Home / Community / Forum / Poker Education / Poker Education & Beginners Questions / Old Hand Analysis Section /

Small Blind Open, Missed Flop, Is My Check-Bet-Fold Line a Leak?

 
Old
Default
Small Blind Open, Missed Flop, Is My Check-Bet-Fold Line a Leak? - Sun Apr 17, 2011, 08:22 PM
(#1)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Here's a line that seems to lose me money. I open with a small pair and get called by one player with position on me. The flop isn't dry and all three cards are higher than my pair, so I check it and get checked behind. The turn doesn't help me, but since my opponent didn't show interest, I figure I'll bet it now, but I get called. The river doesn't help me either, so I give up, having wasted my turn bet. I think that this is a weak line, and I'd like some discussion on how I can improve it. I'm going to keep my thought process about why this line is bad to myself for now. I'd like to compare it to what I read from you guys.

For what it's worth here, the villain seemed pretty laggy and was throwing in his fair share of 3bets, but I didn't have much of a read on how good he was, or any of his other tendencies. He was running 38/24 over a pretty small sample size.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

Panicky (SB) ($25)
BB ($26.68)
UTG ($63.39)
MP ($20.27)
CO ($29.98)
Button ($24.67)

Preflop: Panicky is SB with 2, 2
4 folds, Panicky bets $0.65, BB calls $0.40

Flop: ($1.30) 5, 7, Q (2 players)
Panicky checks, BB checks

Turn: ($1.30) 4 (2 players)
Panicky bets $0.76, BB calls $0.76

River: ($2.82) J (2 players)
Panicky checks, BB bets $1.50, Panicky folds

Total pot: $2.82 | Rake: $0.13
 
Old
Default
Sun Apr 17, 2011, 08:39 PM
(#2)
topthecat's Avatar
Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,962
I assume this is 0.10/0.25 NLHE.

I have never played at this level only higher and lower, or should I say the lowest.

If you represent a good hand preflop and then check the flop then that represents huge strength or weakness. In this position I always bet the flop or fold, never check.

Checking gives your opponent the smell of blood and when you bet on the turn it is an obvious tell that you have air, and what do you do when you have air, you fold.

I came across a great site called Pokerbank by a young guy from the UK, Wales actually. He is 21 but is obviously making a living from poker. look at some of the videos on the site on 25$Nl and you will see that a lot of it is what Dave is preaching in his live training.

I know you have the Hud now but that should not mean that you dispense with your own reads on weak players. if you had raised the flop, this guy would have folded, I guarantee because it is human nature.

Real Poker players always do the opposite of human nature, it confuses everyone else who think they know the basics of playing premium, speculative or even totally crap hands.

This is the advantage you must maintain and from the littel i have seen it is applicable to all ring game levels, tourneys and SNGs. It just gets a bit more sophisticated the higher you go.

Most of the time it is about playing the player, depending on your position and some other factors and not the cards.

TC
 
Old
Default
Sun Apr 17, 2011, 08:44 PM
(#3)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by topthecat View Post
In this position I always bet the flop or fold, never check.
Pretty sure folding the flop here would be a pretty big leak.

I'll check out Pokerbank a bit later. I still have a few of the upped LT vids to get through though, since I missed a few of them.
 
Old
Default
Sun Apr 17, 2011, 09:00 PM
(#4)
topthecat's Avatar
Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,962
Well I would beg to differ, but it is only my opinion. Miss your flop with low pocket pair, then fold or bet, checking on a board with over cards and a flush draw, says I am beat, betting the turn with a possible str or str draw says I am double beat. Checking the river says I am totally buggered in this hand and invites the half pot bet no matter what the villain has.

Just the view of an amateur but I am sure others will correct me if I am wrong, and i am 100% sure that I am not.

Hows that for confidence Panicky?

I would say betting roughly 2.5X in the small blind with low Pocket pairs is the leak IMHO


TC

Last edited by topthecat; Sun Apr 17, 2011 at 09:20 PM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 07:19 AM
(#5)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
I base my decision to vary from "fit or fold" considerations largely on BOARD TEXTURE here.

When I start with this 22, I know there is a good chance I will check/fold if I miss my set (if I do not C-Bet).

If/When my opponent checks BEHIND my set miss, I am (like you) looking for "reasons" to bet the turn.

The thing is though, I do NOT have a hand that is going to be very good if called, and my flop check is NOT going to be viewed as a monser hit a lot of the time. This means I want to see that I've picked up ANY sort of re-draw on the turn to bet in most cases.

The problem with 22 is that I'm either ahead of un-paired cards on the turn, or I am WAY behind. This is the proto-typical "reverse implied odds" situation, where if I am ahead I will get little value from my opponent in most cases, and if I am behind, my bet will tend to lose me more than I have to lose.

Had the flop come 56Q though, and the turn throws up the 4, I am much more "comfortable" leading out on my 22 knowing that, if called, I still have a 3 I can hit for a (potential) win.

Versus a TAG opponent, you are generally more "safe" in turn firing without the benefit of a re-draw, simply because the TAG's greater ability to fold draws w/o proper odds, but even a lot of TAG's will range you properly, and call or RAISE on just over cards.

You also have to recognize that the texture of the turn card (how threatening, how well you can represent it, etc) plays a lot into the validity of your betting the turn w/o a re-draw of some sort- in this spot, that turn would mean you open raised pre on 63/68 or 44, kind of a "stretch" right? afterall, it would be sort of a stretch as well to think that 4 made you 2 pair. A black K would be a much BETTER card for you here I think...

So to be completely honest, with a baby pp like this, betting the turn in a small pot situation really prefers to be done when you still have a CHANCE to win versus a caller.

Last edited by JDean; Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 09:39 AM..
 
Old
Default
?? - Mon Apr 18, 2011, 08:32 AM
(#6)
monkeyskunk4's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,818
if i gonna raise 22 there-- i am c-betting 100% of the time- if i get called- then i shut it down--
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 11:05 AM
(#7)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Alright, so to sum up, top and monk think I should have c-bet, and JDean thinks that my bluff wasn't convincing. Both of those make sense.

My decision to check the flop was an attempt to lower my extremely high c-betting percentage. I figured that since the board texture had some coordination to it, it might be best to check it. I think that that might be okay, because realistically, short of a 2 flopping, I'd be turning 22 into a bluff on just about any board. So there is an argument for c-betting here.

But then, if my opponent caught a piece of the board, he's not really folding it. And if I c-bet once and he calls with a worse hand than mine, like some sort of draw, I'd have to c-bet the turn/river too, or be prepared to call a raise with just an underpair, if I want to win the pot. Worse hands might call my flop bet, but I'm not sure I want to double-barrel bluff with an underpair. So that makes me question c-betting, since I had weak bluff potential, and weak value potential, and in some of the cases where I'd be betting for value, I'd be opening myself to being raised by worse hands and pretty much having to fold.

I think that on the turn, I just shouldn't have bluffed if I was going to check the flop. It's wishy-washy, for lack of a better term, because I'm saying I don't want the pot on the flop, but I do on the turn. If wanted to bluff at the pot, I think I needed to start telling the story on the flop, because on the turn, I'm even less likely to get better hands to fold, and in the case that my opponent missed the board by the turn, they're never calling with worse hands like AJ. At least, I don't think they are.

So, to sum up, I think if wanted to bluff, it should have been as a c-bet, but I actually think that c-betting here wouldn't be all that good. I think that this would have been a pretty good check/folding hand.
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 02:07 PM
(#8)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
Alright, so to sum up, top and monk think I should have c-bet, and JDean thinks that my bluff wasn't convincing. Both of those make sense.

My decision to check the flop was an attempt to lower my extremely high c-betting percentage. I figured that since the board texture had some coordination to it, it might be best to check it. I think that that might be okay, because realistically, short of a 2 flopping, I'd be turning 22 into a bluff on just about any board. So there is an argument for c-betting here.

But then, if my opponent caught a piece of the board, he's not really folding it. And if I c-bet once and he calls with a worse hand than mine, like some sort of draw, I'd have to c-bet the turn/river too, or be prepared to call a raise with just an underpair, if I want to win the pot. Worse hands might call my flop bet, but I'm not sure I want to double-barrel bluff with an underpair. So that makes me question c-betting, since I had weak bluff potential, and weak value potential, and in some of the cases where I'd be betting for value, I'd be opening myself to being raised by worse hands and pretty much having to fold.

I think that on the turn, I just shouldn't have bluffed if I was going to check the flop. It's wishy-washy, for lack of a better term, because I'm saying I don't want the pot on the flop, but I do on the turn. If wanted to bluff at the pot, I think I needed to start telling the story on the flop, because on the turn, I'm even less likely to get better hands to fold, and in the case that my opponent missed the board by the turn, they're never calling with worse hands like AJ. At least, I don't think they are.

So, to sum up, I think if wanted to bluff, it should have been as a c-bet, but I actually think that c-betting here wouldn't be all that good. I think that this would have been a pretty good check/folding hand.
Actually, my answer was:

You probably should not bet the TURN after not C-Betting the flop, UNLESS you had picked up a re-draw of some sort. you MUST have the ability to "win" if you are called and behind something like 2nd pair on the flop which no longer "believes" you after your failure to C-Bet.

Either that, or there must be a reasonable chance the TURN CARD has hit you, when none of the flop cards had.

OR, the person is tight enough to FOLD after calling a pre-flop raise in "fear" you did not C-bet because you hold a "monster"...

It is just too likely you are in a reverse implied odds situation to make a bet there on the turn worthwhile.

 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 02:18 PM
(#9)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
It is just too likely you are in a reverse implied odds situation to make a bet there on the turn worthwhile.

If I understand reverse implied odds (which I very well might not) I don't think reverse implied odds apply here unless I'm VPIP'ing for value, or drawing to the best hand. In this case, I was bluffing, and I wasn't semi-bluffing with hopes to hit a 2. I think I was just in a bad bluffing situation, and not necessarily one where I had anything reverse implied. It was more like reverse expressed odds.
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 02:58 PM
(#10)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Reverse implied odds is any situation where you are either so far ahead your opponet has little chance of calling a bet, or you are so far behind you have little chance of catching up. Example:

Let's say by this turn card he holds "just" AJo.

you are ahead.

Is he likely to call you if you bet? NO.

Let's say instead he holds a hand like K7.

While he MIGHT fold to a bet, given that you showed no flop aggresison, and that the turn doesnt appear to have hit you, is he likely to call? More Probably...

If he DOES call, you have just 2 x 2's to run him down.

thus...

Your TURN BET carries "reverse implied odds" because you either win nothing more, or are highly likely to LOSE more than you had to.

1) If you are "ahead", and you spike a 2h for your set, you are LOSING to the flush draw that makes the bulk of what you are ahead of...

2) If you are BEHIND, your draw is so weak that you do not have enough of a chance to win if he calls.

3) If you are ahead, and both your 2's are good, he is not paying your bet here very often at all.

See?

Last edited by JDean; Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:05 PM..
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 03:08 PM
(#11)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Here:

Reverse implied pot odds, or simply reverse implied odds, apply to situations where a player will win the minimum if he has the best hand but lose the maximum if he does not have the best hand. Aggressive actions (bets and raises) are subject to reverse implied odds, because they win the minimum if they win immediately (the current pot), but may lose the maximum if called (the current pot plus the called bet or raise). These situations may also occur when a player has a made hand with little chance of improving what he believes may currently be the best hand, but an opponent continues to bet. If the opponent has a weak hand, he will likely give up after the player calls and not call any bets the player makes. If the opponent has a superior hand, he will continue the hand (extracting additional bets or calls from the player).
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 03:21 PM
(#12)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Strictly speaking, you will not lose "the max", sine if you bet the trun and get riased, you are probably dumping.

but if you bet the turn, he calls, then you bet the river and HE calls again, you are still losing a lot more than you need to most all the time.
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 03:38 PM
(#13)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Alright. I had the second meaning of RIO down. I didn't have the first one. I think that was pretty much the case throughout this hand. I couldn't really bet for value, and if I c-bet, the most I was getting back was what was in the pot right then. That was never not true, so I did have some pretty bad reverse implieds there.

Do you have any more info on RIO, JDean? I'd like to read more about it. I get the concept, but actually quantifying the odds to some degree, and learning to apply the concept better could really improve my play, I think. I especially have issues grasping why c-bet bluffing is such an effective play. I feel like when to c-bet and RIO are concepts that kind of go hand-in-hand, and my c-betting could use help.
 
Old
Default
Mon Apr 18, 2011, 08:43 PM
(#14)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
Alright. I had the second meaning of RIO down. I didn't have the first one. I think that was pretty much the case throughout this hand. I couldn't really bet for value, and if I c-bet, the most I was getting back was what was in the pot right then. That was never not true, so I did have some pretty bad reverse implieds there.

Do you have any more info on RIO, JDean? I'd like to read more about it. I get the concept, but actually quantifying the odds to some degree, and learning to apply the concept better could really improve my play, I think. I especially have issues grasping why c-bet bluffing is such an effective play. I feel like when to c-bet and RIO are concepts that kind of go hand-in-hand, and my c-betting could use help.
c betting is effective when you either flop semi hard, or you can make them BELIEVE you;ve flopped hard.

If you raised, you generally should C-bet simply because if there are "big" cards there you are representing those, but if there aren't, you are rep'ping the over pair.

Of course your stated reason for NOT C-Betting here is that you had been doing so frequently, perhaps too frequently. Especially in a cash game, it is not a terrible thing to mix up your c-Bet and non C-Bet plays to the tune of something like 65 to 75% C-Bets. this is so because if you C Bet TOO frequently, your opponents will begin to "float" you; occasionally NOT C-Betitng, and going for a check raise, leaves them with a question whether you failed to C-Bet because your hit was so STRONG.

Since you WEREN'T "strong" with your 22 here, and since you elected not to C-Bet, there is no real reason for changing up that "small pot" approach when you are in the RIO situation, See?

My point was tho, if you HAD picked up a re-draw, at least then you;d have some "chance" to be ahead if you hit and the opponent is calling you "light" because you are C-Betting too often.

Some links on RIO:

http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy...-implied-odds/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pot_odds
http://www.ehow.com/how_4599874_calc...as-holdem.html
http://www.heads-up-poker.org/reverse-implied-odds.htm

(Keep in mind, in your situation betting once is likely to commit you to a 2nd bet on the river, or if he is "floating" you, you;ve paid the turn bet for nothing. this is pretty similar to your OPPONENT continuing to bet)
 
Old
Default
Tue Apr 19, 2011, 09:58 PM
(#15)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Thanks for the info. I read a 2+2 thread on it yesterday as well. Good stuff.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com