[Closed] 87s from BB

Calling preflop with 7:1 odds is excellent. This is enough overlay against the probability to hit a good hand on the flop. According to the chart "Calling/Raising with raises and callers in front of you" you would call 1 raiser 2 callers with 87s even if you are not in the blind. In the blind you are getting much better odds so there is any reason to call.

The flop brings a flush draw. This is a good draw that you can bet for value against even 2 opponents because it is likely enough to hit that draw until the river. You just have to look that you are not getting isolated from a better hand which would be likely if the preflop raiser is sitting directly left of you. As it happens the preflop raiser sits at the far end of the betting round so this is not a grave danger. Good bet.

On the turn you didn't make your draw. There is only one card to come so the probability to hit the draw has almost halved. Your equity equals the probability of making the draw as you surely have not the best hand. This means you now have an equity below average equity that you can't bet for value anymore. You have enough equity to continue the hand according to odds and outs. The other consideration is if you can win the pot on the turn with a semibluff. If this would be the case a bet still would be good. With 3 players behind you this is extremely unlikely because all three of them would have to fold. Check and call the turn according to odds and outs.

The river bluff is also overdone. You still have 2 players behind you to get to fold. The river card most likely improved them. It is very unlikely that the bluff succeeds.

Okay here's where I show my fishiness:

Originally posted by cjheigl
You just have to look that you are not getting isolated from a better hand which would be likely if the preflop raiser is sitting directly left of you. As it happens the preflop raiser sits at the far end of the betting round so this is not a grave danger. Good bet.

Why does it matter if he's sat directly next to me or further away. I'm not looking for a flaming here, I would just like to learn the reason why.

Also, I thought that the chance of flopping a Flush Draw is 8:1 whilst a straight draw is 9:1?

Sorry - I'm incorporating Odds and Outs into my play - I really am a new player, so please don't shout at me

Why your relative position to the preflop aggressor (PFA) is important:

Imagine there are 8 bets in the pot and you sit directly to the right of the PFA. You have a flush draw. The flush draw gives you 9 outs which translates to an equity of around 35%. This is the chance to hit 9 outs from flop to river. This equity is almost independently from the number of players in the pot as your are drawing near to the nuts (in a lot of cases you draw to the nuts). The table may now look like this (H = Hero, A = Aggressor, o = other players)

HAoo

If you bet and the PFA raises, the other players will face two bets to call. Their pot odds are 11:2 = 5,5:1. That means they can't call many hands, mostly they will fold. What remains is you against the PFA who has almost always a made hand. You have an equity of 35% versus 65% of the aggressor and are an 2:1 underdog.

Now compare it with this:

Table structure HooA

If you bet the other players are getting pot odds of 9:1 or better. They will much more likely call your bet and stay in the pot. This is a very good thing as this improves your implied odds as there will be more players that can pay you off. If the PFA raises and you call the others will get odds better than 12:1 so no one will fold. You might even reraise, giving the others between 6,5:1 and 7:1 pot odds. This is still better than the 5,5:1 odds in the example before and because the others already called a bet they will be much more likely to call again. The other important effect is that your relative equity compared to others is excellent. As your equity is almost independent of the number of players staying in the pot you still have close to 35% equity. This means the other 65% equity are distributed among the remaing 2 to 3 players. With 4 players in the pot this means the average equity of the other players is only 65/3 = 22%. You are now not an underdog but a favorite to win the pot compared to the other players! this means you can raise for value. Even if only two other players remain, their average equity is 65/2 = 33% which is still worse than yours.

In general with a draw it is preferable to keep as many players in the pot. The more players remain in the pot the better your relative equity compared to the others is and the better your implied odds are.

There are two distinct exceptions: the first exception is the play in short handed pots. When there are 2 opponents or less in the pot you should play your draws aggressively. In this case you play for foldequity. You have a good chance that all remaining players fold because it is less likely that someone has hit the flop so their hands can't stand much action. If you play your draw aggressively you will win the hand a lot of time even without improving. This is of course even better than winning only when you hit your draw.

The other exception is in big pots on the flop where you might have other outs than your strong draw. These other outs would be pair outs. By playing aggressively you may get another player to fold who blocks your pair outs. For example he has the same high card as you but with a better kicker but no other draw as a backup. If he will fold you gain additional outs which improves your chances to win the pot. In big pots litttle improvements of your chance to win the pot can be worth a lot. For example if you gain 2 additional outs in a 15 bet size pot this is worth 9,1% * 15 = 1,36 bets. (This is derived from the probability to hit those 2 outs until the river.) The value of those two additional outs is worth more than the cost of the raise.

Preflop play: there are other good hands that you can hit on the flop. 2-pairs, trips will win you the hand a lot of the time. This combined with the flush draw makes playing the hand profitable if your odds are 9:1. Also, if your odds of hitting a good hand is better than the pot odds you get you should play the hand. You might even have implied odds on top. 9:1 pot odds is better than 8:1 odds for hitting the hand.

Thanks for the excellent explanation - you don't really think about these things playing the micros - as people will call anything as long as they have a picture card! So, in the case of HAoo, the others will call the reraise, or possibly 3-bet with a Qx or any pair.

I think I'd read about this in Sklanksy's theory of poker, as the concept rings a bell. Needless to say I'll be more alert to it in the future.

There is no chapter in Theory of poker that deals directly with playing draws if you are seated right of the aggressor. The chapters "Win the big pots right away" and "Raising" (to drive opponents out) decribe the play from the viewpoint of the aggressor. You want the preflop aggressor not to do that so the consequence is to not bet into him. Also an excellent book that is suitable for the micros is Small Stakes Holdem from Miller/Sklansky/Malmuth.

Originally posted by cjheigl
There is no chapter in Theory of poker that deals directly with playing draws if you are seated right of the aggressor. The chapters "Win the big pots right away" and "Raising" (to drive opponents out) decribe the play from the viewpoint of the aggressor. You want the preflop aggressor not to do that so the consequence is to not bet into him. Also an excellent book that is suitable for the micros is Small Stakes Holdem from Miller/Sklansky/Malmuth.

There's no specific chapter that's true, but he does allude to it in his chapter on Check/Raising, specifically the section "Check/Raising and Position" (PP 139/140).

He uses an example of having KK and you think that your opponent (the PFA) has QQ - therefore Sklansky insists that you bet to drive out the weaker hands on the flop with aggression.

However, he then goes on to say that if the PFA to your right and you flop another king you should bet, hoping that the others call and that the PFA raises. If the PFA is to your left he states that you should call and then, after he raises, re-raise him. With the intention that the others will call his raise, and probably fold after your re-raise.

It's only a small section, but I read it recently, which is why it stayed in my mind - but your explanation helped elaborate on the point. Thanks very much for the help!

I am currently away from home over the weekend, so I don't have access to the book. It looks like Sklansky advices to keep the maximum of players in the pot with top set for value as he assumes this hand doesn't need to be protected because it is so strong. The mere overpair isn't as strong as the set and needs to be protected. So it is a very similar argument as with the draw.

I don't agree with the opinion that players fold a third bet if they called two bets before. No one folds in this situation because the pot has gotten enormous and everybody has excellent odds. It could be that this argument is the result of age (of the book, not the author). The book was written before internet poker times and the game has evolved much more aggressive since then. Perhaps a 3-bet in ancient times was generally understood as a true monster where today it is something like top pair top kicker. There are a lot of loose players who even give less credit to a 3-bet.