My understanding is that solvers are effective at most 3p.

being pretty results oriented here.

k/r the flop. Hand plays much stronger on paired flops like this.

Absolutely this. Bots are not afraid of variance

Mason didn't reraise the flop, because he wanted to maximize chance of winning the pot with a turn bet.

I'm actually quite curious for masons reasoning for not 3 betting the flop and then leading this turn card. It makes sense in o8 but is basically impossible to be correct on this board texture in limit Holdem. There's no scenario where we have a range advantage on the turn here that didn't warrant a flop 3 bet.

I often see people do this when a safe turn card hits and think it's a massive leak. It's not like the guy is free carsing with 2 ovees a gutter and a flash draw. You can and shoukd 3 bet the flop. You can check raise this turn. You can call flop and check call this turn but the one thing you absolutely unequivocally shouldn't do is bet call flop and lead Q turn. But I am curious of the reason

Preflop - Aggro BB who likes to raise flops with overs, but also likes to 3-bet preflop with any black jack hand. Together, your raise and bb's 3 bet is the best preflop scenario given position and dead money potential (also can guarantee 2-4 bets go in preflop with the 5th best starting hand). Its true that you're making the pot larger and won't be able to punish young whipper snappers as fiercely, but you can make up for this by betting into the BB again on the flop!

Flop- He'll raise virtually any hand he plays this way so far, because he's a god-damned moron.

River Check - I like your thinking here Mr. Malmuth. You were going for the C/R to induce a 3-bet bluff. This guy is like your personal piggy bank.

not 3! flop + donk turn = ridic

So we’re 6 ways pre and limping with a massive equity edge to exploit what a single player might do on a flop texture that might come? With many players, particularly weaker players, shouldn’t we just be sticking to shoveling in bets when we think we have an equity edge and drawing/calling down if the price is right?

Everyone co-operates though. Stars aligned and all.

You mean you don't raise on the "flip?"

Let's see. Suppose you raise first-in in early position with two big cards and get a bunch of callers including one of the blinds so there is now a big pot. Now the flop comes with three random cards under your two high cards and the player in the blind bets. I bet you raise most every time.

You're so anxious to prove I'm wrong. I suggest you reread what the article says. Here's a hint, this play of betting into the big blind only occurred because I decided to call with a pair of tens (and raising with tens in the small blind in this spot is certainly fine and probably the better play because the pot is still small). But just to complete the thought, if the big blind only called my play would be to lead on the flop.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Again, you need to read the article again. I explained why I just happened to play the hand like I did.

MM

I agree that most players won't raise with king-jack offsuit before the flop in this spot, but the raise on the small card flop is much more common than you think. By the way, if it helps, just pretend the player in the big blind had ace-king instead.

MM

Hi leo doc:

If you read the loose games section in out book, it all depends on the size of the pot. The idea is that you don't want to make it a shootout once the flop comes. So if there is no raise, unlike what I did, a raise should be almost always correct even if there are several players in. However, if the pot is raised and there are a bunch of players in and you hold a hand like a pair of tens, then as we explain in our book, the strategy can change on many hands.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi Clayton:

I think this is an interesting point. My position would be that many of the players who claim to be math inclined are not any where near being as math inclined as they think.

If you read the article, my initial call preflop was made only because of the discussion here and I'm not claiming that this is the best way to play the hand. That should be clear from the article. However, once the big blind raises, not taking it to three bets with the pair of tens is a whole different animal.

Okay. If this is what you thnk, then you should play the hand this way. In my case, I happened to know the player pretty well and specific knowledge of your opponent can often move you away from standard strategy.

When heads-up on the end and you think your opponent will bet with more hands than he'll call with and you're going to call if he bets, then checking becomes correct. See The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky for more discussion. However, against most opponents you're probably correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

I haven't raised in this spot in many years. Am I missing something?

This has not been my experience. I don't see much over-card raising.

*troll* please don't ban me *troll*

my position would be that many of the players who claim to be book publishers aren't any where (sic) near being as poker inclined as they think.

Or sometimes a person just plays a hand poorly.

Hi andyfox:

You're correct. But a better way of stating it is to say "there can be situations where not reraising preflop can help you win the pot more often where reraising just makes your strategy on the latter streets a shoot out.

I want to quote from my page 12 of my Gambing Theory book:

Now I'm pretty sure someone like dead..money would say the dice were thrown 1,001 times, but I suspect that you (as well as me) would say the dice were thrown only once. Thus, when you can have an occasional big swing, such as occurred with my "Hand to Talk About," it can impact your long term results.

When reading these threads, I constantly see the word equity. This is an important idea in poker and applies well in many situations. But equity is not the same as the "probability of winning the pot." Now it would be the same if everyone was all-in, but there are occasional hands, which usually occur in big multiway pots where unusual plays can increase the probability of winning the pot. However, they do come with a price and that is you often give up expectation on an early street, but you hope to make it back plus some on the later streets. However, this is a statistical idea, and statistical ideas can sometimes lead you to conclusions different from mathematical ones.

By the way, it's my opinion that thinking statistically is something very few poker players understand how to do even though they throw around statistical terms like expectation, variance, standard deviation, and even maximum likelihood estimators. And for those who don't know, I can say this with authority since I did have an 11 year career as a professional statistician.

This is correct. But dead..money, in his zeal to prove I'm wrong, conviently forgot about someone having an ace. So even though a queen or an ace didn't have to be out, and even if they were it doesn't mean the player holding one of these cards would have automatically called for one bet, but it's my experience that in loose games when the pots are big these cards are frequently out and they often do call for one bet when holding one of these cards in a situation like the one I described, but much less likely for two bets.

A slight correction. It's not reraising preflop. My call preflop was only because we have been talking about this stuff in some threads here.

This is absolutely correct. In the two jacks thread, someone estimated that their expectation of making it three bets before the flop was to add one-half of a small bet. In this hand with the two tens, my estimation of not making it three bets before the flop may have been as much as two small bets which corresponds to approximately a 15 percent improvement in the probability of winning the pot. And if some of you think that the 15 percent number is too high, 7.5 percent would be one small bet, and 3.75 percent improvement would be one-half a small bet.

I see this as well. And based on many of the posts in these threads, I guess the games in Las Vegas must play very differently from the games every place else.

Best wishes,
Mason

Nor have I. But if I even going to consider doing it the last person in the world I would likely do it against is Mason.

People dunk flops into the pre-flop raiser with hands they are looking to b/3 at such a significant clip that raising the random over cards hoping to maybee free up 3 outs or a backdoor draw is just stupid and lighting money on fire.

If we pretend the bb has AK why on earth would be raise you on the flop?

I'm saying that if we limp pre-flop and lead the flop our opponents will peel nearly the exact same range as when we raise pre-flop and lead this flop. When this happens we lose tons of value because we missed out on all of the value pre-flop and we don't gain extra folds post-flop....

Further you indicated that we lose when a Q hits on the turn, so we likely also lose when a J, K or A hits. I assume that means when the flop contains a J, Q, K or A, we probably have to check fold TT or what exactly is your play.

Mason, please explain your rational for not 3 betting the flop? I can't think of a single reason that can possibly be correct

What's your point? If the pot is not yet raised, it's not yet big. These plays are mainly for when the pot is big. I've stated that countless times.

I didn't say this. I suggest you read the article and you'll have your answer.

MM

Hi bicyclekick:

I don't claim that my "Hands to Talk About" are well played. I post them, even though I haven't posted one in a long time, because I think they're interesting and will generate discussion. Also, one of our stated purposes for these forums is vigorous debate, and my Hands to Talk About often fit right into that. But we also have a low toleration for insults.

Approximately 20 years ago I posted a hand about a pair of fours that literally had thousands of reponses all over the poker related Internet, and I even read a Card Player Magazine article about it. And at that time, lots of people told me that I didn't know how to play or understood poker very well. Yet our company always seemed to put out the best books. (If you're interested in the Pair of Fours hand you can find an essay on it in my book Poker Essays, Volume III.)

By the way, I do agree with you that many, but not all, of the book publishers who have entered the the poker/gambling field have a very poor understanding of the material that their books address and that's part of the reason why there have been so many poor poker books over the years.

Best wishes,
Mason

I don't know if you're missing anything. And I didn't say that the raise was the correct play. What I am saying is that in the games I play in these plays do occur in these not too common big pot situations where a lot of players have taken the flop.

Mason

I would also keep betting. But if a queen came, the less opponents I have the better.

I guess you don't understand this either. You say, "by raising you make the pot twice as big." That's true if the pot is only limped. These plays mainly come into play when the pot has many players in it and has already been raised. Now when you raise you don't make the pot twice as big.

You should read the Loose Games section in HPFAP. We explain the math behind it there.

I don't think this is true. Large multiway pots should be very difficult to simulate well.

Best wishes,
Mason