Betting on scare cards (x-long post warning)

[SmackinYaUp]

Hi everyone, I was just writing an article on dealing with scare cards. It's not an easy topic to address but I was doing some thinking and came to a strange place. I'm not just looking for free advice, I thought this would be an interesting discussion. I get lost when scare cards hit and I have never really sat down and thought it all out. (Writing articles has been one of the best things I've ever done for my game. If only I actually played more...)

First of all this is assuming you are playing from out of position.

My position is that you should bet again on scare cards more often than you should check. This means betting your set again on a flush turn, betting your KK again on an A turn. This isn't a hard and fast rule of course because your opponents, betting patterns, and boards will make a big difference.

My reasoning is:
- you make it harder for them to bluff (which isn't a good enough reason alone to bet)
- for value against weaker hands
- to simply not check every single time you hit a scare card.

Ok no major problems so far. Next I go on to say that if you want to continue betting scare cards and get value for your hand you should also be semi-bluffing the flop at times with other hands. So when the turn brings a third heart your opponent won't know if you are scared of the heart or if it just completed your hand.

At first I thought this was enough mixing it up to throw your opponents off. But actually you are still only betting strong hands on scare cards.

Now I got to the confusing place. I'm not sure if it's even worth taking the time to write about but oh well. I figure that if you are against a smart opponent he will eventually figure out that you are only betting strong hands on the turn he can play pretty optimally against you.

I'm wondering if this means you should also be 2nd barreling scare cards. I mean you raise AK pf, whiff the flop, the turn brings a flush card and you bet again. It's pretty risky against weak opponents but against decent opponents I don't see why not trying this occasionally. Decent opponents won't be purely drawing as often, they would have raised a set or something for protection more often than not, and they are aware that you semi-bluff draws on the flop. Sure you should be doing everything sometimes, but in the context of dealing with scare cards, is this taking it too far?

I mean I'm just talking about scare cards, and in doing so I go off and talk about semi-bluffs, then I go off and talk about 2 barrel bluffing scare cards. Each one of these things don't happen that often and I'm expecting you to take extra actions just to tie it all together?

One argument to this whole post I see already is that small stakes opponents don't pay attention enough for you to worry about this. That's partially true but we want to practice ourselves for moving up in stakes, we want to expand our thinking, and last, even weak opponents are aware of the most common lines. If you mix it up just a little bit you will be taking actions against those opponents that don't fit into their neat little categorized list of recognizable lines. Even if they don't specifically realize you are doing it, I think there is some sort of game theory advantage to mixing it up occasionally.

What do you think?

[IowaSkinsFan]

It's more like, I have 67s, i raise pre get one caller. Flop comes 942, I bet guy calls, turn is a K, I bet again in hopes of getting him off his hand. We also bet the turn when we have K9+, TT+, AK,KQ, KJ. He becomes completely fucked because he really can't call with a 9, especially if we fire another barrel, because we have so many winners in our range.

The problem is a lot of people expect you to bluff the turn, you just have to be in the flow of the game and know when the guy is going to call you down with a 9 and when he isnt.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Danny your post seems off topic...


Smackinyaup, your idea is interesting and something i do sometimes, but just like every play in poker there's a logical explanation that has to do with ranges and your opponent.

Obviously, this is a stupid idea against an unknown, just like most pure bluffs are stupid against unknowns. But lets say you're facing a player that you saw minraise a FD a earlier. Now, as the pfr oop, the flop conts 2 tone and you miss, you bet and he calls. The turn completes the flush. This definitely a good place to put in a strong bet because he's likely folding a mid or top pair and he almost never likes that card.

Also, it's a good move against big flop stations. Lets say someones flop calling range is huge, he calls with any piece: a pair, a staight draw, a FD. Now, lets say you're the pfr oop and the flop comes 2 tone and you missed. You cont bet air and the fish calls. Now the Flush card completes on the turn. Since you're going to be betting out more than half his range, you should 2nd barrel hard again, given that he's not a complete idiot and will fold mid and bottom pair, and straight draws.

It's simple to think about and there are a lot more situations like these where you can make lots and lots of moolah.

[minSim]

I agree with you Massimo...

But may I ask you if you would play it the same if you actually had the FD on the flop and the made flush on the turn?

I'm struggling with the idea that both plays are the most optimal line against the same opponent, on the same board, with the same hand ranges, etc....wether we actually have the hand or not.

It is something that is relevant in all (semi)-bluffing situations, but your play is a good example.

In general there are situations where we have a lot of FE, so bluffing works often, but that also means we don't often get a lot of value. (ie. Axx flops, low flops, flushes hitting, etc..)
In theory I think both plays are only both optimal when the times we actually get value, we get a lot of value. So not often, but a lot when we do. (I hope this makes sense, sorry about my English).

And then there's still this balance thing.....though that only counts for villains who pay attention.

I started a thread about bluffing paired boards on the strategy forum, with some of these things in mind. (if someone is interested;
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...oker-59269.htm)

[martindcx1e]

I agree with you Massimo...

But may I ask you if you would play it the same if you actually had the FD on the flop and the made flush on the turn?

i'm pretty sure the answer is yes

[SmackinYaUp]

I will very often semi-bluff flush draws on the flop and continue betting on the turn if they hit. I want opponents to wonder why I'm not acting scared of the turn flush and consider the possibility that I would checkraise the turn if I had actually hit the flush. Plus it makes it easier to bluff in other situations and protect your hand the times you're not bluffing.

But about cards that actually scare you. Like you hit hit tptk and make a big flop bet and get called by some guy who just joined the table. The turn brings the flush and you're out of position with a difficult situation. The guy doesn't have any reads of you but I still think betting is the best if you know absolutely nothing and the board is relatively decent other than the flush card.

[minSim]

I agree with you Massimo...

But may I ask you if you would play it the same if you actually had the FD on the flop and the made flush on the turn?

i'm pretty sure the answer is yes

Assuming there is no specific read on villain, why would betting the turn with a made hand be most optimal if betting it without a hand is too.

[martindcx1e]

I agree with you Massimo...

But may I ask you if you would play it the same if you actually had the FD on the flop and the made flush on the turn?

i'm pretty sure the answer is yes

Assuming there is no specific read on villain, why would betting the turn with a made hand be most optimal if betting it without a hand is too.

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

[minSim]

Of course it is, but I disagree it is that obvious. It depends a lot on how much attention villain is paying and how many hands actually go to showdown. Balance is far from always an issue.

So as we and villain are unknowns here / in theory, both plays cannot be optimal.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

Assuming there is no specific read on villain, why would betting the turn with a made hand be most optimal if betting it without a hand is too.

Well first of all, betting on the turn with air is usually not optimal, and betting the turn with a flush is sometimes not optimal. It just depends. Against an unknown, you should probably bet your flush once you make it. Against someone who's an aggro donk who likes to float flush cards, you should check (there are other situations where it's better to check, this is a good example though). And i've explained good situations to 2nd barrel the flush card with air.

But how can it be good to bluff and bet a made hand in the same situation? Well, one answer is balancing. But it mostly has to do with extracting value. I hope i do a good job of explaining this...

Lets say you're at the turn, you have nothing, the flush completes. You determine that your opponent will fold 51% of the time if you bet pot, so you do. This is a good bet obviously, because your FE. Now lets say you have a made flush. Again, you determine that your opponent will fold 51% of the time if you bet. But of those hands that he will fold, you will only get more value out of a few of them by checking. Furthermore, with many hands he will check behind the turn where he would've called a turn bet. He also will call a turn bet more often than a river bet because he picks up a draw with a lot of hands. Therefore, you should bet the turn.

I'm pretty sure my logic is correct. I remember someone bring this subject up on 2p2 high stakes forum... i didn't read the whole post but i'm pretty sure the good players explained it.

[minSim]

Another example theoretical example when both bluffing and betting the nuts are optimal;

Stacks are 10000000bb
FE is 99%
Pot is 10bb
Villain will stack off with 1% of his range.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Stacks are 10000000bb

i lost you right here...

[minSim]

I'm referring to what I said earlier when, in my opinion, in theory the only type of situation both betting and bluffing the same board, opponent, stacks, etc. are always the most optimal play.

My example:
- Stacks are 10000000bb
- FE is 99%
- Pot is 10bb
- Villain will stack off with 1% of his range.

We pot the turn:
100 times we pot it as a bluff, we win 99 times (990bb) and lose 1 time (10bb). So we win 980 bb, which is optimal (is it?)

100 times we pot it with the nuts. 99 times villain folds and we win 10bb. 1 time villain calls and somehow stacks off, we win 10000000bb. Which is optimal.

[martindcx1e]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

well true but don't we normally try to play as best as theoretically possible? if you only bet it when you hit it then, in theory, you are very predictable.

[minSim]

Compare this (my example) when we have 11bb stacks and/or the FE is 59% or 1%.

Hmm..there is at least one important extra condition I can think of that is very important....when we don't bet the turn, villain is at least sometimes willing to call a bet on the river because of it. (our FE gets less on the river because of checking the turn....jeez this gets complicated)

[sauce123]

psychology time

[Numbr2intheWorld]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

well true but don't we normally try to play as best as theoretically possible? if you only bet it when you hit it then, in theory, you are very predictable.

Who the hell cares! Great, we're predicatble, it means shit when our opponent doesn't know it. It's all about playing a range that's different than your opponent thinks. I doubt any opponent below 3/6 at least is going to know you do something 100% of the time as subtle as this.
This is ISF on Max's comp.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

ISF on Max's comp again.

Betting flush cards on the turn versus's regs are great. A lot of them raise the flop with their draws anyways, and people dont tend to think that you're going to bet air (therefore we win).

[martindcx1e]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

well true but don't we normally try to play as best as theoretically possible? if you only bet it when you hit it then, in theory, you are very predictable.

Who the hell cares! Great, we're predicatble, it means shit when our opponent doesn't know it. It's all about playing a range that's different than your opponent thinks. I doubt any opponent below 3/6 at least is going to know you do something 100% of the time as subtle as this.
This is ISF on Max's comp.

I see your point now and I agree. Thx for the reply.

[minSim]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

well true but don't we normally try to play as best as theoretically possible? if you only bet it when you hit it then, in theory, you are very predictable.

Who the hell cares! Great, we're predicatble, it means shit when our opponent doesn't know it. It's all about playing a range that's different than your opponent thinks. I doubt any opponent below 3/6 at least is going to know you do something 100% of the time as subtle as this.
This is ISF on Max's comp.

I see your point now and I agree. Thx for the reply.

So it's also better to check it when we actually have the flush, because of this?

[IowaSkinsFan]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

well true but don't we normally try to play as best as theoretically possible? if you only bet it when you hit it then, in theory, you are very predictable.

Who the hell cares! Great, we're predicatble, it means shit when our opponent doesn't know it. It's all about playing a range that's different than your opponent thinks. I doubt any opponent below 3/6 at least is going to know you do something 100% of the time as subtle as this.
This is ISF on Max's comp.

I see your point now and I agree. Thx for the reply.

So it's also better to check it when we actually have the flush, because of this?

Well it just depends. Likely the answer is no. On 3 flush boards you'll see a lot of people raise turn bets as pure bluffs to rep the flush and also people don't fold much with any type of diamond draw.

[minSim]

if you only bet a flush turn when you don't have the flush that is obviously a problem.

Not if your opponent doesn't know this. Although i almost always bet the made flush on the turn against an unknown.

well true but don't we normally try to play as best as theoretically possible? if you only bet it when you hit it then, in theory, you are very predictable.

Who the hell cares! Great, we're predicatble, it means shit when our opponent doesn't know it. It's all about playing a range that's different than your opponent thinks. I doubt any opponent below 3/6 at least is going to know you do something 100% of the time as subtle as this.
This is ISF on Max's comp.

I see your point now and I agree. Thx for the reply.

So it's also better to check it when we actually have the flush, because of this?

Well it just depends. Likely the answer is no. On 3 flush boards you'll see a lot of people raise turn bets as pure bluffs to rep the flush and also people don't fold much with any type of diamond draw.

Then why are we bluffing the 3rd flush?

[martindcx1e]

Then why are we bluffing the 3rd flush?

lol

[minSim]

ISF on Max's comp again.
Betting flush cards on the turn versus's regs are great. A lot of them raise the flop with their draws anyways, and people dont tend to think that you're going to bet air (therefore we win).

Well it just depends. Likely the answer is no. On 3 flush boards you'll see a lot of people raise turn bets as pure bluffs to rep the flush and also people don't fold much with any type of diamond draw.

These contradict don't they?