best thread I have seen in stud since I have joined 2+2. Good post sg, ty for pointing out that there are many diff ways/lines one can take with a poker hand against thinking players.

I was expecting a bit more depth of analysis about the hand than this. Yes everything you say is true, but this is if you play everything straight-forward.

You should really be looking at the benefits of making a check with 4 to an 8. So now the villain is making a huge mistake by calling on 5th. A 4 to an 8 isn't a great hand and with the raises on 3rd the villain will call on 4th whatever the situation and if catches well and you bad at least you lose less. However, if they catch bad and still call down then you make a big win as they are now calling big bets and the hero is over a 90% favourite.

Obviously, you can't just check with a made hand so you can chack with a range of hands. This will put enough doubt in the villains mind on 5th street.

So when doing the analysis, you should include the possible range of hands our hero could have and I assume he'll be mixing his game up.

The hand didn't play out as planned, but other players will see our hero checking a pair here and will play differently when he bets out on 4th and give slightly more respect. So it'll have more long term benefits as well.

We can't say the hero miss played the hand, but can say that he may have taken a certain line against a certain opponent (where he has a good read) which has much larger +EV than just following the bog standard betting out on 4th.

Currently the pot is 2.75 and we have a choice of betting or checking. Now because the pot has been raised on 3rd we know the villain is calling. Secondly, we have an 8 on the door, so the villain knows if he catches well he’ll be in a good position.

Now if we bet, we gain some fold equity on the next street. Firstly, I’m going to assume if the villain catches good eg. 8 and under we give up. This makes the example easier to calculate and if we don’t then our future bets are more –ve EV. The is a question of what happens if we catch both catch bad. Now if a bad player chases down from here, we also getting the worst of it.

So we bet on 4th to out catch the villain on 5th and take the pot then. This happens say 25% of the time (though I expect this is lower). So EV is:

EV = (2.75+0.5) * 0.25 – 0.5 * 0.75 = 0.44, which is good. You can obviously adjust the figures to account for what happens when you both catch bad and we bet again.

Now what happens when we check. The line we could take is we fold if we don’t out catch the villain and get 2.5 bets in if we out flop him (I say 2.5 bets as I’m not sure how many bets we’ll get out of him but think this is fair amount considering the way played) as a 60/40 favourite. So the EV is:

EV = 0 * 0.75 + (2.75 * 0.6 + 2.5 * 0.2 ) * 0.25 = 0.53

So a bet is plus EV, but a check seems to be a greater EV. Now, the assumptions above are estimated and you could say that by changing them slightly then the bet becomes greater.

However, we still need to add into the mix when we check on 4th with a made hand and against a bad player the money just comes pouring in as they chase you down with bad hands.

Hope this shows that checking is OK in certain situations and not as bad as suggested.

Ah the good old days. I wish TT would come around sometimes since we did have some great debates. Of course, there was the requisite mudslinging, but there was some terrific content and it pushed me to investigate some angles of the game that I hadn't worked out mathematically beforehand.

So basically, you have a different read on this opponent than me.

This is about what I was expecting actually, and he laid out an argument for a level 2 line pretty well. If that's effective vs. the opponents you play, you don't have to get very deep. When it's not, it's time to quit calling other players "donkeys" or "maniacs" and simply exploit their weaknesses instead of playing into their (often misguided) strengths. Even though Sklansky was pretty dismissive of using actually strategy to beat "maniacs" in SOP, he presented a wide variety of plays for situations like this that give thinking players a lot of options to maximize their EV. For instance, if hero checks 4th with 76 in the hole in this spot, he gives up an immediate EV of 0.25 SB if villain checks behind. How often would he need villain to be trapped into calling down 3 BB drawing virually dead to make up for this?

Your EV calculation is incomplete. You need to consider all actions with % of the time that your opponent and you will do them on EVERY street.

Well the text discussed the assumptions behind action on future streets. Though these could be wrong, though it gives a broad indication. As mentioned the figures can be adjusted if you think it'll be played differently.

If you can come up with a better calculation on the two routes which could be taken then please share it. When you originally said you'd do more complete analysis when you got home, I was expecting some real indepth stuff, and not a post I'd expect from most players on the $0.5/$1 tables. Though I assume it's because you're a busy guy and you haven't the time to put a more constructive view across.

Wolfe is only ahead if SG has two bricks or a brick and a pair. This is possible since he didn't reraise 3rd and checked 4th, but it is possible he was playing for a checkraise on 4th or otherwise deliberately underrepresenting his hand.

Seems like a bad call on 5th,as Wolfe is eaither a slight favorite or a huge dog.

+1. Tink's calculation is a very good first stab, but with assumptions that oversimplify the problem. Calculating exactly how often each street will break a certainly way, and considering the likely actions of each player in that spot and the EV for the hero associated with each case is a daunting task. That's why I created computer modeling tools long ago to do just that, which I have double and triple checked and used very effectively to model all sorts of razz problems like this.

Villain (and I will only use the term "villain" from now on in this thread, since I don't feel the need to denigrate a specific opponent's play who had no input in this discussion) is actually most likely a small dog on 5th st vs. my range, since the most likely hand for me at that point is an 8 low draw. This is assuming my starting range is any 3-card 8 or better, or any 2-card 6 or better, which is quite reasonable given that I was in a steal spot. It seems like he could be crushed because of my board (which is of course possible), but if I bet 4th with my entire starting range it's actually a good (although marginal) call on his part because of the size of the pot. This is assuming that he will muck on 6th I outflop him again, but otherwise call down UI even if I never bluff.

If I check 4th with the same range, then the pot is 1 BB smaller and his call is a pretty big mistake. Some might even say it was induced by not bloating the pot.

bet 4th unless you are against a very aggro villain and know that he will make the bet for you setting up a check raise on 5th. Otherwise you don't balance anything and show your "transparency" as Joe stated before. The balance in this hand is always betting 4th when you brick or don't brick so that villain is left guessing as to whether or not you bricked. I don't think razz requires as much "high" leveling thinking as some think as in the long run if you keep your play on 4th in this situation the same by always continuation betting I can see it being more +EV in the long run. He will call you down regardless if he reads you for a pair in the hole but checking 4th only gives him an opportunity to catch well when you give up not only fold equity, but control of the hand.

Just my two cents which obvi isn't much

Your calculation is a step in the right direction, yes, but I don't have the time to complete such a calculation now. I'm a dad, a professional poker player and run a very successful business that consumes most of my time. I've definitely put in enough time for this thread. I may explore it in video format someday but for now, I'm done with it.

It's sad, as this thread defines a lot of bad advice given in this forum recently. The play of this hand by the hero is incorrect and even though some of you disagree, my response is what is needed for this hand. Beyond that, every single mid to high stake stud player that I have spoke with bets 4th for all the reasons I gave. Players of the caliber of oscillator, electrical (and I feel soon, Rusty Brooks), who left the .50/1 stakes long ago.

Sorry to disappoint you all.

Added: not to forget you, ceegee, if feel with a lot of hard work you'll be on you way too.

Or he has 40% equity and SG's hand read perfectly. It really wasn't that difficult when you are up to the challenge, imo.

Sorry to disappoint you Joe. I know you are busy and can't work out every situation that comes up mathematically, but you may want to try it with a few examples of advice you disagree with to see if it is in fact bad, or your intuition and advisors are leading you astray. Of course, most advice is read dependent and clearly you're an excellent reader of hands, as you keep reminding us. So if we differ on reads then that's a subjective matter, but the best line to take based on those reads rarely is.

If you've felt my advice is usually bad "kool aid", you've had about 3000 chances to prove it wrong and haven't even tried until now. Maybe your frustration with me stems from the fact that I have always insisted on working out calculations for myself, rather than drinking the kool aid served by others, no matter how reasonable or well thought out it seems. I encourage every player in this forum to do the same, as long as they are capable of doing it correctly, so they can find out some of the more subtle points of this game for themselves.

without commenting on the validity of fourth whatsoever, this is a pretty bad river check imo specifically because we checked fourth, and one plus the other makes absolutely no sense

I gotta agree with Adanthar. The river c/c is pretty bad. I'd c/r or bet/call.

edit: given the read

Like yourself, I'm a dad and I have a very demanding job, so time is limited. I pulled the calculations together in a 5 minute slot at work for an illustration of possible outcomes. I realise that they don't represented the full detail of what needs to be done.

However, I think the indication from the crude calculations is that there isn't a huge difference between the checking or betting in this spot.

I don't think the question is really how this hand played out, but what our hero should do if he catches good in this spot. I think that checking is more than a good option and maybe this should be discussed more than the actual hand that our hero held.

Before this thread I would normally just bet out here in the hero's shoes whether I pair or not, for the reasons you outlined to start with. Now, I can see other options available that I can add to my arsenal.

There is also the point that SG mentions about the action on 3rd street about his hand range by not 3 betting. This could lead to another discussion in it's own right.

Thanks for you responses and good luck on the tables.

i kind of avoided looking at the second page of this thread until recently. i think the fact that were able to cf when we hit bad 5th where as he'll still call when we hit good makes betting fourth appropriate even against mega stations. its SIMILAR to the checking/betting a fourth st debate when when there are theres a complete/raise/call hu with 2 opponnent with strong lows

a26 raise A26T
65a comp/call 56AT

should 126 bet here when so our hands are so dependent on 5th. this is obviously another subject matter as a whole, and there are various answers, but i think the big one is that versus a player who will always fold correctly on 5th ( and wont think youre weak checking 4th...just to cover the bases ) its less mandatory to bet than it is when your opponent will always call a bricked 5th were its criminal not to ( bet ). the big difference in this hand is were the slight favorite where as we're the dog in op's hand. so what happens when we hit the same 5th? THIS is the street where your player reads are especially crucial imo, and also the street that should play most with balancing on third. im a big advocate of balancing cf on 5th with my cr so if we both hit 9 we can act accordingly and if we both hit the 2 we lead or c/c depending on what we think his reaction will be to either.

all in all we should be making more taking this hand to showdown ( esp given his penchant to make both bad raises and payoff ) than we lose from leading 4th, and c/f. i dont think this is as thorough as it could be, but i havent had my allotted daily vitamins and nutrients yet. regardless there are far worse spots to spew than 4th st small bets that help you develop your line.

Adar does make a very good point, but I'm taking him to mean more of a b/f line? Like I said, I'd like a do over on 7th, but despite underrepping my hand my board still screams made 8 by 6th. In general, I hate b/f'ing on the end because it can be so exploitable, but unless villain has stumbled upon our little forum I'm thinking it's rare that he would try a SIWAS with a made 9 so a raise here would have to mean I'm beat.

Dude, ima have to get out a chalkboard and diagram up what you're talking about before commenting.

I have great respect and love for these players as well, but they have leaks too. Specifically, they often release a hand too easily. In fact (and I only say this in the spirit of truth and constructive criticism), if you had followed their advice in this thread and folded on 6th, a conservative estimate is that it would have cost you $3000.

+1. BTW, in case anyone was railing the FR430BB "grudge" match last night: no, I am not busto.

Wat???

-ChipsAhoya

still think folding 5th that hand is long term winning decision v dags. guilty on leaning more towards folding in marginal spots tho.

5th is a much more marginal call, tho it's still profitable if you can hang with villain on the later streets like OP did. This point is harder to prove than 6th st, which just takes a little algebra, a good equity sim, and the assumptions about the villain that OP agreed were accurate. Also, there are often good reasons to fold in marginal spots, but my question is: what lead you to believe that 5th (and especially 6th) were even marginal spots?

on 5th - invested 1.5 bb and youre going to invest at least 2 more bb if you have a chance at winning, with some pretty crappy odds

on 6th - investing 2 more bb possibly dead and pretty much all the time with the worst draw. i think i definitely was incorrect if i said it was more crucial to fold 6th than fifth. if dags will check instead of bluff 7th, calling 1 bet isnt bad. if youre going to have to call 2 i think it sucks.

well I don't want to rehash that whole thread here, but here are some questions you may want to answer when analyzing those kind of spots:

• can you define "crappy"?
  
• does it matter how much you have invested in the pot already, or simply how large the pot is and how much you stand to win or lose on future streets?
  
• if you almost always have the worst draw on 6th st, is this more important than how often you have the best made hand?

I wish I wasn’t 12 in 2009. This was an awesome thread to find.

Going out on a whim posting this. Not an expert by any means but I understand logical reasoning and how it relates to poker theory. Really just posting this reply to think out and analyze my own thoughts on the hand.

Maybe theory has just evolved since then but idk how so many people were advocating playing unbalanced v. a seemingly straightforward player like Paul Wolfe. If anything, IÂ’d think youÂ’d want to be even MORE balanced.

1. What does the check on 4th look like to an unadvanced player? HeÂ’s most likely not going to think that you are able to check your smooth 4 card 8Â’s on 4th. So if checking in an obvious betting situation against a simple player, the check looks weak. To him, you probably paired your 8 or you started with a rough three card 9. ThatÂ’s not 3rd level thinking. ThatÂ’s 1st level. Although not advanced, every player is going to draw a conclusion from HOW you played the street. The most simple conclusion from your play on 4th is that youÂ’re weak. For all the reasons why everyone advocated for the check is the exact reason why you should bet 4th.

So by playing straightforward and turning your had face up, he thinks heÂ’s ahead on 5th or only slightly behind your 98xx. In which case, with your logic, what was your purpose for betting 5th? To get him to fold IÂ’m assuming? Which is exactly why you bet 4th against a simple player so that your bet on 5th actually looks credible. Everyone understands heÂ’s not going to fold on 4th. In a double raised pot on 3rd, 4th street is almost an auto continue.

And those saying that checking the paired 8 balances your checking range. Well yes but now you are unbalanced all together towards checking on an obvious betting street where you catch lower than villain. You can balance your checking range with your really strong draws which in this case donÂ’t exist as a 4 card 8 isnÂ’t very strong.



Realize this is moot decades later but it was a really fun thread to read. Had FOMO not being around for it years ago.

Wow a 5 page thread on a razz hand. Those were the days. Misplayed by both players.