A short Limit quizlet

[peterbirks]

You pick up KQ off in the small blind and it is passed round to you.

You limp.

BB raises. You know that he is likely to do this with about 70% to 80% of his hands (i.e., anything not truly dreadful).

You call.

Flop comes J J 3 rainbow.

You check.

Opponent bets (which he will do 99% of the time. He will only check if he has you utterly strangled with something like AJ, JJ or J3)

You check-raise.

Opponent calls.

Turn is an Ace.

You bet.

Opponent folds.

Now. Here's the question.

Without looking at Pokerstove, when you check-raise this flop, are you

a) bluffing?
b) semi-bluffing?
c) betting for value?


Other minor questions.
1) What is the logic behind limping the small blind rather than raising?
2) Why check-raise the flop rather than bet out or check-fold?
3) Why bet the turn when the Ace fails to help you and might well help our opponent?



Later: Elvis Vs Wittgenstein. Is "You Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog" a valid proposition, or merely a corollary to a fact?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Ill take a shot.

c) value, although the the annoying fact that he will fold many hands when behind makes it a mixed bet.

1) I dont know, limp + bet any flop works quite well, but KQ is a good hand and I like raise more
2) It's a scary board, c-raise is standard here with made hands aswell ie J or 3.
3) Now you are more like semibluffing. And light raisers wont have Ace that much of the time.

Aksu

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Hi Aksu:

c) value.

This was what I thought as well, but Pokerstove seems to make the KQ a dog against a virtually random raise. Paradoxically, as opponent's raising criteria get tighter (up to about 20% raise criteria), the KQ is less likely to be a hot and cold dog. So, technically, your bet on the flop is a semi-bluff. If your opponent is absolutely of the won't fold variety, you are in negative EV territory. I still think that the cr on the flop is right, because of metagame implications.

1) I prefer a raise here too. The argument favouring the limp is that if you never fold and never raise from the SB in this scenario, opponent cannot put you on any range. You have a random hand. Of course, he can then act "best" against a random hand.

I'm coming more to be of the line that you limp with everything up to a certain point (say, KT off) and then raise with all hands up to another level (say, QQ) where you limp again. The parameters are variable. The point is that you have the limp-raise-limp triple level parameter.

The major point is that a limp makes it far more likely that either you or opponent will fold before a showdown is reached. You will be OOP throughout the hand, so the limp serves to keep the pot smaller and makes a bet out by you more likely to elicit a desired fold. However, KQ is of a strength that you probably don't mind a battle to the showdown. Pre-flop your equity against a random hand is, what, I guess about 55%?

3) With the Ace on the turn you are at a situation where either you have six outs, or are drawing dead, or your opponent has six outs (opponent holding 2-4 is one exception, and opponent holding pair lower than Jacks or having a pair of threes is the other. The former gives opponent four extra outs and the latter gives you three extra outs).

Betting gains because you now have a chance of eliciting a fold from lower pairs. In other words, a classic semi-bluff.

The important point here is the line "it's no use betting a two-way hand if your opponent only plays one way". Many opponents will call down to the end in this situation with any pair.

However, since you are OOP you aren't aware of opponent's hand. Metagame considerations compel a bet from you here, because it might well be a bet for value.

Semi-bluffs are often called two-way hands, but often they are three-way "fuzzy" hands like this. There's something like a 30% chance you are winning (and will be called by a chaser), which makes your bet a bet for value. There's maybe a 70% chance that you are behind, but you have about a a 20% chance of ending up in front, which is the "semi-bluff" element, because betting gives you the added fold equity. The chance that you might be in front anyway, plus the fold equity if you are already in front (or behind to a low pair), is what makes a bet much better than the standard loose-passive check-call play.

I know that you know this Aksu, but I'm just putting it down for reference in case I ever want to write articles on limit again (highly unlikely, it must be admitted).

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Well put.

I think you missed the case Ten as an out on turn, but it does not affect to the correct play.

Aksu

[(Anonymous)]

quote """"
This was what I thought as well, but Pokerstove seems to make the KQ a dog against a virtually random raise. Paradoxically, as opponent's raising criteria get tighter (up to about 20% raise criteria), the KQ is less likely to be a hot and cold dog. """"

I did not get the same results. Agains 60 -100% raise KQ is leading. Against tighter range its a dog.

[(Anonymous)]

comment was from me
Aksu

Yes, I had to, you bastard

[real-aardvark.livejournal.com]

Well, it's ten below freezing out there, what with the wind chill caused by a seventy-mph gusting Baltic "breeze," and I still haven't got around to emailing my mother about the state of the Swedish public transport system. So this will have to do.

I'm a little behind on current poker terminology (which reminds me of the very cute HR girl I once met who said "I'll come with you soon; I've got a little behind"), so I'm not too sure about limping and I can only guess at the obvious stuff like "rainbow." However, this looked like a clear value bet to me. Then my exam technique instincts kicked in, and I realised that the safe answer was probably the semi-bluff. But it still looks like a value bet to me.

Which isn't what I came here to talk to you about today.

You know, I've spent fifteen long, lonely years waiting to be told why Elvis had Wittgenstein beat hands down. I think I've finally worked out the answer (below), but it is truly shameful to tell random acquaintances that "Birks is the most intelligent person I've ever met. He can even prove that Elvis has Wittgenstein beat hands down!" and then to have to admit that I don't know Why, or How. Or even When.

Oh well. As Neil Innes says, "A glass of wine/with Gertrude Stein/I know I'll never share/But I don't care/that's just the sort of cross/each man must bear."

After much cogitation (fifteen years, apparently. I did think about girls once or twice. They didn't think about me), I have come to the conclusion that the answer is, fairly obviously, poker-related. So I googled Wittgenstein.

I therefore believe that the answer is:

Wittgenstein died of prostate cancer, and his last words were "Tell them I've had a wonderful life."

The King, on the other hand, went out with a Royal Flush.

(Ta-da!)

All that blue suede shoes stuff was just to put us off the scent, wasn't it?

Mind you, I am certainly looking forward to the forthcoming Wittgenstein retrospective at a Las Vegas casino near you... I mean, Vegas would be perfect for Ludwig. Even when you're actually there, it's almost impossible to prove that the place exists.

However, I suspect that Wittgenstein was more of a blackjack man, myself. ("Zat is nicht ace-ten. Zer ace-ten is delimited from within, as it were by my book, and I'm convinced that, strictly speaking, it can ONLY be delimited in zis way. Ouch. That hurts! Or appears to hurt. Vot are you doing? Or appearing to do? Ouch!")

Actually, there is a more appropriate, and in this case verbatim, Wittgenstein quote on poker:

"Here is one hand, and here is another; therefore I know at least two external things exist"

But would he have check-raised?

[(Anonymous)]

What better hands than yours will fold on the flop? No pair (with the possible a irrelevant exception of 22). So the only way check-raising can be 'bluffing' is if it causes Ax to fold - which it might. However the opponent will have an Ace maybe 16% of the time, slightly more as he's raised, and he isnt folding AK,AQ or A3. So the bluffing of an Ace is a small percentage of the time. Maybe 10%. You can also argue it's part of a meta-bluff to bet any turn if called with a similar chance of success. It's certainly not value betting as no worse hands are paying you off. I can't accept that it's semi-bluffing given that you might have zero outs and 6 at most.

The Ace doesnt change anything - if he was ahead he's still ahead, if he was behind he is still behind. The only hand you might have got rid of that was beating you on the flop is Ax so that's out of the picture. Betting now cannot be seen as a bluff - your action with an Ace makes so sense. You are forcing worse hands to fold and better hands to stick around - exactly what you don't want. You have picked up a few more outs but not enough to justify continuing if he has you beaten right now and raises.

In short I think this is a horribly mangled hand. KQ is way ahead of a random hand so raise pre-flop and lead the turn. There is no advantage to check-calling - apart from the occasional randomising of your play.

matt

[(Anonymous)]

I've now read your answer and there is no way that the Ace is a semi-bluff that will cause a pair to fold.

Why would an 8-foot tall Wookie live on Endor with 2-foot tall Ewoks??? It makes no sense. You've limped pre-flop "with an ace" when you'd be expected to raise, you've check-raise the no-ace flop "with an ace" even thought it didn't help, and now an ace shows up and you bet it means you have an ace!? This hand makes no sense. Your answer makes no sense. It's about as unclassic a "semi-bluff" as you could possibly imagine.

matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Points taken, Matt. Thanks for the input.

PJ

[(Anonymous)]

Matt,
apart from limping pre, i do like how the hand is played.

Are you suggesting check fold? In flop it's not a classic value bet as not many worse hads are folding, still you are likely ahead. Are you suggesting leadig out or what? On turn ace did not change anything, but your opponent do not really know that and now there actually is a nonzero change to make your foe to fold a better hand.

I would play it pound pound pound as you suggest, but if the preflop limp is given, c-raise, and lead the turn is ok way to play it IMO.

Aksu

[(Anonymous)]

If I was there with a pair like 88 then there is no way I'm folding the turn because an Ace comes and you bet out. I would expect an Ace to raise pre-flop but why would an Ace be check-raising the flop? Makes no sense at all. So all this check-raising with air has accomplished is a situation where better hands than yours are never folding to a turn bet and worse hands are never paying you off. That's as bad as it gets I'm afraid - there's nothing to like here.

Pounding it is certainly a viable strategy and far more likely to elicit a fold from a better hand. I'm definitely checking the turn in this spot. You will often get a free card as the opponent may well be reluctant to bet after the check-raise flop. If I miss on river then I'm check-folding 90% of the time.

You're out of position with K-high on a paired board against an opponent who has shown strength and called a check-raise. Continuing to flush money on this one seems folly. The o
pponent doesn't sound the sort to make big laydowns so you're going to have a showdown a better hand to take it.

matt