what to do here? (pl he)

[Absolute 0]

Jesus some of you motherfuckers are sensitive.You have been posting in Strategy for 3 days and you act like you know me*sigh*

[Snowman 0]

I couldn't quite drop this hand yet. I've been doing some calculations and these are the results. (This will be a pain to type...)I changed history a bit and let SB totally miss the flop so he will fold to anything. I think that makes the hand just as interesting.I have calculated the following four cases. In all cases I have calculated both when UTG+1 calls off his whole stack and when he doesn't put in any more money. I won't type out the calculations of when he folds, but instead just type that value afterwards within parenthesis. As I said in a previous post UTG+1 was as fishy as they come and he had KC, JS in this hand.I) In this case I check-raise. MP is accomodating and bets and then also calls my check-raise. I raise max, which would be to $26 total. I further assume that MP will not fold my obvious bet on the turn putting him all-in, because at that point he only has about $4 left and the pot is huge.

EV(I check | MP bets and calls) = I win - I lose = 0.7 * (5 + 12.30 + 30.05) - 0.3 * 30.05 = 24.13  (Without UTG+1: 15.52)

II) In this case I also check-raise, but MP folds to the raise.

EV(I check | MP bets and folds) = I win - I lose to UTG+1 = 0.95 * (5 + 5.25 + 12.30) - 0.05 * 12.30 = 20.80  (Without UTG+1: 10.25)

III) I bet out, MP folds.

EV(I bet | MP folds) = I win - I lose to UTG+1 = 0.95 * (5 + 12.30) - 0.05 * 12.30 = 15.82   (Without UTG+1: 5)

IV) In this case I bet the pot and MP calls. Then, on the turn, the pot will be so big that I don't think I will be able to fold my set no matter what. So, I will go all-in on the turn. If MP calls the turn bet no matter what we are back at case I), so now he will fold on the turn if he doesn't hit his flush.This means slightly more complicated calculations. I removed the chance of losing to UTG+1 here to simplify a bit. The result will be slightly higher because of this, but it doesn't make much of an impact anyway since he has to catch a runner, runner straight to win.

EV(I bet | MP calls at least once) = No diamond on the turn + 10d on the turn + chance of winning with other diamond on the turn = 36/45 * (5 + 12.30 + 5) + 1/44 * (5 + 12.30 + 30.05) + 8/45 * (10/44 * (5 + 12.30 + 30.05) - 34/44 * 30.05) = 17.84 + 1.08 + 1.91 - 4.13 = 16.70

Whew, that took a while.So, what conclusions can we draw from this? Well, if you are 100% sure that MP will bet then it is clearly more +EV to check-raise. However, if he checks and a scare card falls on the turn (6, J, any diamond) then we're in a tough spot. I have not calculated what happens then, because it's a lot more open, the pot is relatively small and the decisions are not as clear cut. I find this to be the main argument against going for the check-raise and it is definitely a very valid point.On the other hand, if you have a good read and MP does bet then you can get *a lot* of money in on the flop, with what is most likely the best hand, making later decisions pretty much non-existent.So now you can form your own conclusions.Absolute and others who want to bet the flop, I'd love to hear what you would do if MP calls and a scare card falls on the turn. Especially if MP is the only caller so that the pot is pretty small in relation to the stacks.

[Snowman 0]

Damn, I should know better than to get into this. This is my last off-topic post, unless there's something constructive to say.

Jesus some of you motherfuckers are sensitive.

I never said I was offended, but it's pretty simple to see the effect of the way you express yourself. I just offered a suggestion, I won't bother to try again.

You have been posting in Strategy for 3 days and you act like you know me*sigh*

You're right that I don't know you, never claimed to either, but thanks for proving my point about jumping to conclusions. You know, if you would look at when I joined it says February and furthermore it actually IS possible to read the forum without being registered.

[Absolute 0]

I couldn't quite drop this hand yet. I've been doing some calculations and these are the results. (This will be a pain to type...)I changed history a bit and let SB totally miss the flop so he will fold to anything. I think that makes the hand just as interesting.I have calculated the following four cases. In all cases I have calculated both when UTG+1 calls off his whole stack and when he doesn't put in any more money. I won't type out the calculations of when he folds, but instead just type that value afterwards within parenthesis. As I said in a previous post UTG+1 was as fishy as they come and he had KC, JS in this hand.I) In this case I check-raise. MP is accomodating and bets and then also calls my check-raise. I raise max, which would be to $26 total. I further assume that MP will not fold my obvious bet on the turn putting him all-in, because at that point he only has about $4 left and the pot is huge.  

EV(I check | MP bets and calls) = I win - I lose = 0.7 * (5 + 12.30 + 30.05) - 0.3 * 30.05 = 24.13  (Without UTG+1: 15.52)

II) In this case I also check-raise, but MP folds to the raise.

EV(I check | MP bets and folds) = I win - I lose to UTG+1 = 0.95 * (5 + 5.25 + 12.30) - 0.05 * 12.30 = 20.80  (Without UTG+1: 10.25)

III) I bet out, MP folds.

EV(I bet | MP folds) = I win - I lose to UTG+1 = 0.95 * (5 + 12.30) - 0.05 * 12.30 = 15.82   (Without UTG+1: 5)

IV) In this case I bet the pot and MP calls. Then, on the turn, the pot will be so big that I don't think I will be able to fold my set no matter what. So, I will go all-in on the turn. If MP calls the turn bet no matter what we are back at case I), so now he will fold on the turn if he doesn't hit his flush.This means slightly more complicated calculations. I removed the chance of losing to UTG+1 here to simplify a bit. The result will be slightly higher because of this, but it doesn't make much of an impact anyway since he has to catch a runner, runner straight to win.

EV(I bet | MP calls at least once) = No diamond on the turn + 10d on the turn + chance of winning with other diamond on the turn = 36/45 * (5 + 12.30 + 5) + 1/44 * (5 + 12.30 + 30.05) + 8/45 * (10/44 * (5 + 12.30 + 30.05) - 34/44 * 30.05) = 17.84 + 1.08 + 1.91 - 4.13 = 16.70

Whew, that took a while.So, what conclusions can we draw from this? Well, if you are 100% sure that MP will bet then it is clearly more +EV to check-raise. However, if he checks and a scare card falls on the turn (6, J, any diamond) then we're in a tough spot. I have not calculated what happens then, because it's a lot more open, the pot is relatively small and the decisions are not as clear cut. I find this to be the main argument against going for the check-raise and it is definitely a very valid point.On the other hand, if you have a good read and MP does bet then you can get *a lot* of money in on the flop, with what is most likely the best hand, making later decisions pretty much non-existent.So now you can form your own conclusions.Absolute and others who want to bet the flop, I'd love to hear what you would do if MP calls and a scare card falls on the turn. Especially if MP is the only caller so that the pot is pretty small in relation to the stacks.

poker calculators just point out the obviousif you refer back to one of my posts in this thread, i told you that a check/raise is best if the oppponent always bets.but the possibility of this hand being checked behind you makes the bet more +EV because you get called more often that people will bet behind you when you check.its still a bet.i will surrender on one point I made and agree that a check/raise is not horrible.but its not standard.and it is pretty clearly the lesser of the two choices.if i bother you, or my methods for offering advice bother you, i apologize.ive been posting in strategy for long enough to know that you have to be assertive to get points accross.and if you believe that im all talk, thats unfortunate, because youll be missing out on good advice, even if the occassional clown like Iceman disagrees.most people know that i have a pretty good idea of what im talking about most of the time.however i am the first to admit i have plenty of holes in my NL game.

[Snowman 0]

poker calculators just point out the obvious

I guess you have point there. At least in a case like this. It's just that I'm a math junkie and like exact numbers.

its still a bet.i will surrender on one point I made and agree that a check/raise is not horrible.but its not standard.and it is pretty clearly the lesser of the two choices.

Point taken.

if i bother you, or my methods for offering advice bother you, i apologize.ive been posting in strategy for long enough to know that you have to be assertive to get points accross.and if you believe that im all talk, thats unfortunate, because youll be missing out on good advice, even if the occassional clown like Iceman disagrees.

No need to apologize. I really appreciate your advice. I just get annoyed when a good thread goes up in flames, which seems to happen around here quite a bit. I'll take your word for the necessity to be assertive though, you surely know that better than I.Now when we're all friendly and cudly let's get back to topic, shall we?How about this question:

I'd love to hear what you would do if MP calls and a scare card (especially a diamond) falls on the turn. Especially if MP is the only caller so that the pot is pretty small in relation to the stacks.

Bet 80-100% of the pot again and be prepared to fold in case of a big re-raise? I find it hard to lay down a set at these tables though.

[akishore 0]

absolute,you make a very valid point about betting the pot here, because the chances of it being checked around make going for a checkraise less than attractive.my mistake in saying that a checkraise was standard. i think i'm used to aggressive games where pre-flop raisers almost always make a continuation bet whenever they get the option.so, i think it's really read-dependent. without a read, i agree wholeheartedly that betting close to the pot here is the better play, since it would be catastrophic if the pre-flop raiser checked behind you and you gave a free card in a multiway pot on a semi-dangerous board.if the pre-flop raiser is aggressive, however, i would be much more inclined to check-raise in order to get more money in the pot before the action returns to me, at which point i can raise close to max and put myself in a win/win situation (whether anyone calls or folds, i profit either way).no offense meant when i brought up the norman chad line, don't think i was trying to offend you. i realize that you know your stuff; i was just pointing out that you (perhaps accidentally) mixed up slowplaying and check-raising.aseem

[Absolute 0]

absolute,you make a very valid point about betting the pot here, because the chances of it being checked around make going for a checkraise less than attractive.my mistake in saying that a checkraise was standard. i think i'm used to aggressive games where pre-flop raisers almost always make a continuation bet whenever they get the option.so, i think it's really read-dependent. without a read, i agree wholeheartedly that betting close to the pot here is the better play, since it would be catastrophic if the pre-flop raiser checked behind you and you gave a free card in a multiway pot on a semi-dangerous board.if the pre-flop raiser is aggressive, however, i would be much more inclined to check-raise in order to get more money in the pot before the action returns to me, at which point i can raise close to max and put myself in a win/win situation (whether anyone calls or folds, i profit either way).no offense meant when i brought up the norman chad line, don't think i was trying to offend you. i realize that you know your stuff; i was just pointing out that you (perhaps accidentally) mixed up slowplaying and check-raising.aseem

well saidi was out of line as wellboo yah

[TheIceman05 0]

So after all this, Absolute finally says that "check-raising isn't horrible."Which was pretty much everybody's point in the first place. Most people went as far as to say they USUALLY bet out, but check-raise against an overly aggressive opponent (like the one the OP was describing).You can call me a clown all you want, but it still won't change the fact that you obsessively use the only memorable line from "TILT" when you're trying to insult someone.... which is hilarious.Yay for being back in highschool.Ice

[Absolute 0]

I'd love to hear what you would do if MP calls and a scare card (especially a diamond) falls on the turn. Especially if MP is the only caller so that the pot is pretty small in relation to the stacks.

Bet 80-100% of the pot again and be prepared to fold in case of a big re-raise? I find it hard to lay down a set at these tables though.

Exactly.This, as crazy as it will seem to some, is VERY standard.Any decent opponent is going to put the hammer down on you if you check a scare card.I bet 75% of the pot if a diamond falls and fold to a pot sized raise. If he raises small, you might be getting odds to fill up. Plus the implied odds are strong if you even comes close to pricing you in.Regardless, if you bet the flop and get smooth called, you need to bet the turn also, regardless of what falls.