Something about flush draws...

[fifo]

Assume the following: I'm in late middle pos. in a quite loose game with AA in a $2/$4 game. Three guys call before me, I raise, the next two and the small blind fold, the big blind calls and so do all the initial callers. That's a pot of 21$, not unusual. Now assume the BB is on a flush draw, holds XdXd and the flop comes XhYdZd.

If everyone calls and I just bet, the pot is at $23 and he's getting over 10:1 odds for his flush.
Now let's assume the worst case scenario: Everyone before him raises: BB calls, 1st caller bets, next raises to $4, next to 6 and I cap to $8. The pot now stands at $41 and he needs $8 to call. That is still 5,125:1 !!

So, effectively, you practically can't force someone with a flush draw out on the flop.
Let's try the turn. Everyone just checked on the flop, pot is still at $21.
If I just bet, he's getting 6,25:1 odds.
Again, if everyone just goes crazy, the first bets, next raises, next raises and I cap, the pot stands at $61 when it comes to him to call for $16. Now he's getting 3,8125:1 odds, just a liiitle off the 4,1:1 he needs.

But this is just crazy! The best I can realistically hope for is a c/r, and that would, even with no betting on the flop, amount to a $33 pot for a $8 call which is exactly 4,125:1.

So, in effect, if someone is on a flush draw, there's little to nothing I can do to even make his play incorrect, let alone get him to fold. Maybe I can intimidate someone by c/r but, it will never be incorrect for him to just mindlessly call.

Or am I missing something?

[caffiend]

Or am I missing something?

Yes, you're missing that you are an overwhelming favorite to win. You're also confusing equity and odds a bit again.

It's true that your opponent will often have the correct odds to draw in limit games. Let's suppose, for the sake of example that you hold the two black aces and he has A7d. To keep it simple, we'll take the other three sevens out of the deck.

The flop is :8d::Ts:.

While he has the odds to draw, you're a 58.5% favorite to win the hand. If the pot contains $41, 58.5% of that is yours! (Your equity) So in your worst case scenario you're winning $24. How terrible for you!

If we move to turn, which is Js, you're a 70.7% favorite. If the pot has $41 now, $29 of it is yours! You certainly haven't contributed 70% of the money in the pot on your own, so this is wildly profitable for you.

It's even better than that though. Forget about the pot for a minute and go back to the flop. Your opponent will win 41.5% of the time, so he also has substantial equity in the pot. However, he has to call your bet as an underdog. Of the two bets (your bet, his call) that you both contribute to the pot on the flop he still has 41.5% equity. If you bet $1 and he calls, he's getting $0.82 back. You're getting $1.18 back, or $0.18 out of every dollar you make him contribute.

[fifo]

true.
((quite embarrasing - I had advanced math in school and appear like a complete math-idiot here. Probably got something to do with majoring in philosophy ))

I was confused because I figured that it can't be that a play can be profitable for him and me at the same time. And in a heads-up situation I guess that's even true. But then, there'd be noone else contributing to the pot, so if it were heads up, he wouldn't get the odds to call in the first place (or only in the very unlikely case that I hold AA and he AKs and we both raise preflop).

But if it' usually four or five players to the flop, it can well be that we both can call profitably - at the cost of all those who stay in against a flush draw and AA and are thus huge underdogs.

[caffiend]

I was confused because I figured that it can't be that a play can be profitable for him and me at the same time. And in a heads-up situation I guess that's even true. But then, there'd be noone else contributing to the pot, so if it were heads up, he wouldn't get the odds to call in the first place (or only in the very unlikely case that I hold AA and he AKs and we both raise preflop).

Exactly. If you both held the same hand you'd both likely lose money because you'd split the pot minus the rake. But there are some subtle points you may want to consider.

First of all, although your opponents will often have profitable draws, the game provides you with an equal amount of drawing opportunities. What often seperates the winners and losers is how well they draw and play against draws. Bad players draw to losing hands. It's always a pleasure to flop a full house and have someone on the flush draw.

Second, there is a simple to grasp concept called implied odds, which is basically a measure of how likely you are to pay off a made draw. Your opponent can profitably draw heads up in an unraised pot if you're going to dump a lot of money in after he makes a flush.

Third, as you've pointed out, the amount of dead money in the pot is a critical factor. Knowing when to invite people in and shut people out is important. It's difficult to manage the size of the pot at low limits, because they're all huge, but it's more critical in tougher games.

Finally, as an oddball little tidbit you'll ocassionally see multiple people post online. These can be profitable opportunities to attack three or more blinds.

[sfustsh]

This is why I don't play limit.

You can't set correct odds. However, it is important to realize that if you do not bet or raise you are giving those on a draw essentially infinite odds to draw out on you. So while your opponent is correct to try to draw out on you, you are very incorrect to not bet.

Now caffiend made a point that is really important, that seperates good players from bad players. If the final diamond hits, you don't have to call. It should be clear to you that you're beat. You got drawn out on.

If you can give him exactly 4 : 1 odds to draw on both streets and he hits on the river, if you don't pay him off he won't be getting the right implied odds to draw. He'll be exactly break even.

If you were playing no limit, you could bet 2/3 the pot and make sure he's getting the wrong odds to draw. I also suggest that you take a moment to decide which game is better for you.

If you understand mathematical expectation and odds correctly and can determine on the fly what you need to call you will do great in limit. There is little need for deception or fancy plays. I started playing limit but I actually like the action of no limit better. Limit is perfect for a mechanical player, but great no limit players are not necessarily great limit players and vice versa.

By the way I know what you mean about knowing the advanced math. As it turns out all you need to do is add and divide. So much for 6 years of calculus and differential equations ...

[caffiend]

This is why I don't play limit.

You can't set correct odds. However, it is important to realize that if you do not bet or raise you are giving those on a draw essentially infinite odds to draw out on you. So while your opponent is correct to try to draw out on you, you are very incorrect to not bet.

As I've said before, it doesn't matter that you can't price your opponents out because they can't price you out either. It isn't like there's a loss of profit involved.

The funny thing is, I've tried no-limit and it bores me to tears half the time. I like the action of limit! Limit's all about value betting, so you're in many marginal situations in a lot of hands. Limit play also features a lot of bluffing and situational raising. (Think about it, if you can only bet $1 into a $10 pot that's a bluff that doesn't need to work too often to be profitable.)

That being said, no-limit is probably more popular at the moment. I'd also favor any no-limit game over a really tight limit game. So it's certainly worth learning both.

[sfustsh]

I guess me and caffiend have differing opinions.

Anyway, I feel it helps to understand concepts of both games. I have probably played about as many limit hands as I have no-limit hands and understanding the concepts of pot odds and equity are much clearer in limit than in no limit. It's also a lot easier to figure them out since you start to memorize pot odds patterns based on how the hand progresses.

No limit can teach you lots of other strategies that are completely unimportant in limit. Often, you will find in limit that there are much fewer "close decisions" that you need to consider. At the end, you are getting odds to call pretty much regardless of your hand. In no limit these big decisions make or break your situation if you're playing a tournament or something like that and can cost you a lot more money.

Yes, at the moment there are more no limit hold'em players but that's to be expected, right? I mean, there is poker on some channel in some form (celebrity poker ) most of the day on tv it seems. And it's all no limit.

That said, learning to master certain parts of your game comes quickest when you have to excersize that ability over and over. Certain games can really reward specific aspects of your overall game if you are proficient at them. So play lots of games! Play razz, play stud, play draw, whatever. There are all fun and can help you advance in your chosen game.

[fifo]

Now caffiend made a point that is really important, that seperates good players from bad players. If the final diamond hits, you don't have to call. It should be clear to you that you're beat. You got drawn out on.

This is what I would think is right. However, Sklansky seems to disagrees and argues that it just costs you one more bet to see if he indeed has the nuts. And given that the pot at this stage is usually at least 10x the amount to call, you need to be right only about 1 out of ten times...

[caffiend]

This is what I would think is right. However, Sklansky seems to disagrees and argues that it just costs you one more bet to see if he indeed has the nuts. And given that the pot at this stage is usually at least 10x the amount to call, you need to be right only about 1 out of ten times...

Both are correct. It's correct to make a lot of calls in large pots, but it's foolish to throw good money after bad. What seperates solid and mediocre limit players is not the ability to make big laydowns, but the ability to avoid putting extra bets into the pot. The most common examples of this are bad bets and overcalling.

Last night I was playing in a mixed game and the man to my left posted. The first two seats passed, and I raised with A3s to steal all three blinds. However, the big blind reraised and I called. The flop had three raggedy cards and a flush draw for me. He bet, I called, and a queen came on the turn. He bet again, I called, and another queen showed up and completed the flush for me. He bet, I raised, and he called with A8o. He'd paired the 8 on the flop.

Whatever you think of his early play, the river bet is awful. With a pair of queens and three hearts on the board he's just asking for trouble. The only thing he can beat is a worse two pair, which means he's ahead of four hands! (Any larger pocket pair beats him, and two of the six lower pocket pairs make full houses) So instead of checking and calling and losing one bet, he bets and calls and loses two. Doh!

The problem is that it's a terrible value bet, because he's only really ahead of a busted straight draw and ace high. He's making a bet that I can occasionally make money with, but he never can.

You see overcalling rather often in low limit games too. If a there's something dangerous and you look up one guy at 10:1 you only need to be right a small percentage of the time. But if he bets and three people call him you better be damned sure you're right before you go there.

[fifo]

To take this one at a time...

First of all, although your opponents will often have profitable draws, the game provides you with an equal amount of drawing opportunities.

Why? As I am playing considerably less suited's than they are, I'll have less chances of drawing out on them. Or is it, that because I am playing less suited's, I will also miss my draw considerably less often, thus end up paying for a bust less often?

Second, there is a simple to grasp concept called implied odds, which is basically a measure of how likely you are to pay off a made draw. Your opponent can profitably draw heads up in an unraised pot if you're going to dump a lot of money in after he makes a flush.

hmm... Part of my confusion was also, that I do know that raising with a big pocket pair has the dual purpose of
- getting money in the pot
- but also of thinning out the field.

I felt that I never really succeded in doing this (at least not at my 0.02/0.04 level) and found that according to their pot odds, they don't even do anything wrong.

By including Implied Odds, they get even better odds, don't they?
If they have the odds to call right now (say, we're on the flop and they need one card to complete their flush), then they call and get to see the next card. By means of Implied Odds, they can figure that if they
(a) make their draw, they can collect a lot of extra bets on the next rounds, making their present call even more profitable.
(b) don't make their draw on the Turn, well, they didn't really loose anything, they just made a break even play.
They can also figure that if I'm an alert player and slow waaay down once the chance of a flush exists, they'll not be able to collect a lot of extra bets - but they can only win. Nothing can change the fact that their present play on the flop is at least break even. And you don't throw a hand away just because it's JUST breaking even...

If you can give him exactly 4 : 1 odds to draw on both streets and he hits on the river, if you don't pay him off he won't be getting the right implied odds to draw. He'll be exactly break even.

That's what I mean - but this is no reason _not_ to make the play.

Finally, as an oddball little tidbit you'll ocassionally see multiple people post online. These can be profitable opportunities to attack three or more blinds.

Bluffing/Semi Bluffing in Micro Stakes?? I tried this twice and failed both times ;o) People just don't care about a few extra cents.

About value betting (just checking whether I get this right at least half way):
If I have a reasonable hand but suspect being beaten, I have either the option of calling or betting. I won't fold because that would forfeit my "claim" to the share of the pot I could expect to win with my hand. So if it is quite conceivable that I am beaten, but if my hand at the same time will beat a good portion of plausible holdings of my opponents, I should seriously consider betting rather than just checking.
Because, if I just check, he might possibly bet - which I would have to call - and he probably will only bet if I'm beaten anyway. So if he has me beat, I'm most probably loosing another bet anyway.
But if I have him beat and just check, he might check behind.
So in essence, I have the chance to win another bet if I'm ahead, but am pretty certain to loose another bet if I'm behind. Therefore I should just bet and hope for the best.
That about right?

I guess that's something I did wrong repeatedly during my last few sessions. I had quite a few hands with some medium holding like two pairs (pocket queens and TT on the board, let's say) and was not very happy with this. Tried to get people out preflop and on the flop but then got very, very afraid of trips after the board paired and others started betting as well. Therefore I just checked/called it down. Usually they showed a pair of TT with ace kicker or similar...

[sfustsh]

If you can give him exactly 4 : 1 odds to draw on both streets and he hits on the river, if you don't pay him off he won't be getting the right implied odds to draw. He'll be exactly break even.

That's what I mean - but this is no reason _not_ to make the play.

Yeah I know, which is why in most instances you're both correct, you're just more incorrect to not bet.

Anyway, I feel that in limit you often do need to play a little looser, especially in last position. If I had to generalize my button range in no limit in an unraised pot I'd play ATo or better, any pocket pair and KJo or better. In limit, I will often find myself calling with ANY suited connectors (as far as I'm concerned, if you have a straight with your connectors, you have the best hand, regardless of the ranks, because the board only offers you so much opportunity to straight). While you might end up making check-calls a lot, you are still playing correct poker if you are getting the right odds.

Neither do I generally slow down with the ass end of a straight, especially if I've been bet into the whole hand.

Like I said in a previous post, the reasons for raising in limit are sometimes not as significant as the reasons for raising in no limit. You pointed out a great one, thinning out the field. While you might raise 4 - 6 BB in no limit, you can only raise one bet in limit, so it's much more difficult to force people out. That is not to say you shouldn't do it, it is just less effective.

I think you should do one of two things:
1) switch to no limit because you obviously understand the pot odds calculations and you know what to bet to give your opponents bad odds
2) loosen your call range because in my opinion limit hold em is a drawer's game. You will generally get great odds to draw to straights or flushes.

I personally don't agree with caffiend that bluffing opportunities are more significant. Even though you only have to win 1/11 of the time for a 1$ bluff to work into a 10$ pot, it has been my experience that you will get called damn near 90% of the time regardless of your opponent's strength. However, semibluffing is great in limit because not only do you effectively disguise your hand but you build the pot so caps are more likely in future streets.

In general though, at microlimits bluffing and semibluffing are practically useless. Your average microlimit player will never see through a semibluff, and will rarely care to think if you're bluffing. They think at level 1 (what do I have?). Value bets are where your money is made. It is very difficult to make pure bluffs profitable in microlimits, since it is already a close to break even proposition and your opponents are just looking for reasons to call!

Your second to last point is wrong.

If you're at the river and you feel you are beaten, you should NOT bet because if you do he will raise hands that likely beat you. Therefore, you can either fold (1 bet) or call and lose (2 bets). If you check he may bet (costs you 1 bet to call) or he will check behind (nothing, but you have a better chance of winning the pot).

If you have him beat your equation changes totally. If you felt like you were losing, you can't bet, but if you think you are winning, bet! This is the essence of a value bet.

So knowing you're beat and knowing you're ahead completely change your game plan. The key to being a good poker player is realizing when you're behind. Then there will be no ambiguity as to your play. You will not say "if I had bet, I'd have gotten another bet out of him." because you would certainly have bet since you were much more certain that you had the best hand!

Finally, though this is true for most communal card games, you must bet after the first set of cards comes out regardless of your hand. This is less true for limit, so generally I do not fault you for slowing down when there is a good chance you're beat in limit, since your opponents' bets mean so little in terms of information. A bet with TT on the board could seriously just mean an A for top kicker though. If he went all in, like in no limit, then you could easily fold. However, in this situation you either have to push or fold. You either have the best hand or you don't, because if you don't you have like 2 outs.

[caffiend]

First of all, although your opponents will often have profitable draws, the game provides you with an equal amount of drawing opportunities.

Why? As I am playing considerably less suited's than they are, I'll have less chances of drawing out on them. Or is it, that because I am playing less suited's, I will also miss my draw considerably less often, thus end up paying for a bust less often?

No. Those are two seperate issues. You should never worry about your opponents playing more suited cards than you, because as you've seen having the best hand is far more profitable. The only thing more profitable is having them drawing dead to your larger cards, which also happens. Remember that they need to flop a flush draw, which is rare. Every time they flop nothing, you snag an an extra bet. It's like playing in a game where everyone but you posts the blinds every hand.

What I meant is that you often hear that no-limit is superior to limit because your opponents rarely have the correct odds to draw. That's misguided, because although it's true that your opponents will often have good odds to draw, you will also often have good odds to draw. To see how silly this argument is, consider the two following statements:

"In limit hold'em, you can rarely bet enough to make someone fold a flush draw."
"In limit hold'em, you're almost always in a profitable situation when you flop a flush draw."

They're the same thing, two sides of the same coin. Many people prefer one game to the other, which is fine. It's silly to suggest that one is better or worse than the other based on the kind of hand it takes to win.

Bluffing/Semi Bluffing in Micro Stakes?? I tried this twice and failed both times ;o) People just don't care about a few extra cents.

As a gross simplification, limit games come in a couple of different flavors. If there are several people seeing every flop and three or more people at every showdown then bluffing is next to useless. These are the best games you'll ever play in though. Rather than try and outmaneuver anyone you simply play most of your hands from late positions and draw to the nuts. Yes, it's difficult to win with a pair, but you earn a king's ransom off of straights, flushes, and boats.

In somewhat tighter games there are a couple of people per flop which rapidly thins to two before the showdown. Now the semi-bluff and value bet are the tools of the trade. 10% of my winning hands don't go to showdown, at least some of those must be bluffs.

In my experience people have two big problems with bluffing. One is that they tend to do it at the worst possible time. This should be obvious, but it's most effective to bluff when it will make your opponent fold. But, many people do it in situations which will make their opponent look them up. The other problem is that many people are just too goddamn greedy. It's not something you can do too often. If the average pot is 5 big bets and you steal one pot per hundred hands you've increased your winrate by 5 BB/100. (Assuming your bluff never fails) It doesn't follow that you can instead steal every pot and increase your winrate by 500 BB/100.

Sometimes no-limit games amplify both mistakes, because it's much easier to bluff when you can bet big. They use bluffs like a club, driving weak players off hands by brute force. In limit games you use a bluff like a dagger, stealing pots from weak players by applying quick, disguised thrusts. The very fact that it's more difficult to bluff in limit is what makes opportunities more significant, because making the most of the limited opportunity to bluff is so much more important.

[fifo]

I think you should do one of two things:
1) switch to no limit because you obviously understand the pot odds calculations and you know what to bet to give your opponents bad odds

No thanks. Funnily enough, I seem to take this game pretty personally and really hate to loose. Though I'm just staking 10-20cent on a pretty big hand, my heart rate shoots into the mid-hundreds etc. I think I still make reasonably rational decisions but going broke - even if it's just my in a 2/4c game - would really get to me as it'd mean that I'm not mastering this game even at the most trivial level.

In chess, you have tactic books where you solve hundreds of chess puzzles. When those positions come up in a real game, you simply recognize the pattern and don't actually have to calculate the win, you just know that it's a won position because there's a 5 move tactic that'll at least yield a piece.

I kind of do the same right now: Going over my won/lost hands, and going over those discussed in detail in Sklasky's "Small Stakes". Once I can come up with the same conclusion as he does just as fast as he does (just knowing how many outs my opponents have to beat me, just knowing that I can be only beat by this or that card etc), I'll be able to "extrapolate" that to a majority of other hands as well.
And not before I can do this, I'll move on to any other stakes. Might take a little while though...