First Cash Hand Post - Be Gentle

slegs

Getting started at the auld cash games. This is the first hand i've posted on boards.

Ive been at the table for about 50 hands. My image is LAG but Ive not showndown any bluff. Villian seems tight but I not got much info on him.

What do you think of my play to turn?

What do I do now?


2/4NL, hand converted by the iPoker Converter at Talking-Poker

saw flop|saw showdown

Button ($704.03)
SB SB ($407.20)
BB BB ($390)
UTG hero ($345)
UTG+1 ($357.40)
CO ($731.10)

Preflop: hero is UTG with T T
hero raises to 16, 3 folds, SB calls 14, BB calls 12.

Flop (48) 9 8 6
SB checks, BB bets 35, hero raises to 140, 1 fold, BB calls 105.

Turn (328) 9 BB moves all-in for 234

valor

I would just call the flop donkbet. I dont want to make the pot huge by the turn and nor do I want to get it all in on this flop with my holding, and there is a player left to act behind us. He will fold most hands that beat us to our flop raise or push - i very rarely expect a villain to call like he did here

once I get to the turn like this, I dunno. I would expect him to push most draws on the flop & most made hands - 88 66, 2 pair, combo draws. I think his most likely hand here is a naked 9 like K9/A9 that doesnt want to give you a free card once he makes trips. I wouldnt be surprised to see a badly played overpair either. If he called the flop with a draw and had the balls to push here then good for him. I guess we have to consider that our hand looks very much like an overpair so if he has a draw and just called the flop, this is a great card to scare us off.

Overall, I feel We are getting a decent price but I dont think you can profitably call here

Marq

sigh. I wish I had the roll to start learning how to play cash at 2/4.

Flop raise is very big - you're usually only going to get action from monsters. Unlike tournies you don't really need to protect your overpairs, and you've inflated the pot with what is now a very marginal hand. I prefer a call anyway.

that board is awful, I fold the turn but I'm a total nit. then again I can't really put her on a hand that you're ahead of. maybe 78d.

IHAVEACAT

i would just call the flop bet to keep control of the pot. when he pushes i cant see one your beating. i would think it is a badly played overpair in this spot. on a sidenote s their ne reason u didnt buy n for thr max?

slegs

I did buy in for the max

IHAVEACAT

ur on $345. dont u auto top?

slegs

every now and then...

Ste05

It's a pretty disgusting looking flop, I would also just call the donk bet and see what he does on the turn, probably folding to a turn bet (certainly folding when the 9 falls and he bets). Sometimes I will just fold if I respect the player. As we're never getting our stack in here as a big favourite. I'm not interesed in playing a big pot here at all. We have the bottom of our range for playing for stacks, as it'll be fairly obvious we have an overpair,

The Villain could literally have anything here (and basically never have nothing especially if he's tight as described) and unfortunately it's very difficult to play our hand, he'll know pretty much exactly where he stands at all times and we are basically playing blind, his bet also makes the hand rather shallow, we're not deep enough to make it a multi street pot. He can play pretty much perfectly from here on. You have exactly the bottom of your range for continuing with the hand. If anything I'd call a few bets but I'd never raise at any time in this pot.

As played I fold to the turn bet.

bops

i would have to put villain on a draw here. what did he donk bet and call your reraise with? well if it was 2 pair and he now have 9s full, he wouldn't push??

so i'm gonna go out on a crazy limb here and say he has a big draw, my guess is Ah 7h - the turn card is perfect for the push - it's so obvious you have an overpair

i don't blame you for reraising the flop bet, you have the best hand and want the draws to pay to see - also i don't blame you for your large pf raise - it's no harm making it a little more expensive with TT - also i think your raise is probably standard when using the stupid slide bar yoke.

gl

Ste05

Personally I think a set would play the hand exactly like this, if he pushes it gives all over pairs a chance to fold, and it's quite unlikely that you have Axd, it's certainly in our range but it makes up a small enough % of it that I think a call is a better play with a set and gives an over pair a better chance to commit on the Turn or River.

A draw is certainly in his range but I think a set makes up a large enough % of that range to make a fold on the turn correct, especially as 9x would also be in his range

bops

would you donk bet a set here??

(i often would, but my play is kinda strange!)

slegs

Thanks guys...flop raise was very wrong as I suspected

Also wrongly called the allin bet as I'm losing to so many hands but I felt it was a draw type bet on the turn (would he not try to value bet his 9 or set and check down his overpair after the turn 9 - why does he want me out of the pot at this stage?).

Ill keep the learner plates on for the moment!




2/4NL, hand converted by the iPoker Converter at Talking-Poker

saw flop|saw showdown

Button ($704.03)
SB SB ($407.20)
BB BB ($390)
UTG hero ($345)
UTG+1 ($357.40)
CO ($731.10)

Preflop: hero is UTG with T T
hero raises to 16, 3 folds, SB calls 14, BB calls 12.

Flop (48) 9 8 6
SB checks, BB bets 35, hero raises to 140, 1 fold, BB calls 105.

Turn (328) 9
BB moves all-in for 234, hero moves all-in for 189.

River (751) 8

BB shows 7 6
hero shows T T

hero wins 751 with Two pair, Ten's and Nine's with a Eight for a kicker

Captain Tom

Ste05 wrote:

Personally I think a set would play the hand exactly like this

i really doubt a set pushes the turn when such a scare card falls against a person who has clearly defined their hand as an overpair.also there would be no need to protect the hand vs Axd type hands.

id expect to be behind quite a bit but i think i call.2 pair/set pushes flop nearly always.i doubt he has a combo draw because he probably would have 3 bet shoved the flop but i think we see 77/87s/67s type hands enough to make the call profitable getting around 5/2 on our money.

edit:hadnt seen response lol.give us some time to argue in future!

bops

let me get this straight....

your reraise on the flop was wrong coz you had the best hand on a draw heavy board??

and your call of the allin was wrong coz you had the best hand??

imo they are not wrong plays, but are dangerous variancewise


btw bops 1 ste 0 lol

mdwexford

its a horrible raise on the flop as has been said above.
you dont want to play a massive pot with such a weak hand.

its also a loose call on the turn

slegs

I dunno....went on my read as above but I I agree that I played the flop too hard..put myself in the situation to make a decision that didn't need to be made even tho it worked out well

Ste05

bops wrote:

would you donk bet a set here??

(i often would, but my play is kinda strange!)

Yes I would alot, it's the quickest way to stack an over pair, I'm not too bothered with trying to get a cont. bet from a missed AK especially as alot of the time they won't bet this board as it's such a bad one for a PFR, I want to play for stacks here with a set and the money needs to get into the pot somehow, so I'll lead the betting, there's so many scare cards that can turn here, both for us and for the Villain. I'd also donk bet here with a draw, and as a bluff sometimes, as this is such a scary board. Although I'd probably push the flop with both my draws and my sets and fold my bluffs if re-raised.

Captain Tom wrote:

i really doubt a set pushes the turn when such a scare card falls against a person who has clearly defined their hand as an overpair.also there would be no need to protect the hand vs Axd type hands.

As I said if I had a set I wouldn't be worried about protecting from Axd. What is the difference from pushing here and pushing the River, it's a good card for a draw to push with as he's repping a 9 as well as a draw, therefore it's also a good card for a set to push.

I certainly think a draw will also push, but personally I'm just never playing for stacks here and IMO we'll see set's and 9's enough to fold. But I'm very tight when my hand is at the bottom of my range and is clearly defined (if not actually over represented)

P.S. And yeah slegs we need more time to argue it out. LOL

slegs

Noted

Marq

Marq wrote:

I can't really put her on a hand that you're ahead of. maybe 78d.

I was pretty close!

cooker3

I don't like the flop raise as been stated but I probably call expecting a draw a lot. I don't expect to see him have 9 here pretty much ever.

bops

a little off topic - but did you used to play 100$ & 200$ STTs on tribecca with a similar SN to slegs??

Ste05

bops wrote:

a little off topic - but did you used to play 100$ & 200$ STTs on tribecca with a similar SN to slegs??

That's all the off topic posts allowed in this thread please, this has potential and I really don't want another possibly good thread to be derailed.

Thank you all.

And the answer to this is Yes. I think it's fairly public knowledge so hopefully slegs won't mind me answering for him. If you don't want this answered slegs, send me a PM and I'll delete both this and Bops post.

bops

sorry master!!

but there was a reason behind my question - back in the day when i used to play alot of stt's slegs was a very capable player - it just appears you've played this hand more like you would play in an STT.

I dunno if anyone agrees with that, but that's how i see it. Players who switch over from stts, at the begining, usually end up playing a lot of hands for stacks. I think one of the important things to learn when starting to play cash @ this level is pot control....i dunno if that's off topic also but i think it's important to note

Ste05

bops wrote:

sorry master!!

but there was a reason behind my question - back in the day when i used to play alot of stt's slegs was a very capable player - it just appears you've played this hand more like you would play in an STT.

I dunno if anyone agrees with that, but that's how i see it. Players who switch over from stts, at the begining, usually end up playing a lot of hands for stacks. I think one of the important things to learn when starting to play cash @ this level is pot control....i dunno if that's off topic also but i think it's important to note

LOL, yeah I suppose it is relevant but there's still meat in the hand in it's own right, and although that is a very interesting topic, I'd say it's worthy of it's own thread TBH. I'm not trying to be a @rsehole, I'm just trying to cut down on the chatter somewhat if possible.

Cheers.

bops

fair enough (you have a long way to go to get to @rsehole status in my book!)

anyway, say you put the villian on a draw when he donk bets:

which is better?
A) peeling off a cheap turn - hoping for a blank, and then making him pay to see the river, or
making him pay for it now??

i think the correct play is but it is much more hazardous

i venture between A & B, depending on how i'm running TBH

this one always bothers me and would love a definitive answer!

Ste05

Well to begin with after the donk bet you can't just say he has a draw. The way to look at is, he has a range of hands that will donk bet, a certain % of them are just plain old bluffs (well if I'll do it I presume more than 1 other person will, making it higher than 0%, i.e. my definition of a bluff is a hand that will fold to a re-raise), another % of the time it'll be a set, another % of the time it'll be a draw/ pair + draw, etc. and another % of the time it can be an over pair, although unlikely after the SB called too.

Then we assign weightings to how we perceive the Villain, (I take careful note of how people play draws) if he doesn't play his draws aggressively we give the % of draws a lower % and if he plays them aggressively we give it a higher %.

Generally with this bet (which I like BTW for a variety of reasons I'll hopefully get into below) he has now asked our Hero an expensive question for relatively cheap. He has bet $35 into a $48 pot, making the pot now $83 and our Hero only has $330 or so in his stack, any raise here will now have to be for basically half his stack, and allows the Villain to play perfectly, if he has a bluff, he folds simply losing a small amount, if he has a set/draw he can push expecting our Hero to call and stack off against a set and be in decent shape with a draw. In each case he has a wonderful spot. I'd rarely expect someone to simply call as happened here. We can also fold sometimes, which equally is good for his draws and bad for his sets but the frequency of each makes up for each other when you compare when we call and when we fold.

So then to just move onto your point about charging draws, here is where the weightings of his range comes into play. We are charging a certain % of his hands and spewing to another % of them. I don't ever work out exact %'s or anything like that, it's all very much just from past experience and intuitive thinking but I'll decide if I want to play for stacks against his range based on how often I think he'll have a draw, we'll never know this to any degree of certainty but we can know enough to make an educated guess.

We also have to consider the SB in this hand and this flop also fits into a large % of his range too, so we're really firing in the dark here, and it makes the donk bet all the more scary, but I haven't discussed it here for simplicity reasons.

If you compare that to a call, we call the $35 and the pot is now $118 and we have about $290 or so left, we also get to see what the SB does (usually he'll fold, if he raises we then get to see the BB act again, all in all a much better proposition) But again ignoring the SB for the purposes of this post. We call and see the turn, if a scare card falls (either a scare card for us or what should potentially be a scary card for him, (say a diamond, 7, A, K, Q, J, etc.) and he bets again we can be fairly sure we're beaten and fold happily, if a blank falls, 2c, etc. etc. and he bets we then have a tricky spot, and again can fold if we want as he's showing alot of strength and our call hasn't scared him, or if we think he'll semi-bluff again we can call him again, and see the River again a tricky decision, but a decision none the less [EDIT: Again we assign weightings to his range based on the further information we have gathered].

So if you can see from the 2 examples we have an absolute mountain of information before we commit our stack by calling as opposed to knowing very little when we commit our stack by raising. We've also controlled the pot size and allowed the guy to bluff if he so chooses to.

I could go on for another age but I think I've covered the main points in there.

hotspur

I think with the exception of your flop raise being a bit too big you played the hand correctly, and you were correct to reraise his flop bet which turned out to be exactly what you would expect it to be. Only a total limit hold donk would lead into you there on the flop with a random 9. I think you should reraise smaller and fold to a push unless you know he pushes draws like this, a call will mean the kind of hand he had the majority of the time.

And a word of advice if you are going to ask players on here for advice on HH's, you'll get a lot of people talking about pot control, this is a semi-dodgy concept as is often used by weak players to cover up their inadequacies at doing what you should actually be doing - working out equities based on ranges. That's why people here have been saying reraising the flop was bad, you likely had the best hand and 2 blockers to a straight draw, it's a raise in most good aggressive players' book.

You know a lot of the top online cash players laugh at the conept of pot control as it's bandied about by some as an excuse to play weak.

ianmc38

before i saw the result i thought villains hand looked like a big draw rather than a boat. i dont think anyone open shoves the turned nuts/boat.

Hectorjelly

hotspur wrote:

I
And a word of advice if you are going to ask players on here for advice on HH's, you'll get a lot of people talking about pot control, this is a semi-dodgy concept as is often used by weak players to cover up their inadequacies at doing what you should actually be doing - working out equities based on ranges. That's why people here have been saying reraising the flop was bad, you likely had the best hand and 2 blockers to a straight draw, it's a raise in most good aggressive players' book.

You know a lot of the top online cash players laugh at the conept of pot control as it's bandied about by some as an excuse to play weak.

I think in the past I would of responded to this with a joke. Are you really serious? Its an interesting idea no doubt, but the techniques commonly referred to as "Pot Control" are pretty much what seperate mediocre tight players from good winning players. Of course many people incorrectly apply them, both in hands and on boards, but thats true of all concepts.

Ste05

hotspur wrote:

And a word of advice if you are going to ask players on here for advice on HH's, you'll get a lot of people talking about pot control, this is a semi-dodgy concept as is often used by weak players to cover up their inadequacies at doing what you should actually be doing - working out equities based on ranges. That's why people here have been saying reraising the flop was bad, you likely had the best hand and 2 blockers to a straight draw, it's a raise in most good aggressive players' book.

You know a lot of the top online cash players laugh at the conept of pot control as it's bandied about by some as an excuse to play weak.

Pardon?? Are you being serious here?? Please name 1 "top online pro" who "laughs at the concept of pot control".

I'm not sure whether the remark about pot control being a "semi-dodgy concept as is often used by weak players to cover up their inadequacies at doing what you should actually be doing" was aimed at me or not, but if it was I'd like you to look through my posts in this thread and point out exactly where I am wrong and why theoretically you think he should be raising this flop, to just say he was correct is basically worthless, you need to say why he was correct.

bops

ste - all what you've said makes perfect sense and is well written, but...

if he is on a draw - he wants you to flat call or fold here - calling is really giving him exaclty what he wants

my dilemma is pot control - which is passive, but senseable V's aggression - which is dangerous, but probably the correct play

I believe what Hotspur said is fairly true - the big players appear to play very aggressive poker - i would say they raise there 99% of the time - maybe it's the lack of fear, due to large BR's that give them the right to ignore the variance attributed to such plays. (i'm ignoring the stuff aboue PC being a semi dodgy concept...)

With reference to the hand in question, if a scare card comes on the turn, and there is lots of them, the pot is basically his for the taking - i would view the 9 as a scare card (not as much as one that fills the str8/flush), but i think the villians biggest error here is pushing when the 9 comes. I believe that the best play here is to check, he'll probably get a free card, and then push the river - this will rep a big hand here better imo (and he might even fill OTR)

Ste05

bops wrote:

if he is on a draw - he wants you to flat call or fold here - calling is really giving him exaclty what he wants

Again, as I said it's about his hand range, if he has a draw he wants us to call or fold, if he has a set he wants us to raise. If we do raise he can fold a draw if he wants to, or he can push and nearly always have good equity against any over pair. If he has a set he pushes and has us crushed. Either way we’re basically batting blind. I don’t have the time or inclination to do an EV calculation but if anyone else wants to do it I’d hazard a guess it’s a minus EV raise considering that usually he’ll push with the same range (less a small % of bluffs) and we’ll then have to call and be up against X% of sets and Y% of draws.

It's about letting him play perfectly knowing exactly what we have.

bops wrote:

my dilemma is pot control - which is passive, but senseable V's aggression - which is dangerous, but probably the correct play

As I said I don't think it's the correct play against his probable range. In this particular example (which just happens to be a part of the % of his range where he had a draw) results wise it was correct but as a rule incorrect.

If he happened to have a set in this example I'd be writing the exact same things would everyone advocating a raise be?

[EDIT: And it's not about being passive and sensible versus aggressive and dangerous, it's just good Poker, we have position and can utilise it to our advantage as much as possible here]

bops wrote:

I believe what Hotspur said is fairly true - the big players appear to play very aggressive poker - i would say they raise there 99% of the time - maybe it's the lack of fear, due to large BR's that give them the right to ignore the variance attributed to such plays.

They do play very aggressively, but I can 100% guarantee you that all of the “top” guys fully understand and utilise the concept of Pot Control, the problem is that so do most of their opponents and so much they know, that he knows, that they know etc. goes on and there's so much metagame that makes it appear crazy but believe me they fully understand and utilise pot control.

Pot control also means creating big pots, and a donk bet here does exactly that, if you look at it from the Villains point of view he has now controlled the pot to make it large and he is in complete control as to whether or not he wants to put all his money into the middle and know pretty much what we have (a REALLY tight range can be assigned to us), personally I'd never just call the re-raise but he did so he's probably not that great a player and after all a donk bet can be a stupid move used incorrectly as I see every night on iPoker, it's one of the biggest leaks most of the donkeys there have. (Hmmm, I wonder why the feck I'm educating people about it here then....:rolleyes:), but I’m talking about the concept behind the play not this particular villains thinking, god knows what he was thinking, he could have just fluked into making a good donk bet for all I know.

bops wrote:

With reference to the hand in question, if a scare card comes on the turn, and there is lots of them, the pot is basically his for the taking - i would view the 9 as a scare card (not as much as one that fills the str8/flush), but i think the villians biggest error here is pushing when the 9 comes. I believe that the best play here is to check, he'll probably get a free card, and then push the river - this will rep a big hand here better imo (and he might even fill OTR)

I don't care if he wants to take the pot away from me, fair play to him if he bluffs me, he deserves what would only be a 30BB pot, we don't and can't win every pot we play/ raise Pre-Flop.

If the Villain checks the turn it's unlikely we'll bet for him, and then he has to push the River when a flush might complete or a straight might complete all of which are scare cards for us killing his action. He can hope for a non straight or flush card to fall and try to represent a missed draw, but we can still fold there too, it's pretty much for muchness IMO between pushing the turn and pushing the River, the pots big enough now that there's only one bet left. So he just decides when to put it in, personally I'd put it in now, as alot of people here seem to think it looks like a draw, so why not put it in??

If he bets the river on any non diamond or 5, I’ll pretty much insta-call anything less than 2/3 pot bet. Assuming I’ve just called the flop.

slegs

Ste05 wrote:

That's all the off topic posts allowed in this thread please, this has potential and I really don't want another possibly good thread to be derailed.

Thank you all.

And the answer to this is Yes. I think it's fairly public knowledge so hopefully slegs won't mind me answering for him. If you don't want this answered slegs, send me a PM and I'll delete both this and Bops post.

Thats no problem ste...my handle is not a secret...yes thats me

slegs

bops wrote:

sorry master!!

but there was a reason behind my question - back in the day when i used to play alot of stt's slegs was a very capable player - it just appears you've played this hand more like you would play in an STT.

I dunno if anyone agrees with that, but that's how i see it. Players who switch over from stts, at the begining, usually end up playing a lot of hands for stacks. I think one of the important things to learn when starting to play cash @ this level is pot control....i dunno if that's off topic also but i think it's important to note

Thanks Bops...I think this is spot on...that slider in iPoker dont help either

slegs

Thanks for the contributions guys...I got much more out of this than I had expected

hotspur

Firstly to Ste05 no the comment wasn't at all aimed at you, in fact on the contrary I hadn't read your post directly prior to mine and wished after posting that I had because you at least bothered to analyse ranges.

When I use the term pot control I'm referring to keeping pots small only.

As for the incredulity at my comment that a lot of top cash players don't hold with the idea of pot control as it tends to be used by most players today, it's true. Ask the top NL online cash player in the world Brian Townsend what he thinks about this issue and he'll tell you exactly what I just did.

The truth is that the top aggressive players make their decisions based on good understanding of equities of ranges, there is no over pervading concept of pot control. They don't play small pots when they have good equity over the opponent's range.

The concept of pot control is so often used by players as an excuse for playing scared "keep the pot small because I don't have a set" kind of thinking. That's how most people play, but it's not optimal, and it is based on a lack of confidence about opponent's ranges or ignorence of equities.

"Pot control" is something you will hear from a 1/2 player 100x more than from a high stakes player. Obviously (or I should make it clear) I'm not suggesting that controlling a pot size is a silly concept, it is valid in many circumstances, but I'm saying that it is being abused as an overiding concept by many players who want to play smaller pots because they don't know where they are or understand their equity.

Hmm, here's a quote from SbRugby on the topic:
"I see tons of posts here talking about pot control or some other catchy phrase. Although some of these catchy phrases are nice they are usually misapplied to the problem at hand. I tend to put people on ranges as you can never know exactly what someone has. From there it I do equity calculations based on there range vs my holdings."

sikes

I agree, pot control is a pretty stupid idea. Its basically saying we are trying to minise the cost of our mistakes or minimise the lose we make if we get drawn out, rather than maximise our expectation for the hand.

Ste05

Interesting post Hotspur, I agree that it can be used incorrectly at times by people as an excuse but the concept itself is important.

I don't know if you've watched any of sbrugby's cardrunners videos but he definitely doesn't go off firing away madly and although he might not use the phrase "pot control" (I don't know whether he does or doesn't I never paid that much attention to be able to say definitely either way) but he definitely controls the size of pots. Be it by calling or raising based on his equity calculations etc. and how he expects the best way to proceed with the hand.

Although I agree with you that the use of the concept can certainly be used wrongly in alot of spots by alot of people, I probably just took exception to what I perceived as an under-handed sleight on me, so let's kiss and make up...

P.S. Where did you get that quote from, I wouldn't mind reading whereever it came from.

ollyk1

Ste05 wrote:

P.S. Where did you get that quote from, I wouldn't mind reading whereever it came from.

It came from sbrugby's well on 2+2 if memory serves...

Ste05

Ohh god well I've read that already and there's no way I'm trawling through it again, it's about as long as War and Peace... LOL

hotspur

Olly's memory serves better than Roger Federer's pimp hand when Serena Williams demands equal prizepools for women's tennis. (sorry just after posting about tennis fixing in the betting forum)

Gholimoli

wow and i mean wow is all i can say to this thread.
the posts on the second page of this thread are so wrong and off that it actually hurts.
i was originally gonna respond to Bops post and telling about the mistakes he is making but then it just got worse worse.
i will reply later with a bit more detail but its gonna be much later and i think if HJ looks at this thread he may do it before me.

Ste05

I look forward to it Gholi...

Gholimoli

bops wrote:

ste - all what you've said makes perfect sense and is well written, but...

if he is on a draw - he wants you to flat call or fold here - calling is really giving him exaclty what he wants

my dilemma is pot control - which is passive, but senseable V's aggression - which is dangerous, but probably the correct play

I believe what Hotspur said is fairly true - the big players appear to play very aggressive poker - i would say they raise there 99% of the time - maybe it's the lack of fear, due to large BR's that give them the right to ignore the variance attributed to such plays. (i'm ignoring the stuff aboue PC being a semi dodgy concept...)

With reference to the hand in question, if a scare card comes on the turn, and there is lots of them, the pot is basically his for the taking - i would view the 9 as a scare card (not as much as one that fills the str8/flush), but i think the villians biggest error here is pushing when the 9 comes. I believe that the best play here is to check, he'll probably get a free card, and then push the river - this will rep a big hand here better imo (and he might even fill OTR)

i dont mean this in a bad way but this is all not true at all.

"if he is on a draw - he wants you to flat call or fold here - calling is really giving him exaclty what he wants"

this is wrong.
id depends hugely on the sort of draw he has and the stack sizes in play ,what he would like you to do if he raises.
to say a raise from a draw prefers a flat call from the opponent is not right at all even though some times it does.

supposing the other player has a made hand so its draw v made hand ,it can often be the higher EV play for the made hand to just call the bet knowing his opponent is on a draw.
from the draw point of view he would often want his raise to be raised to that he can reraise again and get more money in the pot on the flop.
this all depends on how strong the draw is essentially how much pot equity and show down equity it has.

for example a draw with 13 outs on the flop i think has something like 50% equity against an over pair (could be worng here but lets suppose i am for argument sake).
now what the draw wants to do is get as much money in the pot as possible cuz ke knows he has close to 50% show down equity which becuse of what's already in the pot makes this an +EV for him .
so he bets pot for example .

now what is the best option for the made hand depends on the stack sizes.
if the stack size is small to a certain amount then made hand should just get in or often get away .
so up to a certain amount made hand should shove,after that it should fold(the reason for fold is you will not have good equity against his range as some times he does not have a draw and has a made hand better than yours).
however if there is lots of money behind then the best option can be flat calling for the made hand.
basically supposing both hands have 50% on the flop then the reason why the draw would want to get money in here is to take advantage of his FE and basically taking more than his share of the pot knowing that any money going in from here is nutral EV anyway(he cant lose).
so with enough money if made hand raises he will reraise.

now the made hand on the other hand should take advantage of the draws property that is "the equity of the draw will half on the turn" so any money going in on the turn will benefit the made hand providing the draw has not come in.
the above and the fact that a draw can be obvious when it comes in stopping the made hand from putting money in ,makes the made hand to prefer to just flat call the flop and get money in on the turn.
again this all depends alot on stack sizes but essentially the deeper the stacks the better it is for the made hand .
and the draw prefers to get as much of his stack in on the flop as possible but failing that(which the deeper you are the more often this happens) he prefers to get as little as possbile .

i was going to write something about the pot control topic as well but this took so long and i think the other one would be just as long so feck it except that hotspurs post is really not true at all IMO.

anyway enough rant and hope it makes sense but i prob have not explined my self well.

hotspur

Gholimoli wrote:

now the made hand on the other hand should take advantage of the draws property that is "the equity of the draw will half on the turn" so any money going in on the turn will benefit the made hand providing the draw has not come in.

You explained yourself well enough throughout. You contend that the drawing player wants to get either a small amount or a very large amount of money in on the flop. Therefore what is worst for the drawing player is to get an amount in the pot in between i.e. an amount that is large but not large enough that the drawing player is pot committed if they miss the turn. This is why a raise is better.

Regarding your quoted point above, you take advantage of the draws property that "the equity of the draw will half on the turn" on the flop not on the turn. On turn with a small pot you are looking at a check fold from a drawing player who has only a 28% chance of winning with 13 outs because any bet over $32 in the original example is a fold for a pot odds player.

Why wouldn't you rather take advantage of the fact that the drawing player only has a 27.5% chance of hitting the turn by engineering a pot there that will make him put more in on the flop and yet have him fold on the turn to a blank. The way you want to play it the pot *can't* get any bigger unless he hits or is some moron who will chase on the turn for bad odds. The flop is where you get the money if it deep enough stacked.

As for my contention about pot control, it is a point about how many low stake players are misusing the concept not about pot control being a wrong concept per se obviously.

Gholimoli

hotspur wrote:

Why wouldn't you rather take advantage of the fact that the drawing player only has a 27.5% chance of hitting the turn by engineering a pot there that will make him put more in on the flop and yet have him fold on the turn to a blank. The way you want to play it the pot *can't* get any bigger unless he hits or is some moron who will chase on the turn for bad odds. The flop is where you get the money if it deep enough stacked.

assume by the above you are s uggesting its better for the made hand to get more money in on the flop cuz drawing hand has only 27% of hitting on the turn??
well the problem is we have two more streets and not one.
if we put more money in the pot on the flop there is nothing to stop the drawing player to put even more money in on the flop which is what is good for him cuz then he can just claim his equity.
suppose the pot is 50 and both players have 150 behind.
i
now the draw bets 50.
now it can be correct for the made hand to fold or shove depending on what he thinks the range of the drawing player is.
the situation we have here is basically that once the drawing player makes the 50 bet you know all the money is eventually going in so both players will just claim there equity.

now suppose the pot is 50 and both players have 400 behind.

now if drawing play makes the 50 bet and you raise him to 150 then he can just shove and again cliam his equity which is good for him.

but if you flat call then the pot is 150 and you both have 350 behind on the turn.

here is where you will and should punish the drawing hand when it misses.
now the drawing player is no longer enjoying the same equity as you so any money going in here is good for the made hand.
ofcourse with the equity that the drawing player has and what's already in the pot ,the drawing player may still have sufficent odds to call any bet on the turn but the deeper the stacks are then the less odds drawing player is getting becuase there is more money that can go in when the drawing player is drawing tiner.

fuzzbox

A lively debate for a first cash post. Well played .

I think that a flop raise is not an ideal play, as the range of hands that tend to cold call a raise preflop and then lead into the preflop raiser on this type of board does not put you in good shape. Something along the lines of two big hearts, two medium connectors (QJh, TJh, or 98) and then you have the fun stuff of pair+draw, overcard+draw, and such. Add to that the sets, and your hand fares badly vs your opponents range when all the money goes in on the flop. And if your opponent is testing the water with A9/K9 or what have you, then you give him the perfect opportunity to find a fold.

You also have a further problem, and that is the SB, who is yet to act. Sure, he folds when you have the best hand, but when *he* has the best hand (or a big draw) then you have committed a lot of money to the hand, without much chance to make any gains if, indeed, you are ahead.

Finally, if your opponent was actually competent, then he would shove the flop on you, and you would be in a very horrible situation. This situation arises precisely because you reopen the betting.

So, to sum up, I'm not an avid fan of the flop raise, but once its made, then I concur that its not likely, based on the turn action that your opponent now has a full house, so given the pot odds, I think a call there seems ok.

pok3rplaya

hotspur yet again you have come up with some great posts. My hat is off. You may have just changed a lot of the way I think about poker today.

sikes

great post hotspur.

Just as an edit: when i say that pot control is a stupid idea, i shouldnt have included one reason as minimising the cost of our mistakes, thats stupid.

Also nice post Gholi too, I didnt get a chance to read it til now. I think I am often missing a bet on the flop though, becuase they wont always have 50% equity with 13 outs, sometimes they will only have a bare FD.