A Limit question
Mar. 26th, 2006 07:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksHere's an interesting hand from yesterday.
You have A♠, 4♠, in big blind at $4-$8. Three not-too-bad-not-too-good players limp, followed by a guy in Cut-off who plays every hand. You have also observed that he tends to fold flops that he misses, but always to bet if he is first with the opportunity to do so. If raised, he may slow down on the turn, but if just called, he always bets again. Once again, as far as you have observed, if he is just called, he tends to bet the river again, but your sample size here is small. It's possible that he checks the river if he has missed completely. Since you are unsure about this, let's assign a 50% probability to him betting the river, whatever, and a 50% chance that he will check if he misses the river completely.
Five players see flop. $19 in the pot.
Flop is 4♣, 5♡, 8♠,
giving you bottom pair with Ace kicker. The three limpers check, and our friend bets, as predicted. Calling here is compulsory and raising might be a good idea, to get rid of the players with overcards. As it happens, you elect to call, (a) because you have been doing your bollocks and you are playing like a gun-shy wimp, and (b) you think that the overcard guys are going to come in for two bets if they are going to come in for one. On reflection, I think that a raise is better. But, that's history now and it isn't the interesting part of the equation. As it happens, the three limpers fold. Presumably they give your call more respect than it deserves, since you have a reputation as tight-aggressive.
Two players see turn. $27 in pot
Turn is 4♣, 5♡, 8♠, 10♣,
You check. Opponent bets. The question here is, are you getting odds to beat a random hand with your bottom pair. top kicker?
Let's suppose you call.
Two players see river. $42 in pot.
The river brings 4♣, 5♡, 8♠, 10♣, Q♣.
Opponent bets again. Do you have odds to call (a) a completely random hand? (b) a random hand where he will only bet 50% of the time if he has missed completely? (c) a "very loose" player's hand where he will only bet 50% of the time if he misses completely?
You have A♠, 4♠, in big blind at $4-$8. Three not-too-bad-not-too-good players limp, followed by a guy in Cut-off who plays every hand. You have also observed that he tends to fold flops that he misses, but always to bet if he is first with the opportunity to do so. If raised, he may slow down on the turn, but if just called, he always bets again. Once again, as far as you have observed, if he is just called, he tends to bet the river again, but your sample size here is small. It's possible that he checks the river if he has missed completely. Since you are unsure about this, let's assign a 50% probability to him betting the river, whatever, and a 50% chance that he will check if he misses the river completely.
Five players see flop. $19 in the pot.
Flop is 4♣, 5♡, 8♠,
giving you bottom pair with Ace kicker. The three limpers check, and our friend bets, as predicted. Calling here is compulsory and raising might be a good idea, to get rid of the players with overcards. As it happens, you elect to call, (a) because you have been doing your bollocks and you are playing like a gun-shy wimp, and (b) you think that the overcard guys are going to come in for two bets if they are going to come in for one. On reflection, I think that a raise is better. But, that's history now and it isn't the interesting part of the equation. As it happens, the three limpers fold. Presumably they give your call more respect than it deserves, since you have a reputation as tight-aggressive.
Two players see turn. $27 in pot
Turn is 4♣, 5♡, 8♠, 10♣,
You check. Opponent bets. The question here is, are you getting odds to beat a random hand with your bottom pair. top kicker?
Let's suppose you call.
Two players see river. $42 in pot.
The river brings 4♣, 5♡, 8♠, 10♣, Q♣.
Opponent bets again. Do you have odds to call (a) a completely random hand? (b) a random hand where he will only bet 50% of the time if he has missed completely? (c) a "very loose" player's hand where he will only bet 50% of the time if he misses completely?
Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 06:33 am (UTC)On that hand if a straight were not already possible then I would take a card off on the flop for 1 bet, to pick up trips, 2 pair or a backdoor flush draw. But even in that case, the problem on the flop is that your call of his bet doesn't close the action and someone noticing the same tendencies in the CO may now checkraise. Plus although someone won't have flopped a straight more times than they would have, there still can fall cards on the river if you hit a card on the turn you like that make a straight especially if more than you 2 had stayed on the flop. As played, when you didn't help on the turn, I would have folded. In fact if he isn't actually a calling station, then checkraising is better than calling to try to take control of the hand and induce a fold then or on the river if he doesn't have much. And on the river as played, all you can beat is a bluff. Indeed again, just betting out as a bluff yourself is preferable to check/calling.
I would also make the general comments that playing looser postflop should generally be done in position, and also that against a player like your opponent here, you lose even in position the value of being able to see a checked river by calling on the turn since you know he will just keep betting until he meets a raise.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 07:34 am (UTC)An interesting line with which I don't necessarily disagree. As I said, I think the check-raise on the flop is better. Suppose that you do this. Your opponent calls. You then bet out the turn and he calls again. I assume that you now check-call the river?
You wrote In fact if he isn't actually a calling station, then checkraising is better than calling to try to take control of the hand and induce a fold then or on the river if he doesn't have much.
I think that on the river, following your line of play, you have roughly the equivalent of an AK unpaired. In other words, as Jennifer Harman points out, it's better to check-call, because if you bet the only hands that you will get to fold are the ones which you are beating.
I don't necessarily disagree with the line you advocate, although I think that the EV between that line and the line taken is very very close.
I quite like a check-raise on the flop and then a continuation on the turn (hence my explanation for my failure to do it in this particular case). He may well fold if he has missed completely. I could probably work out the EV on this quite accurately (and compare it to the check-calling line reported here). However, that wasn't the question I posed. Assuming that you take the check-call line, what is your position against various types of player betting at you on the turn and on the river?
It's a theoretical question with general application, rather than a discussion of a particular hand. If I had added in the check-raise option, it created a complexity that would have obfuscated the point I was (eventually) planning to make.
On your final point, you lose even in position the value of being able to see a checked river by calling on the turn since you know he will just keep betting until he meets a raise, you seem to miss one vital aspect. if there is a less than 50% chance of him beating you, then there is no "value" to a checked river. You want the bet. There is only value to a checked river if you are less than 50% to win the pot. (Once again, these are general points I'm heading towards, rather than ones which are specific to this hand)
PJ
Re: Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 07:42 am (UTC)Even against the kind of player mentioned here, if I am on the button, the play becomes very simple and, not really worth commenting upon. But, I agree, life would have been much easier (and preferable) if I had been on the button here. For a start, I would have raised pre-flop. As the cards lie, it then gets checked round to me on the flop. I bet. All fold to loose player who calls. Turn. He checks, I bet again, he calls. River, he checks, I check.
Unfortunately, dammit, the interesting cards don't always come when you are on the button (8-3 off is more common).
PJ
Re: Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 02:28 pm (UTC)I don't mind the line of checkraising the flop either to get it headsup, especially since a straight flopped and you are representing a very specific made hand, or something nearly as good such as a set or 2 pair. The problem in the hypothetical example you give and the question of after betting the turn whether you should check/call the river, is that he will often put you on another hand you would have played similarly, which is a suited connector that made one pair and had a gutshot draw but that failed to improve. Thus if you check and he bets, then he can probably beat any low pair and so I would probably fold, especially since 2 higher cards came that could have made him a higher pair (although I might call if a flush had also flopped and I put him on a bricked draw).
My point about losing the value of a checked river which you would have in position but not OOP, is in fact because your likelihood of winning is indeed less than 50% IMO with bottom pair by the time the river comes.
FWIW, you might examine your play in general of such hands OOP to see if that is a leak causing you problems. Avoiding more marginal situations OOP should clearly reduce your variance. And the simple fact is that position is so powerful because you can make more moves and see more checked streets when you want it. Thus, other players are entitled to use their position in a like manner, and it pays to be more weak-tight OOP.
BluffTHIS!
Re: Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 04:37 pm (UTC)I wrote about it because of its unusualness rather than its typicality. It was actually a mathematical question rather than one of "do you call in this kind of situation with bottom pair, top kicker, with players behind and a probable gutshot (at least) out there?" The reason the situation is unusual is that it's almost unheard of for me to check-call-it-down in this kind of situation. I just happened to do so here because I was playing badly at the time.
However, it served to raise an interesting point on how you can play "random card players" and what hands you should rate, and which ones you shouldn't.
PJ
Re: Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 06:49 pm (UTC)Your last sentence is very important. In general I believe you should match strength against their weakness, both the strength of better postflop equity and the strength of position. So even though they rate to have not much but will bet anyway, I believe folding marginal hands still is best OOP. And returning again to the matter of the math question and whether you should call the river, again not being able to get checked rivers OOP with him makes playing marginal hands even worse. Because now he will not only bet bluffs that you can beat, but also very bad made hands that better players would check behind with, like a pair just above your bottom pair.
Bluff