Are those hand history links supposed to work for me? I just get: "You can only view the history of hands you have participated in." Not seeing the actual hand histories makes some of these hands hard to comment on.
Hand #2: On the turn the best lines are probably bet out and fold to a raise, or check-call to showdown. Playing the way you played it seems like it's only profitable if your opponent is hyper-aggro.
Hand #3: Even considering folding to a cap after 3-betting the flop seems bad bad bad to me.
Firstly, you are possibly still winning. True, you are *probably* losing, but homies might raise and reraise this flop with 98, a flush draw, JT, A8, or worse. The pot is enormous, so the scarcity of the cases where you're ahead is compensated by the pot size. It is even possible that the pot is big enough for you to profitably call to showdown even if you improve 0% of the time (but probably not).
But you don't improve 0% of the time. Against two pair, the most likely better hand statistically, an overpair wins about 25% of the time by the river (this is heads up; if the other players in the pot have pairs, your equity goes down, but it's maybe compensated by the greater number of contributors?). Even against top set you have pot odds to catch an A on the turn. Your backdoor nut flush draw gives you another 4% or so in all cases, even if someone already has the nuts.
Your impulse to consider folding for one more on the flop reminds me of a mistake Harrington mentions: Many players try to guess whether they are currently winning or losing and base their fold/call decision on that guess. What they should be doing instead is considering the range of hands they are up against, calculating their chances of winning against those hands, and deciding if the price is right.
I can't really say whether 3-betting is right. It depends a lot on the exact seating and action (your goal in 3-betting is primarily to eliminate players, a bit to get information, and least of all to build the pot). All things being equal, I am more inclined to 3-bet if I hold the A and more inclined to flat call if I don't. In addition to the 4% for the backdoor flush, there is the "fuck, that is a shitty card, now I am done with this pot" consideration: if a heart slips off on the turn, you are hating life and looking to exit the pot if you don't hold the A, but with the A, you pick up a great draw and are happily continuing.
You say you had an easy fold on the turn when a black 9 came off and there was a bet. Would the same be true for (876)5 and (876)4 and (876)T? Just curious.
Hand #4: I don't see the point of check-checking the flop. This is something you might want to do in NL/PL to keep the pot small so you can get to showdown cheaply in position with a weak made hand. In limit, though, you gain very little (there aren't many hands that are going to give you much extra action because of your tricky check), but you can lose a lot. You give a free card to hands like QT that might beat you or at least pick up a draw to beat you on the turn, but would fold if you bet. You miss a bet with what is probably the best hand when you are most likely to get paid off (your opponent has shown supreme weakness by checking the A after raising preflop, so he knows he might have induced a bluff and he may be planning to call or check-raise a bet, even with a worse hand than yours). You miss out on information and are heading into the turn with no clue about what your opponent holds (if you bet this flop and are called or check-raised, you can narrow his hand range a *lot*). Finally, you hurt your "integration" with crappy hands which which you'd like to pick up the pot with a flop bluff.
Since there are now many possible straight draws out there, capping the turn is fine, but I probably prefer to call his 3-bet. If he is likely to bluff the river if he misses his draw, then you should just call. If he will often check the river after you cap the turn when he holds a better hand than you, then you should probably cap.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-03 18:46 (UTC)Hand #2:
On the turn the best lines are probably bet out and fold to a raise, or check-call to showdown. Playing the way you played it seems like it's only profitable if your opponent is hyper-aggro.
Hand #3:
Even considering folding to a cap after 3-betting the flop seems bad bad bad to me.
Firstly, you are possibly still winning. True, you are *probably* losing, but homies might raise and reraise this flop with 98, a flush draw, JT, A8, or worse. The pot is enormous, so the scarcity of the cases where you're ahead is compensated by the pot size. It is even possible that the pot is big enough for you to profitably call to showdown even if you improve 0% of the time (but probably not).
But you don't improve 0% of the time. Against two pair, the most likely better hand statistically, an overpair wins about 25% of the time by the river (this is heads up; if the other players in the pot have pairs, your equity goes down, but it's maybe compensated by the greater number of contributors?). Even against top set you have pot odds to catch an A on the turn. Your backdoor nut flush draw gives you another 4% or so in all cases, even if someone already has the nuts.
Your impulse to consider folding for one more on the flop reminds me of a mistake Harrington mentions: Many players try to guess whether they are currently winning or losing and base their fold/call decision on that guess. What they should be doing instead is considering the range of hands they are up against, calculating their chances of winning against those hands, and deciding if the price is right.
I can't really say whether 3-betting is right. It depends a lot on the exact seating and action (your goal in 3-betting is primarily to eliminate players, a bit to get information, and least of all to build the pot). All things being equal, I am more inclined to 3-bet if I hold the A
You say you had an easy fold on the turn when a black 9 came off and there was a bet. Would the same be true for (876)5 and (876)4 and (876)T? Just curious.
Hand #4:
I don't see the point of check-checking the flop. This is something you might want to do in NL/PL to keep the pot small so you can get to showdown cheaply in position with a weak made hand. In limit, though, you gain very little (there aren't many hands that are going to give you much extra action because of your tricky check), but you can lose a lot. You give a free card to hands like QT that might beat you or at least pick up a draw to beat you on the turn, but would fold if you bet. You miss a bet with what is probably the best hand when you are most likely to get paid off (your opponent has shown supreme weakness by checking the A after raising preflop, so he knows he might have induced a bluff and he may be planning to call or check-raise a bet, even with a worse hand than yours). You miss out on information and are heading into the turn with no clue about what your opponent holds (if you bet this flop and are called or check-raised, you can narrow his hand range a *lot*). Finally, you hurt your "integration" with crappy hands which which you'd like to pick up the pot with a flop bluff.
Since there are now many possible straight draws out there, capping the turn is fine, but I probably prefer to call his 3-bet. If he is likely to bluff the river if he misses his draw, then you should just call. If he will often check the river after you cap the turn when he holds a better hand than you, then you should probably cap.