Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Quick 0 Spot Quick 0 Spot

05-21-2010 , 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudeoflife
I'm 99% confident he leads all sets,2 pair, AQ,AKdd hands on turn instead of going for the c/r. I'd flat and fold on river unimproved. If he led into us I'd be happy to raise/call it in.
After thinking more about the hand I pretty much agree with this. Folding river unimproved.
05-21-2010 , 06:14 PM
Thinking some more about playing this better...

As played:

Pre Flop: (t30) Hero is MP1 with J J
1 fold, UTG+1 raises to t60, 1 fold, Hero calls t60, 5 folds

So far so good. We don't want to build a big pot early with only JJ.


Flop: (t150) A T 7 (2 players)
UTG+1 bets t80, Hero calls t80

Perhaps a bit marginal. A big part of his range (AX) now crushes us, and some Aces have diamond or runner redraws to even bigger hands. Also some diamond broadway combos are ahead and can outplay us. And of course AA or TT make sense.

We should also be thinking ahead. If villain keeps firing, what cards make us happy at the turn? Really just the two Jacks. At least we have the J so if we spike a set we don't complete a flush.

But otherwise the most likely cards where we can continue are a or a broadway card, either of which gives us only a weak draw. We might then feel compelled to spew some more chips drawing thin and having to fold river. Or finally hitting a weak flush at the river to lose more, or hitting broadway to split.

An ace is always bad to see when you've called a raiser with a pair, but it's the T and s that really conspires to make this a pretty bad flop for us, even though there's only one overcard.

Still, we have underrepresented our hand preflop. I'm not sure we should fold JJ to a wimpy flop bet, even though there's little in his range we're happy about.

I think a call is reasonable, but we're basically just hoping he shuts down at turn.


Turn: (t310) J (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets t220, UTG+1 raises to t744, Hero ....

Ok, here's where it all goes wrong, and where we now wish we checked behind.

In thinking some more about it, I think we *could* know better in advance than to bet, and here's why:

When we bet, we are, presumably, trying to accomplish something good like:
- get called by a worse hand
- get him to fold a draw that could beat us
- get him to better define his hand so we can play the river better

We bet only 220 into 310 pot, and he needs only 0.41 EV in direct odds to call.
- If he puts us on a real hand and has a big draw, easy call with potential river payoff.
- If he has a good made hand, easy call as well.
- If he has a good made hand with redraws, very easy call.
- If he has a weak made hand or air on this scary board, easy fold.


So what have we done? We've priced out only the very weakest hands, the ones we most wish he would call.

The hands that stay in are thus:
  • Made hands without significant redraws... i..e AT, AJ (w/o diamonds), AA, 77, TT. This is a very good range of hands for us, but there are few of them.
  • KQ or getting trappy or for pot control due to the diamonds. Bad for us.
  • 89s getting trappy or for pot control due to possible KQ and higher str8/flush draws. Bad for us.
  • A few good made hands with redraws, i.e. broadway aces with diamonds. Probably slightly favorable for us... they have a bunch of nut outs but may make crying calls at a blank river.
  • A bunch of good draws, i.e. combo broadway or maybe lower straight draws with diamonds. Neutral to bad for us because they have all implied odds and don't have to pay off when missed.
So... have we accomplished our goals by betting?
  • If he folded, he didn't call with a hand we beat.
  • If he called, he MAY have called with a hand we beat.
  • If he called, he didn't fold a draw that may beat us.
  • If he called, he didn't define his hand as his range can be so wide.
Looks like our bet mostly failed to do anything.

In fact, on this turn, I don't think there is ANY bet size by that can accomplish much good.

We could bet bigger... and...
- He raises, we safely fold to KQ, but kills our potential big payoff.
- He flats, only with his big 2pr/set hands and biggest draws, but then he can own us at the river scare cards.
- I don't think there is any bigger bet size that both protects against his big draws while still having reasonable risk against KQ.

We could bet smaller... and...
- Hope he telegraphs KQ with a raise, while not raising enough to price us out of our boat draw, but...
- Our small bet may give him confidence to raise hands that aren't KQ which confuses the issue.
- He flats even wider, leaving us completely in the dark when he attacks with a river scare card.

Bigger or smaller isn't looking good either, which leaves...


Check behind. It seems very counterintuitive after just spiking a 2-outer, but I think it's correct.

If we check, we keep in a ton of hands that we would like to get a bet from. We keep in a ton of draws, too, of course... but most of those were staying in anyway, and correctly so.

Now, at the river... the pot is still small. This is good because the villain has really bad risk/reward to blast us out with a bluff when one of the big scare cards comes (as it will 1/3 of the time).

If he does bluff, it will be for a smaller amount and we can think about picking it off.

If he checks we can often go for some value (e.g. a four-broadway board puts a lot of 2pr in his range).

Most importantly, when a blank comes, we can get value out of a BUNCH of hands that would have folded to our turn bet. It is FAR easier for a weak ace, for example, to call at the river and close the action than it is for it to call at the turn out of position. I think we also get crying calls from underpair/bluff-catchers after we show so much weakness on previous streets.

We also allow hands to get there that we want to get there, longshots all of them but better than folding them at turn, i.e. he raised with something like 88, cbet the flop, and rivers a set. Ditto if he bet the flop with Tx and was planning on check/folding turn.

So... I think there are a BUNCH of benefits to checking behind.

What is the downside?
- We may let a broadway gutshot get there free. But we won't pay off much if it does (because four to broadway are on board).
- We may have gotten two bets out of a few made hands (aces-up, lower set) that we had crushed, but remember... 1/3 of the time the river is very scary and if there was heavy action at the turn we can't bet again anyway. So let's say that 2/3 of the time we could have gotten two bets instead of one against a very few stubborn hands.

All in all, betting seems like it has only very slim benefits.

I'm liking check behind.

Last edited by chalupa; 05-21-2010 at 06:20 PM.
05-21-2010 , 06:59 PM
Chalupa-i appreciate the time and work you have put into this hand.
It's a hand where checking just seems very weak but has merit.
I do think our bets gets called by a ton of ak and aq hands,
Possibly even kk and qq in which we are passing up a ton of value.
In order to justify checking you have to consider his whole range
In which I wouldn't think checking is best. Our stack size is just so awakard
If we get raised but sometimes you just can't avoid them.
05-21-2010 , 07:06 PM
Chalupa, can you provide cliffs for your posts? I've never bothered to read one because they're so long, but I would like to know what I'm missing out on.
05-21-2010 , 07:37 PM
lOl this is absurd. How do you make any chips if ur planning to fold 2nd set on this board and action? Chalupa. You talk too much and because of that I didn't read but basically ur saying check behind turn and fold as played.... WHAAAAAT??????
I'm getting sick leveled right now.
Basically eeetee said it right itt. So view his post if u want my thoughts
ppl on HSMTT need to stop trying to make hero folds of sets and boats. Holy crap.
05-21-2010 , 07:45 PM
How could you know what he's saying if you didn't read his post?
05-21-2010 , 07:52 PM
Skimming and reading the last sentence or two.
It's way too long an prolly inaccurate for me to read completely
05-21-2010 , 09:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor22
It's a hand where checking just seems very weak but has merit.
I do think our bets gets called by a ton of ak and aq hands,
Possibly even kk and qq in which we are passing up a ton of value.
In order to justify checking you have to consider his whole range
In which I wouldn't think checking is best.
Actually his whole range was the point that I eventually got to (or was trying to, anyway, in my last post). Would take a lot more work to put the actual math on it all.

But again, here's the thing... assuming a reasonable range for opponent:

- If he can call a reasonable bet at the turn, it is usually correct for him to do so
- If he can't call turn, it is bad for us to bet, because we miss river value
- If it's borderline, i.e. he can only call one bet, then it's usually just as easy to get that bet in at the river using the power of position
- If we bet turn and get raised we are losing money no matter what we do


Quote:
I do think our bets gets called by a ton of ak and aq hands, Possibly even kk and qq in which we are passing up a ton of value.
I think AK and AQ probably lead out at the turn, but even disregarding that... yes we do get called by those hands. But how much value do we lose?

If we check, we lose a turn bet, but we don't lose a river bet. This is key... we get the river bet in even if the river is a scare card. If four to broadway show, he's not going to check/fold AAKK when it closes the action for the whole hand.

Contrast if we BET the turn vs AK and AQ. If he flat calls, we have to be very concerned he may have one of the numerous draws. At least 1/3 of the time there's a big draw-completing card at the river. If he checks to us it's really tough for us to safely put in a second bet anyway.

We also make the pot bigger and juicier which may tempt him into leading into us on a scare card with a big bet that we can't call even if we suspect a bluff.

Still, I concede we miss some value vs AK/AQ (without diamonds). But it's something less than 1 bet. I think we can make up for that with just the other Aces in his range. A weak ace/no draw has to fold the turn but can easily check/call most rivers after we have shown weakness at the turn. And if we let an AX get to the river and make trips... ka-ching!


Regarding KK and QQ... yes, we miss a possible bet at the turn. It would be a pretty spewy call by him though since he has only 3 nut outs with either, and which are unlikely to have any implied odds (four to broadway on board).

And again I think we can make up for that when he makes a bluff-catching call at most rivers. And of course KK QQ is a very small part of his range anyway.
05-22-2010 , 03:10 AM
I didn't read any of the essays in this thread, but I am definitely calling the turn, I don't think it's that close tbh. I might be convinced to fold river if it's like the Qd.
05-22-2010 , 03:47 AM
Ok, skip the essays and make a short one of your own... show a villain range where you can profitably call all rivers but Qd.
05-22-2010 , 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa
Ok, skip the essays and make a short one of your own... show a villain range where you can profitably call all rivers but Qd.
I mean what do you think he' c/ring the turn with? I think he has a straight, 2 pair, or a set. I don't know why everyone is so worried about him having some huge draw. I've just accepted the fact I am going to lose all of my chips if he has a straight or AA. Scare cards aren't really a bad thing on a hand like this b/c when they hit we get to showdown more often (which is good in this hand, I think).

There is what 1 PSB left on the river? So we have to be 33% vs his range to call the river and breakeven? Don't think it's close on any river that he's jamming.

The only reason I don't want to jam the turn is because he might do something stupid like fold aces up. Also every so often we get to showdown without putting anymore chips in on the river with the worse hand.
05-22-2010 , 04:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa
Ok, skip the essays and make a short one of your own... show a villain range where you can profitably call all rivers but Qd.
the dudes a rando
ur giving him WAY too much credit.
05-22-2010 , 04:45 AM
Well, the dude being a rando I think makes it MORE likely he's checkraising KQ. But ignoring that... I'll ask you the same thing.... don't try to convince me with platitudes, just:
Show me a villain range where you can profitably call all rivers but Qd.
If the likelihood of your range doesn't make milk spew from the forum's collective nose, I'll play you in a $50 HU tourney and bet/fold half my stack on the first hand as your reward.
05-22-2010 , 05:04 AM
I think Chalupa has written more words in this thread, than I have written in the entirety of my posting on 2+2. I gotta give the man props.

And tbh I think this is a lot uglier than many of you are willing to admit, that said I don't think I'd fold in game, but I think the chance of him having like A7 or K9dd or w/e is 0% or close to it. I think his range is more like 77+, possibly AJ, and I think this could be too generous.
05-22-2010 , 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deoxyribo
ppl on HSMTT need to stop trying to make hero folds of sets and boats. Holy crap.
How do you think 11-time bracelet winner Phil Hellmuth Jr won said bracelets?
05-22-2010 , 05:57 AM
Hopefully it's obvious that I've blathered on so long because I find the hand counterintuitive and interesting, i.e. I think I've learned something.


Let me try my best shot at being succinct (not a strong point):

The reason not to bet the turn (and possibly get check-raised) is this...
If we bet anything reasonable at the turn, he has an easy and correct call with a wide range, and an easy raise or trap call with some monsters. And of course an easy fold with squat or a baby pair.
Therefore our turn bet, WHEN CALLED, is not a protection bet, or a bluff, or a hand-defining bet, or a bet that has the villain drawing dead, or any other things a good bet might be. The best that can be said for it is that it is... a rather thin value bet.

My assertion is that by checking behind at turn, and instead putting that same bet in at the river (or letting him put it in), we get paid off by many more hands we beat, AND avoid the relatively rare but very unpleasant checkraise that (in my judgement, see earlier book-like posts) turns our hand into a money-loser no matter what we do.


In short (really!)...

By checking turn we exchange a thin turn value bet for a solid river value bet, while minimizing losses when we are beaten.
05-22-2010 , 06:06 AM
Well the biggest flaw is that assumption is

a) that he isnt gonna cr the turn very often (gonna guess that happens less than 3%)
b) that we should be satisfied with just getting one street when in fact KQ is the only hand we lose to. And the times where he has KQ and leads flop and goes for a cr on the turn is again really small, 95% of the time he will go bet BOMB BOMB (and with good reason since it's obviously correct).
Checking the turn because we could cr in this specific instance (which apparently is a bad outcome) is a pretty dumb reason to valuecut yourself for an entire street

edit: and just to add I check turn/bet river with valuehands more than any other regs so it's not like I dont think it has merit in a lot of scenarios but would be terrible here.
05-22-2010 , 06:45 AM
I wholeheartedly agree he checkraises very seldom. There is some focus on that, obviously, due to how the hand played out here. But if you look beyond that I think there are more things to be learned.

Just as he seldom has a hand that he can checkraise, he also seldom has a made hand that can call two bets (unless of course he outrdaws to beat us at the river).

I think we are naturally focusing on the more interesting matchups where we both have big hands.

But, by far the vast majority of the time he has very little, right? He put in a small flop bet on an Ace-high board, and then appears to have given up at the turn. Normally that means he HAS given up. The range that does that is enormous, and we crush that range.

So we should bet, right? No... because the vast majority of the time he just folds and we get nothing for our JJJ. We are giving him an excellent opportunity to fold a bunch of hands that might pay off one bet, or improve enough to pay off a bet, but that cannot call a turn bet facing a likely further river bet. To a weak hand, the river is going to be a very scary place OOP, so it's prudent for him to give up now.

Then there are the less likely cases when he checks... possible monsters, draws that are going to check/call with a lot of equity, and... the hands you are really hoping for: A few made hands that we both crush and have enough strength that he plans to check/call the turn and call most rivers (assuming that scare card doesn't come as it does 1/3 of the time!). Those are obviously a small portion of the range that calls. Most of the range that can call us has at least some draw and a lot of equity.

The key insight to be gained is I think this... that if he happens to have a range that he thinks he SHOULD call the turn with, he's right and he WILL. And mostly if he thinks he SHOULDN'T call the turn, he's right and he WON'T.

It is therefore difficult to get him to make a serious mistake at the turn, while relatively easy to get him to make a mistake at the river.

Put yet another way, the range of hands that makes a mistake at the turn AND river is far smaller than the range which makes a mistake when we let him get to the river free, where he can close the action with a weak hand (that would have folded the turn) and pick off our "bluff".
05-22-2010 , 07:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa
Just as he seldom has a hand that he can checkraise, he also seldom has a made hand that can call two bets (unless of course he outrdaws to beat us at the river).
Ehm it's not really a question of what "can" call two bets but a question of what will call two bets. There are plenty of reasons to bet the turn most importantly that you WILL get two streets from Ax, hands that equity to improve otr will only call the turn and only continue otr if they get there, we can still rep draws just because we bet ott and as a matter of fact we are more likely to put in a bet with a draw when we have nutequity than try to bluff in a really bad spot to bluffcatch when we have 0% equity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa
I think we are naturally focusing on the more interesting matchups where we both have big hands.

But, by far the vast majority of the time he has very little, right? He put in a small flop bet on an Ace-high board, and then appears to have given up at the turn. Normally that means he HAS given up. The range that does that is enormous, and we crush that range.

So we should bet, right? No... because the vast majority of the time he just folds and we get nothing for our JJJ. We are giving him an excellent opportunity to fold a bunch of hands that might pay off one bet, or improve enough to pay off a bet, but that cannot call a turn bet facing a likely further river bet. To a weak hand, the river is going to be a very scary place OOP, so it's prudent for him to give up now.
Yeah guess what even when we both have "big hands" (whatever the definition of a big hand might be) we are still better off betting since we are still way ahead of his range and the hands that have good equity to improve wont call a riverbet and the made hands that we beat will always call turn and maybe fold on some river that completes and call on bricks.

Also your second statement shows a very fundemental error in nlhe, if we bet the turn and he fold it's not a disaster. As a matter of facts that is whats gonna happen the vast majority of the time where he has some weak hand he cbet and then gave up ott, regardless it's gonna be hard to get value from his overall range that bets the flop and checks the turn but it's very easily negated by the time we get value ott+ otr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa

The key insight to be gained is I think this... that if he happens to have a range that he thinks he SHOULD call the turn with, he's right and he WILL. And mostly if he thinks he SHOULDN'T call the turn, he's right and he WON'T.
Again this is plain wrong and just a very flawed way to approach the game. Just because it's correct for him to call a bet with a hand that has equity dosen't mean it's incorrect for us to bet even if neither player is making a mistake. The only hands you can be talking about are draws of some sort and if you are telling me you knew he had a draw and would still check then you are doing something very wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa
Put yet another way, the range of hands that makes a mistake at the turn AND river is far smaller than the range which makes a mistake when we let him get to the river free, where he can close the action with a weak hand (that would have folded the turn) and pick off our "bluff".

Yeah but the times he makes a mistake on the turn and on the river the pot is gonna be way bigger and easily negate the times where you could only get one street. Also you failed to mention all the hands with weak equity that was gonna c-f the turn and arent gonna hero the river that you are giving a free rivercard, or all the hands that could call on the turn with sd value but will have to fold the river because a scarecard hits.
Also us calling the flop, checking the turn and betting the river looks nowhere near as bluffy as you think it does.
05-22-2010 , 11:00 AM
Mori, may have missed it but your plan on the river here? Calling a brick river shove?
05-22-2010 , 11:05 AM
yes
05-22-2010 , 11:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by homanga
Mori, may have missed it but your plan on the river here? Calling a brick river shove?
why in the world would he call turn planning to fold riv brick?

Last edited by sunnydunerz; 05-22-2010 at 11:08 AM. Reason: ^^^
05-23-2010 , 12:06 AM
mement_mori, I agree with most of what you said -- in general. I think your logic is sound and correct. Again, in general.

I'm certainly not advocating checking second set whenever there's a possible broadway, or always missing value fearing monsters or draws that might get there.

But this is not, I think, a "general" case. I think if you looked at the points you are arguing and did the math with ACTUAL likely villain ranges you might feel differently.

In particular, I think you are putting too much emphasis on getting maximum value from villain's presumed big Ace, when in fact villain's calling (or worse, raising) range is so wide, and on balance, so strong... that it's hard for good things to happen. Particularly when stacks are shallow, because that severely limits our ability to make profitable river decisions if we are raised at the turn.

I think the reason people are recoiling at the notion of checking behind is that it normally IS the wrong thing to do.

Why I think it may be right to do here is due to the curious nature of this board vs our hand and opponent ranges.

Absurdly long post coming soon... I'm trying to break down the hand into the various components, both on this board and another board that looks the same but is better for our set.
05-23-2010 , 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chalupa
mement_mori, I agree with most of what you said -- in general. I think your logic is sound and correct. Again, in general.

I'm certainly not advocating checking second set whenever there's a possible broadway, or always missing value fearing monsters or draws that might get there.

But this is not, I think, a "general" case. I think if you looked at the points you are arguing and did the math with ACTUAL likely villain ranges you might feel differently.

In particular, I think you are putting too much emphasis on getting maximum value from villain's presumed big Ace, when in fact villain's calling (or worse, raising) range is so wide, and on balance, so strong... that it's hard for good things to happen. Particularly when stacks are shallow, because that severely limits our ability to make profitable river decisions if we are raised at the turn.

I think the reason people are recoiling at the notion of checking behind is that it normally IS the wrong thing to do.

Why I think it may be right to do here is due to the curious nature of this board vs our hand and opponent ranges.

Absurdly long post coming soon... I'm trying to break down the hand into the various components, both on this board and another board that looks the same but is better for our set.
just stop being r/o, we dont always get checkraised when we bet here, its that simple
05-23-2010 , 04:42 AM
Actually read most of chalupas posts. If you were OOP or if the board was a little dryer then this would be an easy decision. As it stands I think its pretty close between calling and shoving, but I feel that when so much of the deck kills any action on the river I probably shove. Also fwiw I think the estimated ranges in your first post are way too nitty chalupa, apart from the first one which is why you get JJ to have so little equity vs his c/r range.

      
m