Turn-Donk Coordinated Board: Raise, Call, Fold?

[CoolDuck]

Interesting hand. 

Player 1 is loose, relatively passive.
Player 3 is essentially dead money, loose passive and limps in with Ace rag.

<a href="http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=349930" target="_blank">http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=349930</a>

What's your play on the turn?

[Deadmoney]

Given your read....I am not sure if you can call? relatively passive? but leads the turn?
and you could be already drawing dead......even given that I probably call anyway

Regards David

[Tony]

I hate these kind of situations, and to be honest I don't know what the best play is.  I do think you need a solid read that he'd never donk the turn without two pair or better to fold though.

Bear in mind that he doesn't know you have top pair.  He'll know you cbet the flop close to 100% of the time after raising preflop, and he'll also know that the other guy needn't have very much.  If this is the case then he may well be doing this with a worse 9.  I also see a lot of people doing this with a pair that picked up a flush draw on the turn.

If we just assume for a moment that neither player has a flush draw AND he'd never donk a worse 9.  In other words we're chasing.  I'll assume villain isn't loose enough to play hands like 72 and 52.

Opponent's hand   Combinations   Our outs
        86                     16              0
        97                     6               3
        75                     9               5
        99                     1               0
        55                     3               0
        22                     3               0
        77                     3               0

Therefore we can take find the weighted mean (average) to approximate our effective number of outs as follows:

[16(0) + 6(3) + 9(5) + 1(0) + 3(0) + 3(0) + 3(0)]/(16 + 6 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 3 + 3) = 63/41 = 1.5 outs

So in other words if we're behind to two pair or better, we're badly behind and don't have the odds to chase.  On the other hand to call down it will cost us 2 big bets to win 9 (or more if the other guy stays in), so we only need to be good 2/11 = 18% of the time and possibly less.

So I think it's just one of those situations where you have to go on your read of the player.  If he's so passive that he's never donking a flush draw or a redraw like 87, or a worse 9 to protect his hand, then fold.  Otherwise call.  In todays games many bad players do crazy things, so in all honesty I'd call it down, even with the third player in the pot.  I hardly ever fold TPTK in 2 or 3 handed pots versus bad players (maybe I should more often  ).  I think the chance he's doing this with a worse 9 combined with the chance he's doing it with a draw (and our 1.5 outs help a little bit), probably mean we should be calling it down.

If you don't get any more responses it may be worth posting this on another forum to see what response you get.  My guess is the over-riding response will be "DON'T FOLD", but I'd be interested to see.  I know who the better posters are on 2+2 so you might want to post it in the small stakes six max LHE section, or maybe on theInternet Texas Holdem; Matthew Hilgerforum.  Don't give any indication of your chosen play and just see what they say.  Nothing wrong with a second opinion.

[CoolDuck]

I looked at hitting on the turn, and I thought about possible hands both players could have.
Player 3's garbage, and probably had one pair (lower than mine).  Player 1 is a bit loose, and a bit passive, but would still donk a number of hands I thought.  The only draw that completes is 86o or s, and I just don't put the sb on that
kind of hand. 

I thought it was much more likely player 1 picked up a draw and that I was still ahead.
So in the end I actually raised, intending to fold to a 3-bet, the decision was razor think value wise for me.

If a blank comes on the river I was intendng to bet if it didn't complete flush draws

Results below:

COOL_DUCK - Raises $4 to $4
Player 1 - Calls $2
Player 2 - Calls $2
*** RIVER *** [ ] []
Player 1 - Checks
PLaye 3 - Checks
COOL_DUCK - Checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Player 1 - Shows [ ] (One pair, sevens)
Player 3 - Shows [ ] (Three of a kind, sevens)
COOL_DUCK - Mucks
Player 3 Collects $20.50 from main pot

Why god, why....

If you run an equity calc I'm 60% on the turn, so it worked out.  A close play though, but I was never considering folding to a turn donk against 95% of players.  Or flop donks against some passive players, it's often the only aggressive tool in their arsenal. 

[Tony]

Yeah I wouldn't normally raise the turn in this situation with TWO opponents already in, although I usually will HU.  Still, you made the right decison so vnh

[CoolDuck]

Yeah I wouldn't normally raise the turn in this situation with TWO opponents already in, although I usually will HU.  Still, you made the right decison so vnh

Agreed Tony.  I only raised because player 3 was dead money, and called down with garbage.  If he was even average I'm not raising here. 

[Tony]

I think this hand is really interesting and illustrates perfectly the importance of table-based reads.

You had a solid read on both opponents, and you went with it.  As a result you made the expert play.  If you had 60% equity on the turn that's a 27% edge, meaning you made 27% of two big bets (about $1.10) by raising.  That's huge.

It makes me think that I should be more confident in my own reads and make more of these plays myself.  I have a tendency to give my opponents too much credit, and I lose value because of it.

[Coughy_boy]

If this is a person who thinks about what he's doing, then he probably didn't just make a big hand.  Because then he would check raise, instead.  So if this is a thinking person, he may have bet to build a pot, maybe to make sure that the guy in between you was faced with a bet.  I would guess he flopped a draw and the 7 helped him.

Maybe he's holding ?  ?  I think with the odds I'm being offered, I'd call, but I can get away if I don't improve.

But if this is someone you can count on to bet his hand, I might fold.

[Coughy_boy]

So in the end I actually raised, intending to fold to a 3-bet, the decision was razor think value wise for me.

Well, first of all, I wasn't at the "table," CD was.  But, I think this is pretty poor poker.  This would be a classic semi-bluff, except that one of the conditions for a semi-bluff wasn't met.  A semi-bluff is only correct with fold equity.  Here, it's pretty obvious to me that both these opponents are tied to the pot.  So CD didn't thin the field, all he did was make the pot bigger.  Big pots are for big hands.  TPTK is not a big hand.

You had a solid read on both opponents, and you went with it.  As a result you made the expert play. 

My impression is that he has a mystical approach to the game, believing that guessing what his opponents are holding will improve his play.  This is a misinterpretation of Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem.  He made the high variance play, IMO.  He loses more when he's wrong and wins more when he's right.

[Tony]

I think this is pretty poor poker.  This would be a classic semi-bluff, except that one of the conditions for a semi-bluff wasn't met.  A semi-bluff is only correct with fold equity.  Here, it's pretty obvious to me that both these opponents are tied to the pot.

Huh?  He made it quite clear he was betting for value, it wasn't a semi-bluff.

My impression is that he has a mystical approach to the game, believing that guessing what his opponents are holding will improve his play.  This is a misinterpretation of Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem.  He made the high variance play, IMO.  He loses more when he's wrong and wins more when he's right.

Well, I guess that, as usual, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Coughy_boy]

Huh?  He made it quite clear he was betting for value, it wasn't a semi-bluff.

Whether he was betting for value doesn't depend upon what he thinks he's betting for.  And he didn't bet, he raised.

[Tony]

And he didn't bet, he raised.

Wow, is that the best you've got?

[Coughy_boy]

Well, Tony, I do think the fact that there's one card to come does make the distinction between betting and raising legitimate, even if not significant to you.

And if you don't agree that

I actually raised, intending to fold to a 3-bet,

is pretty awful, well, um, er...  I actually can't think of what to say.

[CoolDuck]

Well, first of all, I wasn't at the "table," CD was.  But, I think this is pretty poor poker.  This would be a classic semi-bluff, except that one of the conditions for a semi-bluff wasn't met.  A semi-bluff is only correct with fold equity.  Here, it's pretty obvious to me that both these opponents are tied to the pot.  So CD didn't thin the field, all he did was make the pot bigger.  Big pots are for big hands.  TPTK is not a big hand.

This is a value raise/bet, not a semi-bluff.  I have top pair, top kicker, and the betting line's indicate I'm best.  If either player happened to fold that would be great, but wasn't my intention at all with the raise.  "Big pots are for big hands" is a NL concept, I mean don't get me wrong it applies to limit in some spots, especially pre-flop when there's a lot of action.  But multi-way a bet is often very small compared to the pot so I'm more worried about getting my money in when I'm a favorite.

My impression is that he has a mystical approach to the game, believing that guessing what his opponents are holding will improve his play.  This is a misinterpretation of Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem.  He made the high variance play, IMO.  He loses more when he's wrong and wins more when he's right.

You know I'm all about constructive critsicm, and I love when you guys comment, but I guess I don't get this.  Instead of guessing put in the word estimating.  Sklanksy has a lot of Theorems, one of them being if you played the hand differently than you would played if the cards are face up than you made a mistake.  You make my poker game sound like it's some haphazard guessing game where I randomly throw money at the pot.  Which is fun I admit 

And this isn't how variance works or poker works.  I guess by definition putting money in the pot increases variance, but if your a % favorite you'd still put money in.  Poker is about exploiting edges, and that shines through in 6-max limit.  I mean this is basic EV, if your a 60% favorite to win a pot, would you put in more money or less, assuming your future loss is limited to one bet?  I'm no expert, but these situations come up often enough in limit, where if you correctly read the hand a raise is good. 

A good example is with an overpair against an opponent that will donk often.  Like the example below.  Very simliar to my hand above, and calling is very easy and safe.  But clearly based on his line he isn't likely to have trips or a set.  So I raise for value.

<a href="http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=353230" target="_blank">http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=353230</a>

And estimating hands (hand reading) is an important part of poker.

[CoolDuck]

Well, Tony, I do think the fact that there's one card to come does make the distinction between betting and raising legitimate, even if not significant to you.

And if you don't agree that

I actually raised, intending to fold to a 3-bet,

is pretty awful, well, um, er...  I actually can't think of what to say.

I know what to say.  I don't like your tone or attitude, I don't mind you attacking my play, but do it in a respectful fashion.

And if he reraises that line indicates I'm WAY behind, since this player isn't going to 3-bet bluff.  It immediately narrows down the possible hand ranges from a donk semi-bluff or value bet to strictly value. 

Now if you want to discuss the merits of the play, pros and cons, feel free to bring them up.

[Coughy_boy]

Well, sorry, but if I think something is awful I just say so.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that the betting lines may mean something to you, that they don't mean, objectively.  Reality does not exist by you, nor for you. 

And the comment about hand reading is along the same lines.  When using common cards, the most important thing you can do is play your own hand well.

I would agree with your play in the first hand, except I really think these two are tied to the pot and a raise has no purpose, except to either increase your profit or increase your loss.  I think the more you play, the more you will agree that aggression is a matter of degree, not black and white.

[CoolDuck]

Well, sorry, but if I think something is awful I just say so.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that the betting lines may mean something to you, that they don't mean, objectively.  Reality does not exist by you, nor for you. 

And the comment about hand reading is along the same lines.  When using common cards, the most important thing you can do is play your own hand well.

I would agree with your play in the first hand, except I really think these two are tied to the pot and a raise has no purpose, except to either increase your profit or increase your loss.  I think the more you play, the more you will agree that aggression is a matter of degree, not black and white.

That's cool, I have no problem with bluntness.  But don't evaluate someone's who's new that way.  This isn't a 2+2 forum

I don't do thing's to strictly increase my profit and loss at the same time, sounds like your arguing that this play is break even and not worth doing, that in this case it worked out but it won't often enough.  We'll have to agree that we disagree with hand reading and betting lines, an extremely important tool in limit imo.

[Coughy_boy]

I think you happened to catch your opponents at the bottom of their ranges.  But I don't think that will happen very often.

When I write about these things, I speak in the same manner that I play the game.  I've got my game face on, that's all.

[Tony]

I think you happened to catch your opponents at the bottom of their ranges.  But I don't think that will happen very often.

Yeah but the point is CB, firstly that isn't what you said.  You made a comment implying that CD has a "mystical approach" to the game.  This is just sniping at someone for no reason.  It's a pity you didn't say this initially.

Secondly, although this may be true, that still doesn't mean he was necessarily wrong to raise for value.  Obviously we don't know what our opponent's hold, however this doesn't mean we should never raise for value unless we hold the nuts.

We raise for value when we think our opponents' actions and ranges are such that, on average, we have an equity advantage.  when CD raised, he estimated that, based on his opponents' actions and ranges, his bet would have value.  He was playing against their entire range, and felt that this play would have made money long term.

Now you might disagree in the sense that you may think their ranges are not wide enough to make this assumption, and that's fair enough.  But it's not fair to say that plays like this are wrong per se.  Clearly it wouldn't be difficult to invent ranges which make raising in this spot a clear value raise.  CD felt that this was one of those spots.

[Coughy_boy]

Yeah but the point is CB, firstly that isn't what you said.  You made a comment implying that CD has a "mystical approach" to the game.  This is just sniping at someone for no reason.  It's a pity you didn't say this initially.

Well, I can have multiple opinions about an HH.  Having multiple opinions doesn't make one of them wrong, and it doesn't mean I changed my mind.

I don't say anything without a reason.  If I say something, it's because I hope I will learn something, or someone else will learn something, in the process.

I actually like his play, except I don't think there's any fold equity here, so I think calling is a better choice.  But I think raising intending to fold is awful here.

And I get the distinct impression from his posts that he relies so much on "reads" that his approach to the game can be described as mystical.  I.e. his plays tend to be based upon his thoughts, rather than upon cold hard facts and objective probabilities.  I always go back to something that to me is the truth:  What I think my opponent is holding is determined more by what I ate for breakfast than by what he's actually holding.