sevens or a seven with a better kicker. Over half the time (52+%) someone has a jack, they're the ones who benefit when someone with overcards folds. Often enough the overcard gives us a flush and we're getting the person who would pay us off to fold, and not benefiting at all when they do.

The rest of your points can be summarized with "Bluffing might work."

2. Of course we can bluff, but our bluff can get called.

3. People can also have better flush draws.

4. I don't have any reason to think that Villains are thinking about range.

and this is a good hand to b/3b if we want

Why????

I think we very rarely want to be out-of-position running major bluff lines, in a 5-way limped pot.

Wow this exploded on us here. It is wonderful how a hand that probably occurs more often than the classic AA in BB hand occurs can be thought out in so many subtle directions.

I may have missed it, but has anyone discussed OP image to the table? I think this is a factor that can add to both sides of the bet/no bet ideals. What is the table going to think if the Hero bets out? Is Jx automatic? Does Hero have a history that protects against draws regardless of position? OP implies that Hero may have an image from previous sessions but we may not know enough about it to comment on its effect.

Does betting out OTF turn our hand into a bluff/semi-bluff .. for sure IMO. I would have to believe that Jx is definitely in the range for a limped pot at a passive table .. and of course we need to be aware that QJ is in play based on the the same thought as well.

There is nothing wrong with taking this pot down right now with a semi-bluff of middle pair-decent draw. So bet out $20 and then evaluate the Turn. If OP cant trust himself to hit the brakes if he gets 2-3 callers and misses the flush OTT, then he really needs to c/c and evaluate a potentially smaller pot OTT.

There is plenty of 'deep' analysis here, but 'keep it simple stupid' can apply at times as well.

I think betting out here 'simply' gives us more information than a c/c does. What if its the B that bets out and SB folds? Still 2 to act ... We all know we shouldnt bet 'just' for information, but we do have 'a hand' and 'a decent draw' to work with that can be partially put in the betting for value category using implied odds as our friend.

Betting forces all 4 V to 're-act' to the action. We certainly can assume that this narrows the range of holdings our opponents can have which allows us to better evaulate the Turn. We can either continue to semi-bluff our 'implied' Jx/BB special or try to keep the pot small and spike a 7 OTR depending on further action.

Hero's need to tell stories that 'appear' to make sense, especially when multi-way OOP. What story is Hero trying to tell .. that IMO is the most important reason to bet/no bet this hand. GL

i disagree fairly strongly with this. when button limps over 2 limpers, hes going to have a bunch of suited stuff, even if he is "fairly snug." even more importantly, sb completed after 3 limpers with a tight player in the bb, so he can have almost all suited combos (and we have position on him). this doesnt address the proportion of their ranges made up by these combos, but i disagree with the absolute number that you stated.

i actually almost didnt include this in the post because i knew it would be maligned for this reason. its easily the least important point i made in this instance, but its worth a thought.

also one of the less important points, but it addresses a contingency that is also worth thinking about. basically the value of a b/3b comes from the dead money and the fact that Jx is unlikely to continue vs a 3b in most of the forms of out a b/3b can play out (ie bet-->Jx call-->Axcc raise-->we 3b).

i think you neglected possibly the most important point, which was the first one i made, regarding forcing players to fold equity in a multiway pot. the combination of this effect, being called by lesser flush draws, and improving then valuebetting later will probably account for most of our ev in this situation, so it is pretty important to strongly consider all 3.

gonna try to go summary style here so lmk if i miss anything. just bc when we check flop and it checks through were gonna have profitable opportunities is not, by itself, a reason to check. we flopped a comparatively strong hand that ranks highly in our own range, and fares well even against the upper portion of most players ranges, so we should basically expect that we are gonna have +ev choices often. the point that i think you are not considering strongly enough, is that by the time the flop checks through, we have already allowed the other hands to see a free card when they would have folded to a bet. vs this (large) subset of hands, nearly all of our ev is going to come from forcing them to fold, since they generally will only put money in when they have improved (some will come from when we improve to greater, and some from when we make them fold 8x etc, but the point still stands)

i agree that being called by lower flush draws is valuable and makes up a significant portion of the ev of betting

i dont completely agree with the number of bets going in style of analysis. it can have probative value at times but you have to be careful with the conclusions you draw imo, since i dont think it accounts for range changes (esp in multiway pots) very well, and is kind of static in this regard. that being said, i think that really the thing we differ on here is the frequency that flop checks through, and the value of it not checking through. how x/r vs bet fares against Jx as a bluff prob shouldnt drive this analysis i think, because i dont think they will substantially vary in ev, but its a factor. also the he can have anything factor applies when we bet, and we can do fun overbets since its no limit if we want to pump the pot up without checkraising.

despite the fact that you have numbered your points, i do not find them particularly compelling.

1. yes we do

you made that number up and forgot that cards exist between 7 and jack.

often enough for what? the percentage is 20, and they will not necessarily call more than one bet. the other 80% seems important too, no?


true. but that summary would be incorrect and wildly misleading.


good point?

discussed pretty in depth already itt. i assume you fold KK pre bc people can have better pairs too then.

okay, but this is a forum post, so maybe its something we want to think about, even solely as an academic exercise.

i think we rarely want to be applying blanket statements to common situations. its good because of how it fares against continuing ranges and the dead money in the pot.

With loose-passive players, the opposite is the case. Given that they are loose, their continue-to-a-bet range is poorly defined, and given that they are passive, their betting range is very well-defined. Of course, them being passive also means that their checking range is harder to define, but we can at least say that they're much less likely to have a strong Jx+ when they check a J73tt flop.

In your scenario where we face a bet with two player still left to act, we have no less information when we put money in than when we bet into 3 players who are yet to do anything. 1) Having to put money in with players left to act is at least a non-certainty when we check, whereas it is obviously always the case when we lead, and 2) when we bet, there are 3 players who have not so much as had the opportunity to make any action whatsoever, whereas in your scenario, 2 of those players have already checked and a third has already bet (with sizing and timing and all).

None of this is a nail-in-the-coffin case for checking, but I think your justifications are a little backwards in this spot. Checking actually gives us better pseudo-position than leading.

Sorry for the long absence, I'm sure you were waiting with bated breath for my responses. (I was busy enjoying myself skiing and imbibing too much Christmas Cheer -- I think that's what they called it.)

I'm glad to see the thread continued along nicely without me.

jvds does a nice job here.

Well... that's settled.

Interesting turn of events... so #'s 1-4 are not "obvious"?

I learn that FPS goes by many names.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There is still some over-thinking going on here IMO.

The table is described as passive. I think OP has been around the block long enough to be trusted in this.

So what does it mean?

It means that the most likely outcome if we check, is that the hand will check through. While not a disaster, it is not, IMO, the most desired outcome OTF. Even a V with Jx, will most likely check it through at a passive table (especially if he's OOP).

IMO, (and ultimately just a restatement of my earlier post), we can put out a bet, and will be called by some hands that we are way ahead of, and will get folds from some hands that have significant equity against us. Sure, we also get called by (the smaller parts of) a range of hands that still does well against us, but we are still getting money in the pot with, IMO, the strongest range.

Because of the preflop action, I don't think anyone has a strong enough hand to raise us (IOW, those strong hands, e.g. 33, are a small part of the collective ranges of our 4 opponents). But even if they do raise us, almost certainly it will be something like a min raise, which gives us a great price to continue. (BTW... this doesn't mean that I'm afraid of being raised. I state it in this way because I'm planning the hand in this way.)

(Because the table is described as passive, I don't expect to be raised at all.)

Because of the preflop action, we have more combos of FDs we beat, then FDs that beat us. I admit, this can be debated. But, IMO, I don't have a problem pushing my 3-rd nut flush vs. the table as described. (Nevermind that a stronger FD has just 6 outs... so F' them.) (Obviously, if the board runs out 9c, 8c, I'm going to slow down OTR.)

ATsai says, I risk being called by both JX and stronger-FDs. That would be the product of P(Jx) and P(bigger-FD), which is a smaller number. So he's right, I do take that risk, that's life. You takes pays your money and you takes your chances.

Betting OTF doesn't mean we can't slow down OTT. In fact, we get to set the price OTF, and most of the time if we check OTT, it will check through -- UNLESS -- we are far behind, in which case we can see what price is being offered to see the river.

~~~~~

The other thing about this hand, since we're at a passive table, we have to help our V's put $$$ in the pot. This is a bit of a 2nd order adjustment, IMO, to playing LLSNL. You have to identify spots where you need to lead your draws because V's simply will not bet their own hand. This is an assessment of the passive table -- not a generalization of LLSNL.