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

1 PSO Wonderboy - PanickyPoker vs. Table - Amazing Play

 
Old
Default
1 PSO Wonderboy - PanickyPoker vs. Table - Amazing Play - Sat May 28, 2011, 07:20 PM
(#1)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Sorry to PSO Admin; I thought my title was funny.

So, here's the hand:



Pretty easy question: was I committed on the turn? I intended on the flop to commit myself to getting it in on any turn. I have no real reason for my turn bet sizing; I just wanted to get it in somehow and kinda figured that there wouldn't be a problem because the villain's cards were basically face-up when he bet so small on the flop. I almost found it insulting to my intelligence that the guy check-raised the turn. I knew what he had. I was just carrying out my plan and was hoping for a river board pair.
 
Old
Default
Sat May 28, 2011, 07:30 PM
(#2)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
This was a sit'n'go, by the way. Very early on.
 
Old
Default
Sun May 29, 2011, 03:05 AM
(#3)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
If you KNEW he turned the flush, and you are DRAWING, then why are you still committing yourself on the come? Why are you LEADING into his check, and not electing to pot control for your draw?

It is entirely different if you merely suspect he flushed, such as if he frequently uses the check/raise semi-bluff move; in that case your line and thoughts re making your river shove can be a valid value line. And realistically, if you didn't really KNOW, then your line has some reason. But you state you KNEW...

I presume your surety lay in the fact he attempted a weak blocking bet on the flop, to which you reacted appropriately with the (then) nut hand. Your reaction put you pretty near that 1/3rd threshold though, so I can sense the "why" of your next "mistake".

You see, committment decisions are tricky things. A couple of thoughts usually govern them:

1) If you are "forced" to go above about 1/3rd of your stack in the pot, you are far better served putting ALL your chips in if you have even a pretty small chance to out-draw an opponent if you get called.

2) If you are facing a CALL that pushes you above that 1/3rd threshold, and you are still drawing, you are far better off pushing all-in, or folding even your STRONG draws.

With this said, one thing about committment is that you are NEVER "truly" committed to a pot if:

A) You "know" you are beat (or your chance of drawing out or the opponent is bluffing is miniscule)

B) You have the potential to draw out, and your opponent CHECKS to you!

Look at your hand again now...

You raise a standard amount with the pre-flop nut.
You get called in multiple places.
Not ideal for your AA to get that many callers, but ok, you can live with it.
THEN...

You flop the nuts.
The BB caller leads into you for a tiny amount of the pot.
High Five the screen, that's great.
You do exactly as you should since you are not "closing the betting"; you raise into the lead to deny odds to any likely flush draw here.
The amount of your raise, due to the pot size, puts you right AT that 1/3rd threshold.
BOTH opponents call- *GULP*

Realistically, so long as another club does not pop the turn here, you arent in a really bad spot.
You know exactly where you are at, and you KNOW a 3rd club is going to kill you if the board doesn't pair with that club. It is alwas a "sweat", isn;t it?

Well...

The turn does come a club for you, and your piss-ant blocker betting lead checks.
You state you are simply setting yourself up for an "easy" committment decision on the river, and if you suspected that the flush may NOT be there, I've got zero problem with that...

The problem is: you KNEW the flush was there!

Why would you committ your remaining chips when you are certain you are beaten, and are drawing pretty thinly?

When you can beat a pretty wide range of hands, but when you are not on a "lock", your line is very reaosnable as a way to ensure you do get value from the hands you can beat. But when you are NOT ahead of a wide range of potential calling hands, and it is checked to you, why do you not take the offered "free card", and turn your set into the pot control hand it deserves to be?

All you did here is open the door to your stack with your bet. This guy is probably a pretty "tricky" type player in his own mind, and he may well have not extracted maximum value form you with his turned flush. All your bet did was ensure that he would extract that maximum value though...

You would have been far better, since you knew he was flushed, to check behind on the turn, and call a bet by the button only if it gave proper odds to do so (both pot odds and implied odds). Instead, you took an aggressive line versus a couple of pretty passive players, and all but forced yourself to hit your boat or bust.

Not really a good thing to do when that flush may have regretted his turn check, then bet only 2 or 300 on the river...you mighta been able to make a "crying call" of that amount, and soldier on with 700 left.

See?
 
Old
Default
Sun May 29, 2011, 04:49 PM
(#4)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Saying that I knew what he had is obviously an exaggeration. It made perfect sense for him to have two clubs, but there's a certain implication of skill in applying a blocking bet that this guy didn't seem to have. A gutshot would also have made some sense, and I've seen some weird plays here with just about every other holding under the sun. I don't know how sure I was that the guy had a flush, but if I had to quantify it, it'd probably be a pretty big number under 75%.

My plan on the flop was to get it in on the turn, regardless of the turn card. I think shipping the flop would have been pretty terrible, because it'd have been like shipping my aces preflop to begin with. I can't get called by better, but I'm usually getting called by near nothing worse as well.

So, I think my bet on the flop was fine, but could have been made a bit bigger to make getting it in on the turn easier. Or it could have been made smaller to make folding easier. But I don't like folding the turn ever, because in sit'n'go's, you need to keep your stack size competetive, especially if you don't have a big skill edge. In this spot, folding the turn might not be so bad, but I still don't like it.
 
Old
Default
Sun May 29, 2011, 08:40 PM
(#5)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
Saying that I knew what he had is obviously an exaggeration. It made perfect sense for him to have two clubs, but there's a certain implication of skill in applying a blocking bet that this guy didn't seem to have. A gutshot would also have made some sense, and I've seen some weird plays here with just about every other holding under the sun. I don't know how sure I was that the guy had a flush, but if I had to quantify it, it'd probably be a pretty big number under 75%.

My plan on the flop was to get it in on the turn, regardless of the turn card. I think shipping the flop would have been pretty terrible, because it'd have been like shipping my aces preflop to begin with. I can't get called by better, but I'm usually getting called by near nothing worse as well.

So, I think my bet on the flop was fine, but could have been made a bit bigger to make getting it in on the turn easier. Or it could have been made smaller to make folding easier. But I don't like folding the turn ever, because in sit'n'go's, you need to keep your stack size competetive, especially if you don't have a big skill edge. In this spot, folding the turn might not be so bad, but I still don't like it.
The point of my post was:

You are RIGHT to do as you did, so long as you feel ther is a pretty strong chance the opponent might try to rep a lesser hand as the flush, such as top pair, Ace re-draw. So long as he is willing to do that, then fine.

If your "spidey-sense" tingles REALLY HARD though, and that sense is telling you he is flushed, there is no reaosn to bet the turn to make your decision easier.

consider...

1) "Mistakes" come in many forms. Perhaps this guy's leak lies in a terrible ability to extract value.

He calls raises like yours on the flop with improper odds, then hits his desired card, and keeps trying to be "tricky". As such, he checks the turn when he has it.

If YOU check behind because you "saw" his blocker bet for what it is, PLUS you have a 2nd player in who increases the chance one of em has a draw that got there, you can potentially get full chance to hit your boat cheaply, OR you may even get to see a SMALL river bet which you can make a crying call.

2) You are also looking to generally do 2 things with bets in NL: bet for value or bet to bluff.

That 3rd club is a big threat to you here, and your initial post indicates you "feel" that threat. As such, you cannot bet for value, since you are likely to only be called by flushes vs 2 players, and these lines; you are folding out worse (most liekly) and being called only by better.

You also cannot bet to bluff because you are going to lose value with a lot of strong bets, and get called almost instantly by hands that beat you. So saying a bluff was why you bet is pretty un-reasonable.

The key idea of POT CONTROL is that you feel the hand you have can beat a pretty wide range of opponents holdings, but there is presently a very likely threat your hand is beaten. This was an ideal spot to exercise pot control by checking behind, simply BECAUSE:

A) it is very early in a single table SNG. You could still make it itm off that 1000 chips.
B) the betting line taken by your opponent indicated strongly to you that he had flushed on the turn.
C) the extra person in the pot calling your "proper" raise to deny odds to the draw on the flop INCREASED the threat of a flush, thus weakening the "power" of your top set.

So Panicky, I'm not saying your are wrong in thinking that you do NOT want to fold away your re-draw chance very often on just a 3 club board. But I DO think it is wrong to try settig yourself UP to get all in, whether o not you boat, when you have a very strong feeling the flush is there. It would be better to CALL to draw here, in hopes the flush does not charge you your entire stack, especially when he checks the flush makes THAT a lot more likely.

See?
 
Old
Default
Sun May 29, 2011, 09:40 PM
(#6)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
I DO think it is wrong to try settig yourself UP to get all in, whether o not you boat, when you have a very strong feeling the flush is there.
The entire point of my OP was that I was committing before the third club came. I was essentially covering my screen and going all-in on any turn. In this case, I didn't cover my screen or go all-in, but the intention was the same. I agree that in this spot, checking back the turn would have been good, and probably way better than what I did, because I was likely to see a free river, which sort of makes shipping the turn with a redraw kind of unnecessary.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: in a regular STT, where I can assume that I don't have a large skill edge over the field, is stacking off ~33% of my stack so detrimental to my game that I should just take the higher variance approach and commit on the flop? Or should I be committing conditionally (and therefore, likely raising smaller on the flop)? Or, as a third option, is just going all-in on the flop the best play? On a 3k starting stack, I would have no problem. But I can't really price out my opponent without stacking off a third of my stack the 20% of the time his flush gets there on the turn. And when it does, I land myself in the largely disadvantaged spot of having less chips to work with, and potentially less fold equity, in an STT.
 
Old
Default
Mon May 30, 2011, 04:18 AM
(#7)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PanickyPoker View Post
The entire point of my OP was that I was committing before the third club came. I was essentially covering my screen and going all-in on any turn. In this case, I didn't cover my screen or go all-in, but the intention was the same. I agree that in this spot, checking back the turn would have been good, and probably way better than what I did, because I was likely to see a free river, which sort of makes shipping the turn with a redraw kind of unnecessary.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is: in a regular STT, where I can assume that I don't have a large skill edge over the field, is stacking off ~33% of my stack so detrimental to my game that I should just take the higher variance approach and commit on the flop? Or should I be committing conditionally (and therefore, likely raising smaller on the flop)? Or, as a third option, is just going all-in on the flop the best play? On a 3k starting stack, I would have no problem. But I can't really price out my opponent without stacking off a third of my stack the 20% of the time his flush gets there on the turn. And when it does, I land myself in the largely disadvantaged spot of having less chips to work with, and potentially less fold equity, in an STT.
If your intent is to go all the way no matter what, why not ship the turn behind the check?

Why not 3bet him all in on the turn?

The thing is, I think you know the answer...

You were almost positive you were against a made flush, and were reluctant to pull that particular trigger...

If you were on a question mark about the flush being there in one of your 2 opponent's holdings, I think you go ahead and launch your 1k right there...the pot was certainly of a "correct" size to do so.

Panickly, please do not mis-construe me here; I "see" why you might-a been thinking as you were: the opower of your re-draw gives you "protection" if you do run into the made flush.

But the time to leverage that is when you are NOT as sure you are facing a flush; not when you are as sure as you seem to be here.

If you ARE as sure as your posts indicate here, then you should have elected to go with the pot control line instead.
 
Old
Default
Mon May 30, 2011, 04:46 AM
(#8)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
If your intent is to go all the way no matter what, why not ship the turn behind the check?

Why not 3bet him all in on the turn?
He 3bet me all in on the turn. 3betting him all-in back is a tricky thing to do in that spot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDean View Post
The thing is, I think you know the answer...

You were almost positive you were against a made flush, and were reluctant to pull that particular trigger...
Nope. I figured that there was no relevance to my bet sizing, since he'd go all-in for me if he had the flush, and would commit the other T500 on the river with ATC with any other holding, but would mostly likely fold any other hand to the T500 on the turn. I was carrying out my plan to get it in.

I'm not misunderstanding your posts, JDean; you're telling me to fold to the third club when I read the action to be dictating that I'm up against a better hand than mine. What I'm looking for is not the correct play on the turn as played, it's suggestions as to a better action to take on the flop to avoid this kind of spot. I can't take a 'pot control line' after this turn card comes. I have to either commit the rest of my chips, or check/fold with 33% of my stack in the pot. Neither action is acceptable, therefore taking a 'pot control line' on the turn isn't exactly a genius play. The best thing I can do is avoid spots like this in the future. And that means I need to adjust my play on the flop.

In retrospect, I should have just bet bigger on the flop. I think this is a weird spot where an overbet would be the only good play. I just did some quick mental math, and potting the flop wouldn't have even been enough. Shoving all-in on the flop would have been fine, I think. That's weird, because I initially thought that shoving the flop would be bad. But it looks like a pretty lesser-of-evils play here.

Last edited by PanickyPoker; Mon May 30, 2011 at 04:51 AM..
 
Old
Default
Mon May 30, 2011, 04:58 AM
(#9)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
There is no better flop play for you, you played it perfectly by denying odds to a flush draw by a pretty wide margin. You simply got "screwed" by the fact that the button had no clue your hand was as strong as it was, and also by the fact that the button's call gave the BB the false sense that he was now getitng odds to draw to his flush.

Your opponents made basic flop mistakes, and got lucky.

Why?

Simple...

The BB on the flush draw needs a bit better than 4 to 1 to hit his 17% shot on the turn.
Your pre-flop raise, plus the callers, then your flop raise and the single caller, did not give him quite enough to make these odds. He was essentially committing almost 1/3rd of his stacks on CALLS (yes, I consider his piss-ant blocker bet about the same as a call), to hit a club with only 1 real shot at it. Had that club not come, you are jamming pretty much, and he simply cannot call...

So...

I get what you are saying, but no matter what, I still hold to the fact that you should have elected to control the pot when it is checked to you...BECAUSE YOU STARTED THIS SAYING YOU KNEW HE FLUSHED!

With that info, or even a VERY STRONG supposition that is the case, you could have checked behind his check, NOT Whaled away into the pot. Had you checked behind him, there is a strong chance you get to the riv very very cheaply...

If he jams you on the river, and you didn;t boat, YES your decision would be "harder". But you gave him no chance to make a tricky bet that you could make a crying call of easily.

I'm not saying anything about the fact you shoulda folded...

I'm saying you had NO REASON to bet into him when you strongly suspected you were beat, and it was checked to you.

Take the free cards if you think you need to draw out to win a good % of the time, and give the moe-ron who doesn;t understand the positive and negative aspects of slow playing a chance to hang himself either by letting you draw out cheaply, or by failing to stack you when he has the chance.
 
Old
Default
Mon May 30, 2011, 05:20 AM
(#10)
PanickyPoker's Avatar
Since: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,168
Here's an interesting mathematical morsel, JDean. I just calculated this now (get ready to be surprised; I was). I plugged in a range for the guy so that in this spot, he would have any two clubs, A weaker flopped set than mine, or two pair with the case ace. On the turn, my aces have 36.244% equity. Given the size of the pot, even if I open shoved it, I would be getting sufficient pot odds to profitably shove with only 28.25% equity. That's assuming that the guy is never spazzing out with a gutshot, AK, or some random hand like that. That's also assuming that he only has hands as strong as top pair with another pair on the flop, and that he's never folding the turn. My play on the turn was actually +EV.

So, even though I paid the guy off (I think), I apparently didn't make a mistake at any point in this hand. That's awkward.

Edit: I didn't account for the third player in my calcs. If he has a random range on the turn, then I'm still profiting if he calls with all of it. I don't know what happens if I adjust his calling range here. If both opponents made a flush on the turn, then my equity drops to 20%. But I think my turn play is still good.

Last edited by PanickyPoker; Mon May 30, 2011 at 05:24 AM..
 

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