Hand poll

[gord962]

Not really getting you here, Gord.

If he ch/r, we can get pushed off the best hand. QJ/KJ/FDs/straight draws/bluffs are all possibilities - a good aggressive player doesn't need to have much to ch-r here. Also fwiw he's rarely check-calling with any of his hands here - with a made hand he'll ch-r to build the pot, as will he with a draw (also for FE).

Also, why do we want a free river card? We're not drawing or anything...

Why do we want a free turn card then???? If he is on the draw we just handed him the hand if he hits!

The reason to get to the river as cheap as possible is because he could have already made his hand and we could be drawing completely dead, but we obv aren't going to fold TPTK just yet. If we control the betting here, we control the pot size. If we bet the flop he will likely check the turn again letting us bet and build the pot for him while we hold the worst hand the whole time. According to WAWB we then call the turn assuming it's a bluff, which is most likely more than our flop bet and we are now worse off than if we would have made the initial bet on the flop.

Well then why are we betting? We want to induce bluffs with the hands we beat...

I have no issues taking this hand down here and now.

we're not folding to a turn bet unless it's on a big scare card, like a king, 8 or Ks/8s etc. Similar to the wa/wb hand with KK on say an A72 flop, we're checking behind with the intention of calling any turn bet and reassessing on the river.

So we call his bet on the turn assuming it's a bluff?? I can't see calling a pot sized bet on the turn as there a ton of cards that could bury us. Any 7, 8, Q, K or any spade could make us a loser, not to mention he could already have us beat.

 

[ChuckTs]

You guys who are saying to check are acting like we're on the draw and he already has a made hand. It's the opposite, we have a hand and need to make him pay to draw out. If he has the nuts then so be it.

Pleeeease don't start with the poker 'sayings'. "we raised pf, so let's continue the aggression!", "if he's got the nuts, then so be it!" etc etc mean NOTHING. Hand ranges and equities DO! (as do bluffing frequencies here).

If you don't want to bet on this flop, then why would you bet on the turn or river, or call a bet on the turn or river? It doesn't make sense if you plan to check on the flop then just call a bet by him on the river.

Oh yes, it does Ben, as I already explained:

If we wait until the turn to put a bet in, we a) take a lot of fold equity away from big draws, and b) buy ourselves a lot more equity in the pot.

For example let's use QJs:

On flop:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 37.121% 36.06% 01.06% 357 10.50 { AdJc }
Hand 1: 62.879% 61.82% 01.06% 612 10.50 { QsJs }

On turn:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 59.091% 59.09% 00.00% 26 0.00 { AdJc }
Hand 1: 40.909% 40.91% 00.00% 18 0.00 { QsJs }

We don't really have many outs and we have no draw, but he could easily benefit from free cards while we can't.

This is true, but again as I explained, the mistake of building a big pot and getting yourself in tough turn/river spots after doing so is MUCH worse of a mistake than giving one free card in such a small pot.

 

[OzExorcist]

We don't really have many outs and we have no draw, but he could easily benefit from free cards while we can't. That would only make sense if we were the one with the draw.

That's the interesting thing about this though - look at the equity figures in Chuck's post: against a combo draw AJ is actually a dog on the flop.

(If I've got this right...) that effectively reduces AJ to a drawing hand. It's drawing to a blank on the turn so it can have the lead back.

 

[ChuckTs]

Alright, posting in bold in your quote since multiquoting is such a pain in the ass

Why do we want a free turn card then???? If he is on the draw we just handed him the hand if he hits!

We're not going for a free card! We don't need to improve at this point. We're controlling the pot size by denying him a chance to ch-r us, as well as inducing bluffs (or 'value bet' worse hands) on the turn/riv.

The reason to get to the river as cheap as possible is because he could have already made his hand and we could be drawing completely dead

No, that's not the only reason. It's also to induce bluffs/worse hands to bet as mentioned above.

If we bet the flop he will likely check the turn again letting us bet and build the pot for him while we hold the worst hand the whole time.

Let's get this straight - an aggressive thinking player is RARELY check-calling here. What hands will do that!? All he's doing there is opening himself up to be double or triple barreled by us who by the way have position.

According to WAWB we then call the turn assuming it's a bluff, which is most likely more than our flop bet and we are now worse off than if we would have made the initial bet on the flop.

Au contraire, mon frere. Again, we deny him an additional street to bluff on. Put very simply for illustrations sake, a pot could look like this:

pf:$15, flop: $45, turn: $135, riv:$405

Then if one street is checked, it'll only be $135. Pots grow exponentially, and checking behind is a perfect way to control the pot by denying one betting round to your opponent.

I have no issues taking this hand down here and now.

I realize, and that's the issue. Similar to the wa/wb example, everybody says bet because they want to take it down now in fear of having to face bets on later streets. Sacrificing value for info is pretty weak tight imo.

So we call his bet on the turn assuming it's a bluff?? I can't see calling a pot sized bet on the turn as there a ton of cards that could bury us. Any 7, 8, Q, K or any spade could make us a loser, not to mention he could already have us beat.

True, but he won't necessarily bet all the time either since the board will be equally scary for him unless he's hit it. We won't always be calling turn bets, we'll sometimes be doing them ourselves too.

 

[ChuckTs]

that effectively reduces AJ to a drawing hand. It's drawing to a blank on the turn so it can have the lead back.

Good point; we're basically drawing for a non-scare card. This is only true on the flop though...

...we have bought ourself a free river card as we can now check.

On the turn (to riv), we're not drawing to anything really (because if we've already seen a non-scare card we can now bet as our equity has practically flipped), and our hand can now be considered a 'made hand'. Villain, however, is.

If he's got a combo draw his equity is now much worse, and betting becomes a much clearer decision.

 

[reglardave]

Heads up, with a flop this draw laden, I just dislike giving a free card at a point where I gotta believe I have the best of it right now.

If villain isn't on an already made hamd, this flop is at least as scary to him, so why not make a stab at a perceived advantage. If you get a big reraise, then fold. If you get a flat call, and the turn comes a further scare card, slow down.

It's a bear of a hand to play, but leading out with TPTK still seems the best approach to me against a random hand.

 

[OzExorcist]

Heads up, with a flop this draw laden, I just dislike giving a free card at a point where I gotta believe I have the best of it right now.

But that's the thing - look at the equity figures: AJ doesn't necessarily have the best of it.

 

[Bentheman87]

Yea but Chuck, remember that the opponent could have anything here. How do you know he has a pair and a draw combo? He might have only a gutshot straight draw, he might have one pair and no draw like Jack 7, he might have just a small flush draw like 5 6 suited, he might have just a regular draw in which case we are well over 50% to win. I think checking here is too passive and defensive, he could have man hands that we have beat, he could have many hands that could outdraw us, he could have us beat on the flop. But I think the greatest probability is he has a hand that we have beat and his equity in the hand is bad. So just bet pot or 3/4 the pot and see what happens on the turn.

 

[Bentheman87]

In other words, it's hard to really put him on a hand at this point. He was in the BB calling a preflop raise from a player in late position (he knew you were raising from the CO so you could be raising with a marginal hand), so his calling requirements in this situation are lowered. And he checked so we don't know yet if it means strength or a draw or if he has nothing. But I'd say it's MOST likely that he has something that we have crushed, and the next most likely possibility is he has a draw or a pair/draw combo, and the least likely possibility is he has a set or straight or overpair. So that's why we need to bet, to charge all the regular draws and the hands that we are beating.

 

[ChuckTs]

He's a good, thinking player, ben. He doesn't call OOP with 56s or J7o.

And no, a combo draw isn't the only hand in his range. All pocket pairs, some middle-higher suited connectors and other big cards are.

We're up against:

Hands we crush (22, 77, AT etc) against which we don't mind giving a free card. They'll turn their hands into bluffs which is exactly what we want.

Hands we are crushed by (straights, sets, two pair etc). We obviously want to keep the pot as small as possible vs these hands.

Hands we're barely ahead of (combo draws). These are the hands we want to give exactly one free card to, and if the turn's safe, then we bet since our equity changes from barely ahead to well ahead.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: we're also well ahead of marginal draws like OESDs or FDs, both of which we sacrifice some value by not betting, but also save ourselves from getting check-raised out of the pot. We can basically group this with the big draws, but this group is where we lose the most sklansky bucks by checking. This is the big downside to checking, but even so it still greatly outweighs the downsides of betting.

 

[Bentheman87]

You forgot one group of hands Chuck, the regular straight or flush draws that are less than 40% to win against us. These hands we don't want to give a free card to. I agree with you though about the draw/pair combo. If he turned over and showed us bottom pair plus a flush draw then yeah, it would make sense to check.

The hard thing is assigning a probability to each group of possible hands he could hold. Without doing any math or anything though I'd say the probability is greatest that he has either a hand that is crushed by us OR a regular draw. And the lower probability is he has either a hand that already has us beat, or a draw/pair combo that is over or about 50% to win against us.

 

[ChuckTs]

You forgot one group of hands Chuck, the regular straight or flush draws that are less than 40% to win against us. These hands we don't want to give a free card to. I agree with you though about the draw/pair combo. If he turned over and showed us bottom pair plus a flush draw then yeah, it would make sense to check.

^see the edit in the last post; i did forget that group, and it is important as it's the only one we're making a critical mistake in by checking.

The hard thing is assigning a probability to each group of possible hands he could hold. Without doing any math or anything though I'd say the probability is greatest that he has either a hand that is crushed by us OR a regular draw. And the lower probability is he has either a hand that already has us beat, or a draw/pair combo that is over or about 50% to win against us.

Also true, but not really necessary.

Just look at the number of groups - three that favour a check, and one that favours a bet. Not only that but there will most probably actually be fewer hands in the OESD/FD group.

re: OESDs, villain is probably 3-betting AQ preflop, so that's not very probable. A 9 for the straight draw is, but still not very likely since villain rarely calls with small cards like that OOP. The only hands we're really worried about here are pairs+OESDs like QJ, QT, 89 etc, but our equity against those hands is actually closer to combo draws than to naked straight draws. So again, checking there is best.

re: FDs, villain could very well have some, but again they're not all that probable. Any flush draw is most probably going to connect with the board in some way since he's rarely calling OOP with 56s and similar hands, so he's gaining additional outs, thus making it closer to a combo draw again, and further supporting the case for checking.

 

[WVHillbilly]

Well, you've changed my mind, if no one else's, Chuck. What our line here if he fires on the turn and river with no further scare cards? We're obviously calling the turn (or betting if he checks again), but if he pots it on the river, we're still facing a tough decision.

 

[ChuckTs]

That's just about the worst thing that can happen, and we would basically have to assume that we're beat at that point barring some very convincing stats on the guy.

I'm not sure a good player will double barrel very often here though (assuming we're a 'good' player too) since our check will set off some bells in his head.

 

[Bentheman87]

There's two groups where we're betting off betting and two where we're better off checking, not three groups where we're better off checking. And here's another question to think about. If he really did have a hand in the "hands that have us crushed" group like a set or two pair, would he really check here on such a draw heavy board? If he's a decent player he wouldn't slowplay here he would lead out with a bet to try to take the pot. And with a big draw or a pair and a flush draw, he knows he's not that big of a favorite over one pair like AJ, so wouldn't he try to bet? You already said he's an aggressive thinking player, and a smart player wouldn't even try to slowplay a set here. He might check with a straight though... So since we know he checked I think it's more likely he has just one pair and no draw or nothing.

 

[WVHillbilly]

It's the draw/nothing hands that we should be worried about check-raising us off the best hand here. If he holds something like KJ (A hand we're ahead of but with TP and gut-shot) and he check-raises our flop bet we lose value by folding the best hand.

 

[ChuckTs]

There's two groups where we're betting off betting and two where we're better off checking, not three groups where we're better off checking.

Crushing - check to induce bluffs

Crushed by - check to save value

Well ahead vs - bet to protect

Barely ahead - This is debatable, but as a part of his range, we want to check here.

If we knew we were up against a hand we were barely a favourite over, technically in a cash game we would take that edge. But what combo hands are we looking at? QJs for one (we're actually a significant dog against this - ~63/37), KJs for another (again, we're a dog - ~55/45), etc etc. The only ones where we're actually barely ahead (~55/45 or 60/40 etc) are the QT/QJ type hands.

So overall we're actually probably a dog vs the combo draws - I could draw up some numbers via Pokerstove if you wish.

And here's another question to think about. If he really did have a hand in the "hands that have us crushed" group like a set or two pair, would he really check here on such a draw heavy board? If he's a decent player he wouldn't slowplay here he would lead out with a bet to try to take the pot. And with a big draw or a pair and a flush draw, he knows he's not that big of a favorite over one pair like AJ, so wouldn't he try to bet? You already said he's an aggressive thinking player, and a smart player wouldn't even try to slowplay a set here. He might check with a straight though... So since we know he checked I think it's more likely he has just one pair and no draw or nothing.

Smart players rarely donk, though it's certainly possible if he's trying to bet-push (ie with a set).

Most likely though is that he's going for a check-raise, not trying to slowplay. We're betting this flop a lot of the time with other hands in our range, and he's expecting that.

 

[Bentheman87]

First group is hands that we are beating, for instance 10 K. You say check to induce a bluff but he has 9 outs to beat us. So we're better off betting against this group of hands.

Second group is the regular open ended straight or flush draws and we're better off betting against these.

Third group is the hands that are beating us like a set or two pair or straight. So we're better off checking against these.

Fourth group is the combo draws that we are better off checking against.

 

[zachvac]

This is a mistake that so many people make, differentiating between "made" hands and "drawing" hands. It's these people who talk about how AK is just A high (when with 5 cards to come depending on the suits could be a favorite against some pocket pairs). All that matters is our percentage to win, and how that will change on the next card. Chuck did an excellent analysis of this. It doesn't matter whether it's us or our opponent drawing, remember the cards are just tools for representing probabilities. We have a certain percentage to win, and the turn will change this probability, and we know the odds of the probability changing to each number (well we can calculate it, and it depends on the hand of our opponent).

The other big mistake people are making is the fact that it was said this is a good thinking player. A player like this will basically put us on this kind of hand when we bet, and may consider coming over the top unless of course he thinks we're good enough to be trying to induce him into doing that with a strong hand (straight with flush draw or something). If we bet a reasonable amount, we fold out a straight draw (mainly because we want to take away odds when we bet, and if we do the thinking player will fold, especially since even if he hits 1 or 2 of his outs, depending on whether he's on a gut shot or open-ended draw will also put a flush on the board.

The only hand I can see calling us here is just a plain flush draw. If it's the nut flush draw with A-rag we are in good shape, because an A is not an out for him. But for example say K5s here. He is ahead of us. and if he has a decent hand, which since he's a thinking player calling OOP we have to assume he does, what could he realistically have that we have beat and would call us on this flop? AKs has us beat, AQs has us crushed. Even KJs (which would probably be a raise, not a call) has us beat despite us having him dominated.

I can honestly not think of a hand that:
1. A thinking player would call a raise with from the BB
2. Would check-call this flop
3. We have beat

He could be calling with low suited connectors or a low to mid PP, in which case he folds to our bet and isn't likely to catch up if we let him draw.

But the big idea here that I think needs to be more understood is that it doesn't matter who has the better poker hand on the flop. It's easily seen here how it can be TPTK vs. A high and the A high has TPTK dominated (not in a poker sense, just is a heavy favorite to win). Your current 5-card poker hand means nothing on the flop, it's your odds of making the best 5-card poker hand by the river. So although there are about a million draws out there, there is nothing a thinking player would be playing right now that we would benefit from betting here after his check.

 

[soccerfreakjj10]

Chuck you have changed my mind!

I am convinced that the correct play would be to check.

Very interesting indeed.

If the board were Jh 10h 2c, I would bet out strong to protect against the draw. However since our opponent could already have us nearly drawing dead, I would opt for the check, and call down lest some fishy draw completely card shows up.

 

[dj11]

This is based on a pretty important concept involving c-betting and the relative strength of your hand. I'm curious what type of responses we'll get here.

The hand in question:

6-max 200nl, 100BB effective stacks.

Hero opens for $7 from the CO with A♣J♥ This must be a raise because villain has to call here, not just check
Folds to an aggressive, thinking regular in the BB who calls. We must assume villain is no dummy, and is either planning on a play like a bluff, or has something real.

Flop comes J♦10♠9♠

Villain checks. Would love to know how long this took. And what read we might get (if any) at this point.

What's our action (and plan) for the hand and why? With the pot assumably in the $15-17 range, my first thought was a $10-12 feeler bet. Even after reading all the replies, and agreeing that the check behind for a free turn card is not such a terrible option, it opens the door awfully wide for villain to steal the turn regardless of what turns. Villain has the 'right of first refusal' here, which is a strong option for him should we check the flop. I still like my 'feeler bet'.

How do stack sizes affect our decision here?

I think this hand represents both a challenge and an opportunity. As I read it both are about even coming into this hand, so a tread carefully approach here is necessary. Bets are starting to eat into that 100bb threshold, where below that either timidness or aggressiveness will impact us greatly.

Normally I agree here Chuck, but with the villian coming in from the BB I disagree. If this is any other position I have a bit of concern, but here I am taking my chances as he could be on anything. If you can take the pot down for ~$7 take the chance. He has to be on a draw to call and if he cane in with 6h7h, which is just as likely as QsJs I take my chances he as he will fire on the turn and we just might be folding the best hand now that he knows the board scared us. If he c/r we can fold, if he calls he will prob check again on the turn and we have bought ourself a free river card as we can now check.

Since villain was described as an aggressive, thinking, normal player (discounting the trickiness factor), and he was the BB (open ranged), even though he called, I still like my feeler bet. Villain HAS to put the very real possibility for us holding KQx in his assessment of our range. It would be a great explanation for our PF CO raise.

Let me add here that IMHO this is one of those situations where we would probably not play it the same every time, nor would we want to play it the same every time, even if ALL the other situations were exactly the same.

 

[ChuckTs]

Very true, dj - there are no alwayses (new word! ) in poker.

Similar to saying 'don't open limp in 6-max', this isn't a concrete thing and can always be deviated from. This is, however the play that will probably give you the highest return on average.

OK so now how about the stack size question? How does this problem change if we have 20BB?

 

[WVHillbilly]

With 20BBs I'm looking to get all of our stack in with TPTK. The preflop pot is 7.5BBs, so it's big (in comparison to our stack which is now 16.5BB). Raise the flop. All-in on turn.

 

[dj11]

I agree, with 20bb, I too would be looking for the double up. I could easily shove on the flop. I don't want villain to see another card when I'm sitting TPTK. Especially when I know the villain is an aggressive, thinking normal player. His thinking could be that he sees us as the shortstack panic bet, and calls. Fine, but in this case I'd be ok with him folding. What I don't want to happen is me pushing, and him forcing me all in, and having to even deal with that ugly decision. So I would tend to shove up front on the flop, and put him in that ugly spot.

Since you didn't tell us what type of player villain might think you are, I will assume that his read would be similar to what my impression is. Solid, not prone to the stupid 'move'. In which case even if he held the ignorant end of the straight, he could seriously consider mucking. If it were me playing, his read would be 'silly, prone to the stupid gene' and he would call in a heartbeat!

 

[ChuckTs]

Well at this point I think it's obvious we should be much more inclined to betting and probably stacking as well.

The issue now changes from the mistake of losing 100BB with AJ on this flop vs the mistake of giving a free card to the (not so bad) mistake of losing 20BB with AJ on this flop vs the mistake of giving the free card, and the latter is much bigger of a mistake.