Playing huge draw on the flop

Hectorjelly · 18-01-2007 02:04AM

checking is much better here. A free card is fine because if that happens we can commit ourselves on the turn if we miss. If he pushes over a bet on the turn then he has to have a hand which he was slowplaying on the flop, so would of called our push anyway. (Unless he turns something)

jimbling · 18-01-2007 11:45AM

interesting thread.... and welcome back Gholi.
I much prefer the CRAI here. Especially with the read on the villain.

phantom_lord · 18-01-2007 12:54PM

I much prefer a crai too, lets gang up on the noob!

jimbling · 18-01-2007 01:09PM

phantom_lord wrote:

I much prefer a crai too, lets gang up on the noob!

Gholimoli · 18-01-2007 01:17PM

HJ,
I disagree with what your saying here.
“free card is not bad as we can commit our self on the turn if we miss”.
I don’t see how this can be right at all.
Your equity has halved from flop to turn, also another card has fallen that could have improved villains hand and now you are saying its good to commit our self’s here as oppose to the flop where we have double the equity????
We can be severely punished by a bet from villain on the turn (depending on how good villain is).
Just to make this simple suppose on the flop we have exactly 50% pot equity against a villain who has an over pair.
On the turn we assume no one improves.
Then our equity has been reduced to just 25%.
What this is means is that we can no longer get our remaining stack in on the turn profitably as if we do we win 4P 25% and lose 3P 75%.

So if the hand goes check, check on the flop:
If we bet out on the turn and he shoves then we are getting the bad side of it.
If we check on the turn and he bets and we shove and he calls, we are getting bad side of it.

Ste:
There is nothing wrong with shoving 3x pot when you have 50% equity and the pot is not empty.
Basically if you get called you will get more than your investment 50% of time by just claiming your equity and you will win the pot when you don’t get called so in terms of profitably its profitable.
Now whether or not there is an alternative, more profitable strategy than shoving, well that depends on other aspects.

Basically what im trying to say is with this kind of equity my priority is to
Get it all in on the flop.
Every one pretty much seems to agree with this and the disagreement seems to be the method, which best accomplishes this.
I think both have advantages an disadvantages:
With CRAI you will gain an extra bet the times where he will cbet and fold to a shove.
But there is also the chance of him checking behind and betting on the turn.
With shoving you gain the pot by him folding but you lose out on the times where you could have picked a Cbet.

gocall01 · 18-01-2007 02:44PM

This is the type of discussion/arguement I read boards for.
This is very informative for both the experienced and inexperinced player.
It shows the thought processes which are required (whether you agree with them or not) to improve as a player.

I said it earlier, I would follow Gholi's line here, not because I understand all the maths in working out the +EV or -EV but because it is what I would be most comfortable with.

If all players played the exact same way it would just be predicatble.
Obviuosly if you can guarentee a certain set of circumstances the EV can be calculated exactly but due to the nature of the game that is impossible.
No matter how good the read you can never to 100% sure of another player's next move, you can try to infleunce it but (as NickOD would say) "that is all".

Anyway on with the discussion and maths lessons...

Hitman Actual · 18-01-2007 03:54PM

Gholi, using an overpair as a simple example doesn't hold here. As you often say yourself, you have to consider his range of holdings, and I think we can assume that the villains range is relatively wide here (cos if he's agressive enough to c-bet a lot, he probably raises with a wide range preflop too). Most of the time he misses the flop (or at least flops something that can't call a push), but will c-bet anyway.

Also, if he HAS an overpair, the pot plays out differently, in that he always calls your push, nearly always bets this board when checked to, and nearly always calls your CRAI. So the money goes in anyway. But it doesn't matter; it's his range that you have to consider.

Also, what you're arguing is for the times when this villain doesn't c-bet, which isn't too often. The dominant factor in the EV calculation comes from the (large) % of the time when he does c-bet.

I reckon if you picked any holding that villain might have, and compare push and CRAI, CRAI will show a higher EV.

Hectorjelly · 18-01-2007 03:55PM

Gholi, say he has AA and isnt folding. If the flop goes check check and then we get all in on the turn if we miss, there is no difference between getting all in on the flop. He wasnt folding either way, and we still get to see both cards. Sometimes we get it in as a dog, sometimes weve hit one of our outs and he gets it in as a dog, it doesnt matter much.

If he checks the flop then we lead out for the whole pot on the turn (or push if you like) and he can only call with hand which he slowplayed on the flop. I wouldnt be very worried with the the turn giving him a card that will make him commit, there are a lot of cards that him both of us but give us the strong hand.

Gholimoli · 18-01-2007 04:44PM

Hectorjelly wrote:

Gholi, say he has AA and isnt folding. If the flop goes check check and then we get all in on the turn if we miss, there is no difference between getting all in on the flop. He wasnt folding either way, and we still get to see both cards. Sometimes we get it in as a dog, sometimes weve hit one of our outs and he gets it in as a dog, it doesnt matter much.

i really dont get this HJ.
in mind there is a huge difference between the two example you have said here and its not even close.
i take your example :
he has AA and make it simple we say we have 50% equity against his AA on the flop.

now we check,and he checks behind and now we are playing the turn.
we have not improved on the turn and nor has he.
how can you say getting it all in here is now the same as getting it all on the flop.
we have much less equity here so the more we get in the more we lose.
you say "we get to see both cards" but getting to see both cards on its own is worhtless,its the chances we have to improve our hand that counts not the act of seeing the card.
im sure you know this but i actually cant understand why you would make this comment at all?how can you say
you say sometimes we get it in as dog as sometimes we hit our card.
i really dont understand your logic.
the times that we dont hit are of great importance it the overall EV .
can you please explian what makes you think that getting it on the flop is the same as getting in on the turn when we miss,using the AA example and 50% equity on the flop??

Hitman Actual · 18-01-2007 05:20PM

Because the money was going to go in on the flop anyway. So when we get a "free" card, and the money goes in on the turn, we still get from flop to river seeing both cards, and putting in the same amount of money. If you don't intend for the money to go in, then it's a different scenario.

opr · 18-01-2007 05:54PM

Gholimoli wrote:

i really dont get this HJ.
in mind there is a huge difference between the two example you have said here and its not even close.
i take your example :
he has AA and make it simple we say we have 50% equity against his AA on the flop.

now we check,and he checks behind and now we are playing the turn.
we have not improved on the turn and nor has he.
how can you say getting it all in here is now the same as getting it all on the flop.
we have much less equity here so the more we get in the more we lose.
you say "we get to see both cards" but getting to see both cards on its own is worhtless,its the chances we have to improve our hand that counts not the act of seeing the card.
im sure you know this but i actually cant understand why you would make this comment at all?how can you say
you say sometimes we get it in as dog as sometimes we hit our card.
i really dont understand your logic.
the times that we dont hit are of great importance it the overall EV .
can you please explian what makes you think that getting it on the flop is the same as getting in on the turn when we miss,using the AA example and 50% equity on the flop??

This is very robotic thinking but ......

Two things happen if it goes check check

1. On the turn we hit our card about 34% of the time and get it all in with AA and win 100% of the time.

2. On the turn we miss 66% of the time but get it all in with AA and still hit 34% of the time meaning we win about 22% of the time.

Overall our EV is about 55% so it does not change as long as the action does not change. As HJ said for him to call on the turn he was more than likely going to call on the flop so it makes no difference. Even if he is calling cause he improved on the turn chances are we also improved and are ahead so it ok.

One thing ........ Do we not think he calls on the turn much more often than he would on the flop when its a blank ? Our bet does look very odd and he may call with much more weak holdings than he would have on the flop.

Opr

Gholimoli · 18-01-2007 06:03PM

lenny_leonard wrote:

Because the money was going to go in on the flop anyway. So when we get a "free" card, and the money goes in on the turn, we still get from flop to river seeing both cards, and putting in the same amount of money. If you don't intend for the money to go in, then it's a different scenario.

Lenny this doesn’t make sense.
The reason why you want the money go in on the flop is because it’s the flop.
The reason for this is that you have 50% equity.
The reason for this is because you have x number of outs with TWO cards to come.
If you have x equity with two cards to come then you will have x/2 with one card to come.

Now what your saying is because we intended the money to go in on the flop, it’s the same thing going in on the turn as we get to see both cards.
When money goes in on the flop we cant possibly lose.
Basically for a pot size of 0 <=P then our EV is always 0 <= EV.
Basically for what your saying to hold true the pot has grow from P to 2P(our equity in the pot is divided by two so the pot has grow times two to have the same equation).
Does this make sense?

Hectorjelly · 18-01-2007 06:12PM

Gholi, sometimes the turn will improve our hand (like we hit a pair) and our equity will increase to 50% against an OP. Sometimes we will make a flush or a straight on the turn and get all in with an equity of 100%. All of this has to be balanced with the times that you get all in with only a 30% equity. It all balances out in the end if both players are determined to get it all in at some stage, if you cant see this then I dont think there is any further discusion to be had. If the money is destined to go in anyway, it makes no difference at what stage it goes in at as your chance of winning the pot is the same at each juncture. The cards arent affected by what happens in the pot.

Also villain checking behind an op on such a dangerous board isnt going to happen much anyway.

OPR I think an open push signals a draw more than any other line we can take

Hitman Actual · 18-01-2007 06:35PM

Here's the science bit:

Assume villain has AcAs, and we both get all the money in at the same time, either flop or turn. Our hand is J9h, board is Ts8h3h, Pot = 850, stacks = 2600.

If the money goes in on the flop, we're a 56.3% favourite.

EV_ai_flop = 0.563(3450) + 0.447(-2600) = 780.15

If the money goes in on the turn:

We have 15 clean outs, so we improve 33.3% of the time. When this happens villain is drawing dead. The other 66% of the time we're 66:34 dog (ignore the times when villain can improve to a house for simplicity).

EV_ai_turn = 0.333(3450) + 0.666[(0.34*3450) + (0.66*-2600)] = 787.3

So the EV is the same (the small error is due to rounding up/down of figures, pokerstove inaccuracies, etc. Edit: also, ignoring the house possibilities has an effect).

opr · 18-01-2007 06:59PM

Gholimoli wrote:

Basically for what your saying to hold true the pot has grow from P to 2P(our equity in the pot is divided by two so the pot has grow times two to have the same equation).
Does this make sense?

The second pot never exsisted if the first one does and vice versa. So p never has to grow to 2P

Opr

Ste05 · 18-01-2007 07:32PM

Gholi, as has been said above by HJ, OPR and Lenny, I think the part that you seem to be ignoring are the times when it goes check check, and we hit an out.

As in, when you say, let our equity on the flop = x, (with 2 cards to come), it is NOT x/2 on the turn because we have one less card. You need to include the 27% of the time we have increased our equity to 100%. HJ and opr have already covered this point well so I'll leave it there,

These are for the times when, the hand is "Destined" to be All-In either on the turn or Flop and so it doesn't really matter what we do, i.e. AA, KK, QQ, etc. (i.e. the higher end of his range) These hands play themselves and don't need to be worried about too much.

Where the EV is higher with a check as opposed to an Open Push is the times when we check, he continuation bets (with the lower end of his range, which is the much larger proportion of his range) we push and he folds. In those cases we make mucho mucho more money than open pushing. And these times make the EV of a CRAI miles higher than the EV of an Open Push. It's just the gap concept.

If we look at his range, as has been said above it doesn't matter what we do against the higher end of his range. We win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time, the only thing that changes is when the money goes in, (a) on the flop, (with an open push or a CRAI) or (b) on the turn. the % of times we win are the same.

Then we have to look at the rest of his range, the lower part of this range, will Fold to an open push always, but, some of the time (more than 0%) will make a continuation bet and fold to a CRAI. Every % point above 0 is good for us here.

Then we look at the hands that will fold to an open push, but yet will make a continuation bet and feel priced in and so call our CRAI. In these hands we win at least 50% of the time so the Variance is slightly higher but the EV is basically neutral as we don't mind getting in as a marginal favourite.

The final category is the times it goes check check, against the lower of the Villains range, I'd have to go on for another age to go through this point but basically it's not desirable but the Free card helps us ~27% if the time so we only need to worry about the other ~73% of the time. And basically I don't think it changes much in EV terms.

opr · 18-01-2007 08:31PM

Ste05 wrote:

Gholi, as has been said above by HJ, OPR and Lenny, I think the part that you seem to be ignoring are the times when it goes check check, and we hit an out.

As in, when you say, let our equity on the flop = x, (with 2 cards to come), it is NOT x/2 on the turn because we have one less card. You need to include the 27% of the time we have increased our equity to 100%. HJ and opr have already covered this point well so I'll leave it there,

These are for the times when, the hand is "Destined" to be All-In either on the turn or Flop and so it doesn't really matter what we do, i.e. AA, KK, QQ, etc. (i.e. the higher end of his range) These hands play themselves and don't need to be worried about too much.

Where the EV is higher with a check as opposed to an Open Push is the times when we check, he continuation bets (with the lower end of his range, which is the much larger proportion of his range) we push and he folds. In those cases we make mucho mucho more money than open pushing. And these times make the EV of a CRAI miles higher than the EV of an Open Push. It's just the gap concept.

If we look at his range, as has been said above it doesn't matter what we do against the higher end of his range. We win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time, the only thing that changes is when the money goes in, (a) on the flop, (with an open push or a CRAI) or (b) on the turn. the % of times we win are the same.

Then we have to look at the rest of his range, the lower part of this range, will Fold to an open push always, but, some of the time (more than 0%) will make a continuation bet and fold to a CRAI. Every % point above 0 is good for us here.

Then we look at the hands that will fold to an open push, but yet will make a continuation bet and feel priced in and so call our CRAI. In these hands we win at least 50% of the time so the Variance is slightly higher but the EV is basically neutral as we don't mind getting in as a marginal favourite.

The final category is the times it goes check check, against the lower of the Villains range, I'd have to go on for another age to go through this point but basically it's not desirable but the Free card helps us ~27% if the time so we only need to worry about the other ~73% of the time. And basically I don't think it changes much in EV terms.

Very good post.

Opr

Scouser in Dub · 19-01-2007 12:57PM

Thanks to all who contributed to this. I haven't posted the results as I don't think they are important. This thread has pretty much confirmed what I thought. My own plan pretty much hinged on him betting the flop which was shortsighted I wasn't sure what my line would have been had he checked behind as I wasn't expecting him to.

So in conclusion fold preflop

CRAI on the flop if he checks behind shove turn.

cardshark202 · 19-01-2007 08:18PM

Scouser in Dub wrote:

Thanks to all who contributed to this. I haven't posted the results as I don't think they are important. This thread has pretty much confirmed what I thought. My own plan pretty much hinged on him betting the flop which was shortsighted I wasn't sure what my line would have been had he checked behind as I wasn't expecting him to.

So in conclusion fold preflop CRAI on the flop if he checks behind bet turn.

.

Playing huge draw on the flop

Comments