flat flop, super juicy, keep sb in, under rep your hand. AP shovel it in, whats the problem?

Sent from my SGH-I747M using 2+2 Forums

You're being an 'arse' (as Im sure you're well aware) by slamming someone else's opinion, deconstructing what they say like it's a legal assay, and simultaneously providing absolutely zero constructive feedback on the hand. Then you conveniently point it out that you haven't posited an opinion so no one may deconstruct you in return. Get over yourself.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using 2+2 Forums

This - in this spot - is never a fold.

Also, I don't ever recall not raising/re-raising with an OESFD. It's the same raise with a set, overpair and 2pr (for me anyway).

I've seen quite a few nut flush v 2nd nut flushes recently, including one where 2nd nuts did fold. In the others, after the hand the consensus always seems to be that the guy with the nuts couldn't really have anything else.

I'm not suggesting a fold here... villain info and history is too limited. But hero is deep enough to justify slowing down and thinking it through, searching for additional clues.

Stupid, wow, thanks for the compliment. Do you not see how someone as you have described is providing a tremendous service?

I actually agree with David. It's not a great spot.

That said, we can't and don't want to fold.

We beat pair + draws (KhQx, AhQx, Ah9x), lower flushes, and the 87 straight.

We lose to nut and second nut flushes.

The nut flushes are A2hh, A3hh, A4hh, A5hh, A7hh, and A8hh, so just 6 combos. And he will show up with some Kxhh, so call that 3 combos. Though maybe this villain can have more Kxhh combos... OP would have to tell us based on V's pre-flop range.

All the blocking and hearts accounted for does diminish the number of possible better flushes by quite a bit. We just estimate ~9 better flushes.

There aren't many worse flushes, but they exist... say 87hh, 85hh, 75hh, 54hh, 43hh. I'm comfortable calling it ~4-5.

The 87 non-flush straight is very possible. 87 has 16 combos, and 15 of them are not flushes; of those 15, 9 contain no hearts and 6 contain 1 heart.

I do expect 1/3 villain to to play the 87 straight exactly like this, especially when he has one heart, when the turn flush comes in. In fact, his very large bet may be more indicative of 87 than anything else as he may be making a large "protection" bet with his "very strong hand" with 3 hearts on board.

And yes, the pair + draws are possible... AhQx, KhQx, but I that it's somewhat doubtful. The line and bet sizing doesn't really make a ton sense for those hands imo. I'd call it like 2 combos.

And I suppose sets are "possible" ... super weird line, but can be a combo or two.

Once you do the math, it's clear we can't fold, but David's points are fair; I do expect to lose here with some frequency against the ~9 better flushes.

But if I'm going to soul read, I'll give villain 8h7x.

Willy: agree with your ranges (mostly), but 8h7x never takes this line of donk/call "pretty promptly" on this flop, holding only a gutshot. If he had OESD on flop, I'd be more inclined to buy it.

But we simply don't know enough about V to be sure whether he is protecting, semi-bluffing, or going after the top of hero's range with da nuts. So I gotta ask, why is villain not afraid of that turn card, when I haven't seen him makes any fancy moves before now?

Yeah 87 is a stretch, though possible. Just felt like soul reading.

And BTW, a flop raise against 87 is a disaster when villain folds, as he has major RIO when he makes a straight with a heart.

On to the turn... so we have 315 left. We shove knowing we always get called.

The turns starts at 185.

When we shove 315 knowing we get called, our odds are 500:315. The 500 comes from the 185 pot + 315 that we essentially consider to be in the pot already (V always calls off the remaining stacks; to calculate the odds, we can ignore his turn bet and look at stacks).

That's > 1.5:1, meaning we need < 40% equity.

I'm definitely not folding.

We are obviously committed to go all-in on this turn after we raise the flop.

Bet sizing aside, what you failed to recognize is that even if raising flop does not fold out a lot of V's range, it creates a lot more fold equity on turn and river than just calling flop.

In other words, if you call the flop bet, you won't have much fold equity on turn or river.

No we don't.

We are huge equity favorite against A9, but we don't currently beat it.

"Weird value raise"?

It's clear that you're mixing up equity vs hand ranking, and then confused by how fold equity plays a role.

Do you not understand that we don't care about shrinking stacks and re-opening betting? Why would we care when we are CLEARLY equity favorite in your example?

Spots in which we don't want to shrink stacks and re-opening betting are scenarios in which we are equity dog, but we have sufficient pot odds with big chunk of value in implied odds.

How many such hands are in V's range when V is OOP on a wet board? You are clearly overestimating how much V is willing to put money in the pot when scared cards fall on turn or river.

Let's take a look at your examples.

In other words, you are trying to catch a 3-outer to stack V? Do you not see that you are basically using a draw that's worse than a gut-shot as basis of why calling is better?

It's even worse if V doesn't hold K, because then it's only 2 outs.

How are we freerolling QJ and that it has high RIO?

It's basically saying that any time we have a draw, we are freerolling TP. How does that actually make any sense?

Cards that would improve our hand to beat QJ are all obvious scared cards except 8, and it cannot be 8, so again, how does 3-outer translates to high RIO?

No. Fold equity is part of the EV calculation. It does not say that we want to fold "worse" hands.

I don't think you really understand how fold equity applies in an EV calculation.

Huh? Did you just say "so what" to a legitimate point that Hero has position and is equity favorite against part of V's range?

FWIW, you still have not established any real evidence why calling is better.

Adding another player obviously improves our pot odds, but that's a rather small factor. Keeping SB in the hand alone is not sufficient to justify a call in this spot.

You are absolutely correct...

And what better scenario to apply all that leverage when we are equity favorite against V's range?

If anything, this point is argument in favor of raising, not calling.

Raising the flop still doesn't change the fact that V acts first on turn...

I do not understand why anyone rather play smaller pots when:

-In position
-Equity favorite
-Reps very strong range

It's just backwards poker, period.

Umm...what's wrong with that?

Ya, why would we?

Why would we want to get away if our read is that it's +EV?

MUBS much?

You're not playing to win more; you are playing to lose less.

You're simply applying all the positive things that we have setup in this hand in the most -EV way because your main objective is simply "how to lose less."

It's MUBS and not much more and your entire argument to call is basically a derivative of that.

Excerpted:

One thing I think you should keep in mind is that, unless you get all in, there is no point at which your draw is worth as much as your statement values it at.

Just doing the 2 x 4 rule: we have 15 outs against top pair-ish hands, so we're more or less 30% to hit on the turn, and another 30% to hit on the river.

So, with $40 in the pot and facing a $25 donk bet, we're calling $25 to win $65. We're calling 38% of the pot with roughly 30% to improve on this street, which means we're relying on future action for our profitability.

Now suppose we whiff the turn and he donks again--our hand is face up, we're only going to hit 30% of the time, it's going to be hard to win any money when we're ahead, but easy to lose money when we're behind, yet we have called two streets where doing so was slightly incorrect from a direct odds perspective.

I don't think you can assume that calling here is clearly better than raising, let alone that it is a lot better. Depending on our raise size, there's a fair amount of stuff we can fold out. I'd probably go about $95 on the flop raise and expect to fold out everything up to and including QJ, and also to fold half to two thirds of KQ combos and maybe some AQ combos (though I wouldn't count on doing so).

I just think you need to keep this in mind when you say we don't want a lot of FE: 70% of the time we just call, we're going to whiff the turn, and we'll have gone from a slight equity favorite to a significant equity dog.

_______________

ETA: The EXACT argument in favor of raising here, in fact, is that it invites the V to play for stacks on the flop, guaranteeing us that we realize all of our equity, which we evaluate as being more profitable than playing it street by street for perhaps several different reasons, one of which is that there is no guarantee we'll be able to realize all of our equity at a decent price.

Sigh...way to kill the thread.

Nice post though

Killing your fun isn't the same thing as killing a thread, imo, iyam, afaik.

Wasn't intentional, though.

Thanks for the post, mpethy.

I still do like calling better, and a few quick responses to your good points.

Although I'm calling the flop, I'm definitely NOT planning to just keep calling, hope to hit, and then hope to shovel money in the pot or fold when we miss. That *is* a bad plan and the last thing I have in mind. What I have in mind is playing extremely well in position. So while your points about our equity from one street to the next are 100% correct, I'm confident I'm going to play this hand better than those odds would imply.

I only wrote a few words on this, but this part is super important:

That is all about the power of position with deeper stacks in this spot.

There are so many permutations of variables after we call the flop, and if we play well and assess and respond to how those variables play out (in position, we have the front row seats), we should be able to extract more EV by calling than by raising the flop.

For one permutation, SB can call or fold.

Next, in position on the turn, the main villain must act first, and we get to see what he does on what turn card. This is incredibly important. My experience tells me that villain is unlikely to donk/fold the flop with this sizing. If this size flop donk could speak, it would say, "Well, I'm not sure what to do... but I definitely don't want to fold. So I'll put some chips in the pot. A raise? I call."

On the turn, villain very often reveals so much more about his intentions and his holding. So while I didn't devote much more time to the quote above, it's possibly the most important point. After we call, the turn is the place to determine in position whether and how to wield fold equity, and if / how we continue to fire the river if we miss or how we massage the pot optimally for value if we hit, etc.

Our turn action will depend on so many factors (SB, whether and what villain donks, the turn card), but generally, I'll be thinking about raising the turn if villain leads *small*. I think we have more fold equity on the turn in general than on the flop, and against another small lead, we get more folds and still get to threaten another large future bet. There's no need to try to wield fold equity on the flop when we can do better on the turn.

If villain bets *large*, I probably do just call again. We certainly have the correct implied odds to call when villain leads large, and villain has now revealed so much more about his hand strength: he usually does have a hand he really likes, and we don't have fold equity (and wouldn't, of course, have had flop fold equity, either).

And often enough, villain will simply check, and I'm probably making a large bet when he does.

SO much more can happen that it's not worth trying to get through... but villain could bet turn small, we raise, he calls, and then he CHECKS the river on a blank... I'm definitely making a smallish bet as a bluff against Axhh and Kxhh hands for excellent risk/reward bluff against a very likely airy range that beats us... I mean, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., there are extensive permutations of possibilities.

Finally, you wrote this part very well and clearly:

And I'm glad you did, because it's exactly where I disagree.

Playing for stacks on the flop ensures a +EV play, but I evaluate it as *less* profitable than calling and playing the future streets in position. I think I can play extremely well in position with deeper stacks behind, make really good reads, and take optimal actions based especially on turn / river cards and villain(s) action(s), and I'm confident I make this spot more +EV by calling flop.

And just from an intuitive stand point, I mean... we have the very best position and a monster draw with deepish stacks... if we can play poker very well, we just have to be able to find ways to play this hand more +EV than the EV of shoveling all the chips in on the flop.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, by calling the flop, you are actually better off to do exactly what you think is a bad plan.

Well, that's about as far fetched as anything I have heard in a while.

You can't just magically improve your pot odds even if you're Phil Ivey. Pot odds is set in stone and it's not matter of skills.

What are parts of skill:

-Extracting value when your hand improves.
-Increasing fold equity when your hand does not improve.

When you choose to call the donk bet on the flop, you are communicating to Villain that your hand has a cap range, because most players in LLSNL do not slowplay strong hands on wet flop.

And like mpethy said, our hand is exactly what our perceived range is, so it would be hard to extract value.

So the first part of that skill set that I mentioned:

You won't be able to extract much. Sure you could argue that you are special, and that's really the basis of your argument at this point...but...umm...I guess ok...

And the second part of the skillset:

Again, if your hand is exactly how Villain perceives it, how are you going to increase your fold equity when a black small card falls on turn?


So your idea of "exercising" that power is by passively calling? How exactly is that power?

"WHEN YOU CALL THE FLOP, YOUR RANGE IS CAPPED"

When your actual hand is the same as your perceived range, you are NOT fooling anyone. You are no threat!

There are far more when you raise, and relative to raising, flop calling range is pretty much consisted of two things: draws and bluff catchers (weak bluff catchers, not crazy top set that turned into bluff).

And we can't do the same thing by raising because?

Even if we raise, SB can still call or fold...

Same exact action as if we raise the turn...

Same permutation...

But your ability could make him fold on turn?

Ok...but can't you not see that perceived range is a lot stronger if we raise the flop than call, and that carries over to turn and river?

So the guy is never folding flop but will fold turn?

I can't really argue illogical opinion that is baseless.

It's becoming clear that you cannot distinguish board textures and that same action is perceived differently on different boards.

Dry board - call flop and raise turn = very strong.

Wet board - call flop and raise dry turn = very bluffy.

This part is where you demonstrated how poorly your logic is.

What do you think is your perceived range when V double barrels large?

Do you think V would pay you off when draw hits on river?

And this is the part where you demonstrated how little experience you have in LLSNL.

Really...that's your argument?

See above.

Great, let's see your evaluation.

First evaluation: you think you are a very good player.

I guess that's not really an evaluation, but ok.

By really good reads, you mean...

Great reads...

You still haven't presented a single piece of argument that isn't based around that you think you are a great player.

In other words, if you are a great player Jedi, you can use the Force to get Villain to fold?

Hehheh, ok, now that is funny.....

Funny haha or funny stupid?

Most players in LLSNL don't understand the term "wet flop".

You don't need to understand the term "merge" to be shoving AI with middle pair on flush board.

Anymore irrelevant point to add?

I think it is extremely relevant, but I have read enough of your posts to understand that you don't.

Just pointing it out for the others reading this thread.

Clearly you missed the point.

Never seen players overbetting the pot on two-tone board and show AA?

Never seen people shove AI with top set because board is connected?

If your point has any relevance in this context, it would have to contend that:

-Hero has same amount of FE on turn if Hero calls or raises the flop.

So, does it?

LOL.

No, your point was that a call caps your range.

My point was that no one at LLSNL will

!. Notice that you capped your range
2. Care that you capped your range
3. Understand that you capped your range
4. Give a **** that you capped your range

Look, if you wanna played 8 levels above your opponents, that's fine, but you are just costing yourself money. If you wanna call, call. If you wanna raise, raise. Just don't think to yourself "I can't call, cause if I do, I'm capping my range to the exact hand I have, OH NOES!!!!" You are just leveling yourself.

LOL

^Yeah, I have to agree with buster.

At these stakes, don't overthink it and don't give your opponents too much credit (just enough credit).

Ha, agreed.

Talking about a capped range makes no sense, and your 4 points are good.

I'll add...

5. Our range for raising the flop may not be capped, but it's relatively unmade and non-monsters. The range for raising the flop is like some ~30+ draw combos and maybe ~9 value combos (6 sets, 3 Q9s two pair).

6. Our range for calling the flop and raising the turn is really NOT capped, anyway. If people expect us to raise the flop very often with draws, then how can our turn raise be capped? When we call the flop and villain bets 25%-50% of pot again on the turn... and now we raise 3x... our range is capped? How so? Are we supposed to have AIR after calling Q9xhh and then raising the turn? I mean, after we call the drawy flop and raise the turn, not only is our range stronger as a whole, but it's also not actually capped.

Oh ok, so in other words, if you call in this spot, V would still give you credit for having a really strong hand on turn?

Do you even know how levels work to suggest that capping range is multiple levels above your opponent?

So play your cards, that's your suggestion?

I guess it was haha stupid.

I expected nothing less from you.

ROFL

What exactly is relatively unmade? OMG...head exploded.

And did you just acknowledge that range isn't capped and yet also say that hands are non-monsters?

OK, let's hear it.

Yep, you don't understand what capped means.

Wait, aren't you the one that suppose to be arguing how your range isn't capped by calling?

You really really don't understand what capped means.