Villain 1: VPIP: 35%, PFR: 3%, guy in his early thirties, I have been playing with him ~ 4 hours
Hero: Tight, LP VPIP: 22%, LP PFR: 22%

$3/5 NL (9 handed)
UTG
EP
EP+1
MP
MP+1
CO Hero ($725)
Button V ($1400)
SB
BB

Hero is dealt K8

5 folds, Hero raises to $20, Button calls, 1 fold, BB calls

Flop ($60) 459
BB checks, Hero bets $40, V raises to $125, BB folds, Hero?

CLIFF NOTES: We are too deep, we don't have the odds or the image, so this is a fold

This is a tough spot, I was in a similar spot a few weeks ago and I misplayed it.

The mistake I made was that I was just too deep (like you are). Villain had made a great play and raised my bet (just like your villain had) and I got stuck in the "I can outplay villain" mindset and I put him all in, he called, and I missed my draw. He wasn't as deep as your villain, but he was about $450ish deep and it was a mistake on my part...

It wasn't a mistake because I missed my draw, it was a mistake because I did not have enough equity to make the play vs. the stacks involved.

I had a hand that looked decievingly good, just like your hand above.

If we do equity calculations, we have to do the calculations for one street not two.
Why just one street? Well, because villain is going to overbet this turn just like he overbet on the flop raise. If we call the raise, pot will be $310 and guarantee villain bets $350ish or even monkey shoves turn... So basically, if we call the flop we are hoping to hit the flush on turn otherwise, villain's shove is going to fold us out.

We need to be getting something close to 4:1 on our money here and we aren't even in the ballpark.

So, this is actually a fold. I know, that seems strange. But that is what i've concluded about this scenario. You are too deep, villain is too deep, and villain correctly priced us out of the draw. We just don't have the odds to call nor do we have the image required to bluff him off. Villain has showed lots of strength and he has enough teeth to cut us deep. So, add all that up, and this is a fold.

at least that is how I see it.

That's assuming villain just insta mucks when the flush hits. In reality when the flush comes you'll be able to squeeze out at least another $150 to make this breakeven. You could make a ******ed $60 donk bet on turn then $100 on river so he can't fold and you'd still break even calling the flop raise.

Just take a look at the stats OP provided for us. A fish like that isn't folding once the flush hits as long as you don't go overboard. Guarantee he won't fold to a 1/3 psb on turn/river.

Yeah, implied odds make this a call. Plus you could have more equity than you think from your K outs.

It feels dirty when you peel here but have to lay down to a big turn bet unimproved but it's ok when you're this deep.

CLIFFNOTES: Using implied odds to justify calling ~20% of your stack in hopes of spiking your card on one street is how you go broke.

implied odds pave the road to hell.

Calling here hoping to spike the flush on the turn and falling back on "implied odds" because you don't have anywhere close to the pot odds required for this to be a correct call is a huge mistake.

Or put another way. Lets say you are villain and you flop a set, this is the EXACT type of bet you make against a flush draw hoping that flush draw will call.

So, if according to you, our call was a winning strategy, then what is the winning strategy for a flopped set vs our flush draw?

If we look at your argument from another point of view, that of a made hand betting against our flush draw, is your argument still viable? I don't think it is.

Basically, if your argument were correct then it would be INCORRECT for the set to raise us in this spot right?

You can't have it both ways. You are trying to argue that calling without the pot odds is correct because we have "implied odds"

This scenario is exactly why you bet big against draws hoping they will call you when they don't have anywhere near the correct odds and have to fall back on "implied odds"

Whenever you start using "implied odds" to justify calling a huge bet (like 20% of your stack), you should get an electric shock to your genitals.

I raise a bit bigger preflop, to 25-30.
I also cbet bigger here, closer to pot size(as played 50-60).
As played I fold to flop raise-agree w/dgiharris

4:1 ~ (225+115):85


No, because:

1. There is money in the pot going into the flop. Therefore the postflop subgame is not zero-sum.

2. Neither hand is playing face up. They are both playing against uncertain ranges. Both their actions could be optimal against those ranges.

if only life were so easy

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Where are the 225 and 115 coming from and what is your general point here. Not trying to be snarky, i just don't see it.

As I understand the situation, preflop action built a pot to $60
Hero bet $40 and villain came over the top for $125

60+40+125= $225 right now. Hero needs to call $85 in order to win $225 so at this point hero is getting 2.6:1 on his money.

Hero is drawing to 9 outs (clubs) for 1 street which is approximately 20% equity which means he needs 4:1 on his money.

So again, not quite sure what you are trying to say and where your numbers are coming from. Unless your point is that if we hit the flush draw, we can extract at least $115 from villain.

If that is your point, I guess mathematically it has merit, but it makes me cringe. In effect, it blows the doors wide open on pot odd requirements and before you know it, you are justifying any call using "implied odds" and that seems like a very slippery slope.

I don't quite understand your point #1. If your argument is that it is correct to call in this spot because of implied odds, then i'm asking what is the correct spot for something like a set or two pair in this spot vs our draw.

I'm basically trying to look at your argument from a different point of view to test out if it is sound or not. I didn't know that my argument is arguing that the postflop subgame is zero-sum. So don't quite understand your argument saying that the "postflop subgame is NOT zero-sum" when I never said it was

Your point #2 also is a bit off. Yes, we do not know Villain's hand, but we know our hand. And our hand right now is a draw and we can infer that we are up against a hand that beats us and that the ONLY out we have in this spot is a club. And we do not have pot odds to draw to a club for one street. And the reason I keep stressing one street is that we can infer from villains flop overbet/raise that he is going to likewise overbet the turn no matter what card hits. The turn overbet will also price us out.

If I am wrong on this point, I would really like to understand the argument for why i'm wrong. No snark intended.

I guess, overall, i'm not comfortable using implied odds in this spot for the amount bet by villain. We are risking a significant portion of our chips, pot control is out the window, we are in a spot with dismal equity (especially when looked at at the standpoint of only one street), pot is inflating at a rapid rate, we are out of position...

I just can't see this as being a good spot to be in on a draw.

I guess we will agree to disagree

Another thing to note is, if you call the raise, and villain checks the turn, then you'd have only needed 2:1 pot odds on the flop to call. You're getting 2.65:1 here.

Villain won't always bet the turn. If he has an overpair, he might decide to pot control turn. If he has like 10s or Jacks, and an overcard appears on the turn, he might check behind.

How about our old friend Fold Equity? Would it make sense to check-raise here? IME, Villains like to slow play big hands. The line taken here could easily be TT or JJ, which he may fold.

Yup that's what I'm saying.

I understand your cringe. As winning players, we like to be in situations where we are driving the action and making others chase draws. But if the math tells you it is correct then you have to do it.

I agree there is a slippery slope here in the estimation of implied odds. Can we be sure that we will be able to extract at least $120 on average when our draw hits on the turn? I think in this case we will but in other similar situations our estimate of IO might be wildly optimistic. In that sense, IO is certainly a dangerous concept that can be easily misused.

Another factor is the meta. When decisions are close, it helps to show people at a live game that you are willing to gamble and embrace the variance.


What I meant to say is:

His flop raise with a better hand is obv profitable because he has higher equity.

You lose money on the flop bets because of your negative equity *but* you are still forced to call because you are getting the right odds (from money in the pot, money you have already put in on the flop and a reasonable expectation of future bets). Thus you call but you call "unhappily" because villain has forced you to pay max price.

So if you like, he is the "winner" in the flop round but you still have to keep going. However the advantage will be with you on later streets.

If you;re suggesting a 3-b shove as played, I think as dgi pointed out, the stacks make it unprofitable.

c/r-ing is an intriguing idea. I think it would be bad against a thinking villain cause really there is so little we are representing (basically sets) and would lead to unbalanced lines. Against this guy...meh...he could end up shoving and forcing us to fold. I think the best plan is to just lead and plan to barrel many turns and rivers.

Think about this for a second. In my first post I didn't bother doing the math and assumed hero needed to win $160 to breakeven. Now its apparently only $115. Mathematically, and you cannot argue against this, if you can win $115 or more you must call this bet. The question then becomes, will villain put in $115 more in 2 streets if a flush hits on the turn. If the answer is yes (in this case its 99% yes), then mathematically you should call.

All this other stuff you keep mentioning doesn't matter because we already know our gameplan and we already know villain's continuance range (which is nearly everything because he's an incredibly loose passive donkey with a big hand). If villain has a big hand, he won't let it go to a $40 donk on the turn and a $80 donk on the river. Yes you'll be betting 1/4 pot each time but that shows how little extra money you need to make in order to win here. The 1% of the time villain is bluffing here and checks back turn you've already gotten better than the 2-1 odds on the flop so your work is already done.