BRITISH BETTING & GAMING SITES

POKER ARTICLE...

Poker - When to bet out on the flop

Poker - When to bet out on the flop.

A poker article by Peter Birks at BETDIRECT POKER for Easy Play Games

The standard play in mid-limit poker when you have been reraised and find yourself out of position on the flop is to check to the raiser, no matter what the flop. Like most standard plays, it has its grounding in logic. Reraisers usually have very strong hands, so, even if the flop is favourable for you, you can still check, comfortable that your opponent will bet. Then you can decide whether to "pull the trigger" on the flop, turn or river. If the flop is unfavourable, a bet out is unlikely to push your opponent off his hand.

However, like all standard plays, there are a number of exceptions. Let's look first at a common mistake made by players who have defended their blind with, say, a low pocket pair, finding a flop of Ace-x-x rainbow. They bet out, thinking that they are "representing" an ace, and that they might force an opponent with a high pair out of the hand.

This rarely works. First, your opponent is slightly more likely to have raised with an Ace and a high kicker than he is to have raised with a high pocket pair (36 combinations of AK/AQ/AJ, 33 combinations of AA down to 99). Secondly, if your opponent does indeed have a high pocket pair, he is going to think to himself: "Hang on, why is this guy betting out rather than checking? If he had a very good hand he would be looking to check-raise. If he had an Ace and a bad kicker, he would probably check-call. Therefore he has nothing, probably a low pair. I shall raise!"

Betting out from the blind (or when out of position) into a raiser or reraiser is normally only correct when there is more than one opponent. Curiously, players will often go for the check-raise (the "standard" play) when to do so puts them in grave risk of losing a hand that they would otherwise have won.

Here's an example when the non-thinking, automatic play would be to go for the check-raise, but when to bet out is correct.

$3-$6 Limit:

Big Blind(BB):

You: $200:

9d 9c Middle Position 2 (MP2):

$23 Button: $200

It's late at night US time. MP2 has shown himself to be loose and aggressive. Possibly he is on tilt (you have only recently sat down, so you have no idea how much he has lost).

The hand is passed round to him and he raises to $6. The button, a solid but unimaginative player who is good enough to win a bit at this level, but would probably lose at $5-$10, calls. You also call. $19 in the pot.

The flop comes.

3c 6h 6c.

You put the loose player on virtually anything, while the button is likely to have either a modest pair (8s or less) or two highish cards, or suited connectors of 67 or above. In other words, you are probably in front at the moment. You are 99% sure that MP2 will bet out, so you go for the check-raise, right?

Wrong.

What you would really like here is to be up against the short-stacked guy, who looks set to blow the rest of his money on this hand. If you check, MP2 will bet and the button will probably call even with just overcards. You then raise, MP2 calls and Button is now getting odds to call.

However, if you bet, MP2 is likely to raise you, which makes it much harder for the button to call. Even if he would be willing to come in for $4, he cannot be certain that you don't have a six, which means that he risks a three-bet from you.

By betting out, you get yourself heads up against the loose player. It's a kind of isolation play where the loose player has to play his part. But, they usually do.

A second advantage to this play is that, if the button has some kind of miracle hand (say, 67 suited, giving him trips), he is likely to three-bet here, because he will be scared of your hand being a flush draw. If he does three-bet (remember, we already have him tabbed as a solid, unimaginative type), then you have to fold your nines through gritted teeth.

In this particular case, everything went (sort of) according to plan. The button folded. The turn brought a board of 3c 6h 6c 2d and I check-raised him all-in (if my opponent has the 54 or the six, then good luck to him).

The river brought 3c 6h 6c 2d 5s and opponent flipped over some rubbish like T7 off.

In this particular instance, I would probably have won anyway, because the button would not have hit one of his overcards, but your expected profit is greater if you isolate the loose opponent.

The counter-argument:

Ahh, I can hear themore astute among you say, "but if you check, MP2 bets, button calls, and you raise, MP2 is likely to three-bet it, forcing out the button and winning you an extra bet".

It's a seductive line and one that I can only rebut by personal experience. At this level, once a player decides to come in for one bet, they are far more likely to stay in for three bets than if they are not in for any money (this round) and are then asked to come in for two bets. There is a slight mathematical backing for this line, since your pot odds once you are already in for one bet are slightly better. But the reality is that players will often fold for two bets (provided they have not yet contributed to the pot this round), even though the pot odds favour a call, whereas they are likely to call for three bets (provided they have already contributed a single bet this round) even if the pot odds favour a fold.

The second counter-argument:

But why just go for the small pot against the short stack? You are less likely to win against two opponents, but the pot is correspondingly bigger to compensate!

This argument falls down because the size of the pot does not increase to the same degree as the likelihood of the extra opponent defeating you. This is because there is already some of the button's money in the pot when you get him to fold. Let's suppose in this example that the button has QJ and MP2 has something slightly better than the garbage he turned over — say, KT. And let's give both of them a runner-runner flush chance.

If you go for the check-raise and are called on the flop, but not on the river (unless your opponents pair), then you have a 52% chance of winning and expect to win an average $43 pot just over half the time for an expected value of $15.

If you bet out and isolate the single opponent, you win an average $50 pot 73% of the time for an expected value of $21.

It's possible to dispute the numbers on a marginal basis (for example, we can't be quite sure what the button will do on the turn if he misses, and the first example requires that you do not make a "crying call" if an overcard comes on the end and the button bets) but the positive expected value definitely favours isolating the single opponent.