A hand

[peterbirks]

How much should I bet the turn here?

Sorry, but I haven’t transferred over my macros from the old machine. Put that on the ‘to do’ list. So the hand descriptions are the old primitive ones.

HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2007/11/04 –
Table 'Strenua II' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: Paaapaa ($392 in chips)
Seat 2: capaneo ($206.45 in chips)
Seat 3: AllTheWay33 ($81 in chips)
Seat 4: thorladen ($200 in chips)
Seat 5: LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH ($375 in chips)
Seat 6: Hero ($373.40 in chips)
Seat 7: Neutron Girl ($396.75 in chips)
Seat 8: MiracleFlop ($178.60 in chips)
Seat 9: MaxBoyUofS ($157.35 in chips)

LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH: posts small blind $1
Hero: posts big blind $2


*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [9c Tc]
Neutron Girl: folds
MiracleFlop: raises $4 to $6

This guy is about 29%/7% on a smallish sample.

MaxBoyUofS: folds
Paaapaa: folds
capaneo: calls $6

multi-tabler, regular. Looks laggy for a pro, but he seems competent. This could be speculative (in fact, probably is, since the guy is quite willing to reraise pre-flop with good hands).

AllTheWay33: folds
thorladen: folds
LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH: calls $5

Staggeringly loose-passive pre-flop this guy – in for 95% of flops and never raising once. However, his post-flop play isn’t that awful. As a result, when he has hit his hand, he has tended to get paid off. He is about level in the time that I have been playing him, despite me winning about $100 off him in earlier hands.


Hero: calls $4

Fairly uncontentious, I think. Little argument for a repop in any case, but even less so, given the calling nature of the small blind.

$23 in pot. I have $350 behind.

*** FLOP *** [Qd Jd Ks]

I flop the second-nuts. My instinct is to play this kind of hand — where you might be up against a flush draw, a set, two pair, or a gutshot — as quickly as possible. However, I’m in an unusual situatuion in that my effective stack size is $375, nearly two times the buy-in. I’m not experienced at deep-stack play, and I don’t meet many players as loose-passive as my right-hand opponent. In other words, this is uncharted territory.

LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH: checks
Hero: checks

I can bet out here, but left-hand opponent is going to continuation-bet here about 90% to 95% of the time, by my estimate. And if original raiser checks, there is capaneo behind him to save the day. Loose-passive fish will then have to reveal the strength of his hand. He’s reasonably straightforward post-flop.

MiracleFlop: bets $12
capaneo: folds
LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH: calls $12

How much to check-raise? I’d quite like to get this heads-up with LPF. Once again the deep stacks make things slightly problematic, but I decide to put in the amount that I would have if we had both had $200.

Hero: raises $24 to $36
MiracleFlop: folds
LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH: calls $24

$105 in the pot. I have $331 behind, opponent has $333.

*** TURN *** [Qd Jd Ks] [4s]

LOOSE-PASSIVE FISH: checks


How much do I bet here?

Comments

[ribmeister.livejournal.com]

If you're just plain not comfortable with him calling and seeing a river card, then overbet the turn, maybe around $150. It's extremely difficult to put him on AT after flat calling twice on the flop so one has to assume you're good 100% of the time and shoving should never see you drawing to 3 outs for half a pot here.
As it is, if he has 2 pair we want him calling with a 10% draw. If he has a flush draw or a set that gives him 25% of the deck on the turn. We're less likely to make a mistake on the river since we have position. Since opponent is labelled as loose passive fish he might very well call an overbet as he may decide you're clearly trying to buy the pot rather than see a river card.

[smizmiatch.livejournal.com]

I would have put in a much bigger check-raise on the flop -- probably jack it up with a pot-sized raise to about $70. The middling check-raise only encourages opponents to try to draw out on you, and you want them to have to pay for that privilege.
Of course, that wasn't your question. I like betting big on the turn. The overbet suggested by the previous commenter seems solid.
But if you had raised bigger on the flop, you could simply mash the pot button on the turn, get pot committed and increase your likely payoff.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

This actually raises a very interesting point, one which I'll put into a more generic separate post on day.

Given the short timespan available to work things out on the flop, I got the maths slightly wrong. Well, I kind of got it right, as I had the "pot on turn, pot on river" sequence in my head. Where I got it wrong is that we want commitment by the river. "Pot on turn, half-pot all-in on river" is probably better. That would be achieved by a check-raise to $70, provided opponent calls


The two points that you raise have relevance in the land of 2+2, Caro and Taleb. Frequently in 2+2 you will get posts along these lines.

Stoxtrader says in his book on limit that it is vital that even the best players are not given any clue as to the future outcome of a decision when they are asked a question about 'what would you do in this situation'? In other words, even the best are influenced by hindsight

However, there is a second factor in play when you post something online. Consider this:

1) Suppose I had check-raised to $70, opponents had folded, and that was that. For some insane reason I wrote about this hand that ended on the flop. Someone (not you, but someone else) would then have e-mailed with the comment: "I would have check-raised to about $36 on the flop. Your reraise is just too big. You want your opponent in, not to frighten him out". In other words, knowledge of the outcome influences which person writes in with a post. This leads to a bias in the responses that can be misleading.

2) A second factor (one which applies to everyone, I think) is that we have the subconscious influence of "this is what I hope I would have done, given the outcome". In other words, we know that opponent is calling the check-raise to $36. If I had check-raised to $36 and he had folded, no-one would have e-mailed in saying "you should have check-raised a bigger amount".

2(b)) A second factor, which we should ignore but, much to our shame, we often do not, is that we know the turn card. If the turn is an effective blank, and we know that opponent is calling a check-raise to $36, then the check-raise to $70 seems much more sensible (to our subconscious) than it would have if we were looking at a blank slate.

Indeed, I found myself wondering subsequently whether I should have check-raised bigger on the flop, but then I caught myself saying 'but that's with the benefit of hindsight'.

PJ

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Nice analysis Ribbo.

I kind of panicked on this hand, like a rabbit in headlights. Like you, I was 100% sure that I was in front. But that was about as far as I got, in the time available. With the benefit of a more leisurely analysis, I think that we can narrow down Fish's range quite a lot.

1) He hasn't got a set or two-pair. He would have probably bet out the two-pair and gone for a big check-raise with a set.

2) He might have AK, but I think he would have bet out with AK.

3) He's check-called. That could be 99, but I quite like AQ or AJ, possibly suited.

I think that the fact that I have position is important. It makes a bet of $100 quite attractive because, if he calls and a scare card hits which he has missed, he still has a lot of money behind ($190) for a $300 pot. Since he has to act first, he would probably check if he missed. If he bets his last $190 on a river that looks very scary, I think I can fold.

If I bet $150 and he calls, and a scare card comes, he now has just $140 behind for a $400 pot. He might well bet this if he misses. In any case, I am pot-committed and I have to call. He only needs to be bluffing 20% or so of the time for a call to be right, and that's eminently possible. On the downside, more than half the time the river will not be a scare card, so my $150 bet on the turn (if he calls) will have won me an extra $50.

In the event, I panicked and shoved, and he folded. People sometimes call this a "value shove", usually quoting Sklasky and Miller about how opponent can call you less often and it is still profitable.

Personally I think it's a "bottle shove" - a bet by someone scared of being drawn out on. In the past I've bet too little - pricing the draw just a bit too high when I could have priced the draw higher.

In this situation in future (not that it's likely to occur again, I think I would check-raise to $40 and I would then bet $140 on the turn, with the intention of calling an all-in bet on the river, no matter what card fell. This seems to me to give opponent the opportunity to make the most mistakes. He's not getting value on the flop. He certainly isn't getting value on the turn, and he might make a bluff mistake on the river when I am pot-committed.

Still, having written all that, if he had A-J or A-Q, I don't see him calling the $150 bet on the turn either (unless he had back-doored into a flush draw as well).

PJ