A2o in BB v SB, call down line on J5296

Yup, this is a pretty standard hand and it's well played

Flop you don't want to be raising becasue it makes your peeling range too weak and you don't want to raise all your value hands anyway, especailyl those which will ahve trouble facing action on later streets

The turn and river aren't great but they aren't scary enough to fold either, you're at the absolute top of your call/call range on the turn (well not absolute top but pretty close to it) and therefore the river's an easy call too

nh

I was thinking... what would you do with a Q on the river? and particularly with the Q:s?

I decided to call down on the turn no matter what card on the river.

Never saw your blog before, will visit!

I decided to call down on the turn no matter what card on the river.

If I interpret this correctly (call turn -> unconditional call river) , then you could a least be thinking about raising on the turn. The only downside is if he 3-bets or donks the river. Then you are on your own and have to play poker.

In most other scenarios there are advantages to raising. Important exception: His intention is to check the river with a hand that beats yours, but he does't fold to a turn raise. This is why "better hands can fold" is a vital ingredient in the play. These hands now cost you an extra bet.

Some people (and iPoker robots) quit firing OOP, especially in BW, precisely when they get some showdown value. Such people aren't likely to 3-bet with a draw.

Hm. That raise for free showdown isn't as easily carried out as I thought. Still, it's worth thinking about.

/Johan =

Originally posted by ZeroDegrees
I decided to call down on the turn no matter what card on the river.

Never saw your blog before, will visit!

that blog never actually started out. I'm starting a new one soon enough!

Q-Spades I would still call down on, SB should be 3-barrelling the bottom of his range whether it hits or misses, essentailly hoping we fold a hand like the one we have

Unfortuantely it's just too strong, we have to call.

Free Showdown raising is negated vs anyone remotely good becasue they will, as you have said, either 3-bet the turn with a fairly balanced range or they'll donk the river putting you in an awful spot where you've paid a million bets to see showdown with your pair of 2's.

Also there's a slight misinterpretation of teh reasons for Free Showdown Raising. You don't Free SD raise becasue you're always calling the river. You do it becasue cards can come that will make you fold the river and you can potentially still extract value.

When you're always calling the river there's no point opening your throat to getting blown off the hand, or paying 4-bets with a terrible hand to see SD.

You don't Free SD raise because you're always calling the river.

True, but it is one of the defining conditions of what an "Free SD raise" is. If we enter the spectrum of hands where we would be bluffing, or raising for value, then I don't see anyone even calling it a "Free SD raise".

When you're always calling the river there's no point opening your throat to getting blown off the hand, or paying 4-bets with a terrible hand to see SD.

True as well. There is, however, still a big point with the R(aise)F(or)F(ree)S(howdown)D. You say that there is no point, and I blatantly disagree with you because there is a huge obvuios point there.

/Johan =

Originally posted by YohanN7

You don't Free SD raise because you're always calling the river.

True, but it is one of the defining conditions of what an "Free SD raise" is. If we enter the spectrum of hands where we would be bluffing, or raising for value, then I don't see anyone even calling it a "Free SD raise".

If you aren't raising this for a freeshowdown then why are you raising it?

A Free Showdown raise is simply a Raise/Fold on the turn in poisition with a weak hand where you intend to check back the river when you're called. That's the definition of it, anything else is superfluous.

Some caveats that get added on are basically the following:

1) You're opponent will either call with worse or he will fold with better.

In this case he won't fold better unless he's awful and he should barrell his missed draws anyway so we don't gain anything

If you're raising this for value thinking it's worth 3BB then you're horribly mistaken.

2) Cards can come on the river which will make us fold incorrectly

As I've already said, I'm not folding the Q which is probably the worst card in the deck (maybe K but Q hits a barelling range better) so in this case NOTHING can come to make me fold so I see no reason to try and protect myself from folding.

3) Your opponent is straightforward enough not to turn a worse hand into a 3-bet bluff and make us fold the best hand

Probably true at these stakes and considering the SB is 23/18 so this at least we can probably get away with.

True as well. There is, however, still a big point with the R(aise)F(or)F(ree)S(howdown)D. You say that there is no point, and I blatantly disagree with you because there is a huge obvuios point there.

/Johan =

What obvious point? Don't put words in my mouth or on my keyboard. Calling the river on any card isn't a defining feature of a FSDR at all, you WANT to see SD (when you're on the turn) yes, but you're not doing it on any card.

I said there's no point to Free Showdown Raising in this situation, no that there's no point to the play at all. I'm not a fan of it by any stretch and tbh I think it has more use multi-way or as a demonstration tool to show how LHE has moved on and anyone balanced and good will take your head off if you over-do it these days, but I certainly don't see "no point" in the actual play.

Don't put words in my mouth or on my keyboard.

Did I? It seems that you are uncomfortable when someone questions your conclusions. You are accusing me of something here. I don't like that at all.

A Free Showdown raise is simply a Raise/Fold on the turn in position with a weak hand where you intend to check back the river when you're called. That's the definition of it, anything else is superfluous.

Folding to a raise is not mandatory. The "anything else" is not superfluous as you have to be better off raising than call+calling (or call+folding on some rivers) to do it.

In this case he won't fold better unless he's awful and he should barrell his missed draws anyway so we don't gain anything

Wrong. If he is terrible and folds a better hand - we gain, and if he is barreling a draw we still gain because we beat him. These are some of the the nice points of the FSDR. There are more, but there are drawbacks too.

Bet-folding in any form is exploitative and exploitable. True, but you simply are not going to find a "semi-decent reg" anywhere at the lower limits that is going to check-raise you an insane amount on the turn as you suggest. At the higher limits - perhaps. But some of the absolutely most aggressive poker I have seen has been high stakes players, like Erik123, Ivey, Kagome-Kagome, .... They will 3-bet bluff you way too much. They need to be encouraged by us to bluff even more, so that a misplaced FSDR is never a disaster versus that type of player either.

Somehow, I have forgotten most of the original hand. I don't advocate FSDR here.

/Johan =

Originally posted by YohanN7
Bet-folding in any form is exploitative and exploitable.

ROFLROFLROFL ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Yohan, a great advice: stop making a fool of yourself.

Originally posted by YohanN7

Don't put words in my mouth or on my keyboard.

Did I? It seems that you are uncomfortable when someone questions your conclusions. You are accusing me of something here. I don't like that at all.

The only thing I'm accusing you of is not understanding my arguement.

I stated in this hand the FSDR has no point and you came back saying that I'd said the FSDR as a whole has no point which is not what I said.

I am perfectly capable of admitting I'm wrong on a poker hand as you can be from any of my video comments or almost any conversation I've had about poker. You don't learn poker by being close-minded.

When I give advice I go straight to the point rather than batting around the subject so if that's a bit too direct then I'm sorry.

A Free Showdown raise is simply a Raise/Fold on the turn in position with a weak hand where you intend to check back the river when you're called. That's the definition of it, anything else is superfluous.

Folding to a raise is not mandatory. The "anything else" is not superfluous as you have to be better off raising than call+calling (or call+folding on some rivers) to do it.

Incorrect

The Free Showdown Raise was invented as a way to put 2 bets in to see showdown without the potential drawback of having to call an uncomfortable river bet (or fold when you shouldn't). It has become near enough obselete since people figured out how to think in balanced ranges.

If you're calling a 3-bet and calling down what you're actually doing is raising for value and calling off near enough your entire raising range on the turn which is hideously unbalanced and easy to exploit.

In this case he won't fold better unless he's awful and he should barrell his missed draws anyway so we don't gain anything

Wrong. If he is terrible and folds a better hand - we gain, and if he is barreling a draw we still gain because we beat him. These are some of the the nice points of the FSDR. There are more, but there are drawbacks too.

So your strategy relies on your opponent being terrible? Good luck with that at any stakes where you can actually make money. We don't gain anything vs a draw becasue he'd barell it off anyway so all we actually do is increase our RIO. We basically gain vs Weak Players and when we spike an unlikely hand on the river like trips so we can get an extra bet in. The idea of charging a draw on the turn by rasing is dated and doesn't take into account any future street action.

Bet-folding in any form is exploitative and exploitable.

This statement is completely untrue. If you play in a balanced way your opponent can't exploit you no matter what your line. Bet/Folding is no more exploitable than bet/calling if you do it correct.

They will 3-bet bluff you way too much. They need to be encouraged by us to bluff even more, so that a misplaced FSDR is never a disaster versus that type of player either.

Where did you draw this conclusion from? Have you analysed their games over millions of hands? I find it highly unlikely that a winning high stakes regular these days is going to have such a huge hole in their turn betting/raising range you can exploit them through Free Showdown raising the Turn.

These guys are the best in the world because they don't have easy to breach holes in their games or if they did they were sealed a long time ago

Unfortunately I get the feeling we're not ever going to agree on this so it'll be my final word on it.

Originally posted by madorjan

Originally posted by YohanN7
Bet-folding in any form is exploitative and exploitable.

ROFLROFLROFL ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Yohan, a great advice: stop making a fool of yourself.

If you think otherwise, then the idiot is you, not me.

:f_confused:Johan

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by madorjan

Originally posted by YohanN7
Bet-folding in any form is exploitative and exploitable.

ROFLROFLROFL ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Yohan, a great advice: stop making a fool of yourself.

If you think otherwise, then the idiot is you, not me.

:f_confused:Johan

Ok then, pls prove your statement to me.

Boomer, pls don't interrupt, I wanna hear this.♦

The only non exploitative / exploitable move in my book is bet/3!/5!/...

@madorjan

If somebody is bet-folding too much on the river, think a little bit about how you could exploit that person. The next step in the level of abstractions is if you are out of position and suspect that your opponent is raising with hands that you frequently beat, and that he will fold to a 3-bet.

According to Boomers posts, you will get killed, owned, murdered instantly if you ever dare putting money in the pot and then fold to a raise with a monster such as bottom pair.

/Johan =

How old are you by the way? Four? Four and a half?

/Johan =

Originally posted by YohanN7
@madorjan

If somebody is bet-folding too much on the river, think a little bit about how you could exploit that person. The next step in the level of abstractions is if you are out of position and suspect that your opponent is raising with hands that you frequently beat, and that he will fold to a 3-bet.

Is that your big argument? Kinda disappointed.

Bet/folding too much and bet/folding are too different things. Bet/folding too much is exploitable, bet/folding in itself is not.

But following your logic: bet/calling is exploitable, cause if one bet/calls too much, think a little bit about how you could exploit that person. Bet/3betting is also exploitable, cause if one bet/3bets too much, that is exploitable also. So we can deduce that betting is exploitable, cause if one bets too much... But checking is also exploitable, if one checks too much... Basically you say playing poker with any strategy that includes making a decision is exploitable, that goes against Nash's theorem. What an idiot that Nash guy was... better ask him how old is he...

Yes, everything is exploitable if you do it too much or too little. Everything can be balanced, if you do it with the right frequency/right hands. Balance is about making your opponent indifferent. If you fold too much, you don't make him indifferent to valueraising, if you call to much, you don't make him indifferent to bluffraising. If you fold with the right frequency, he won't care if he bluffraises a hand or not.

According to Boomers posts, you will get killed, owned, murdered instantly if you ever dare putting money in the pot and then fold to a raise with a monster such as bottom pair.

I don't exactly know what posts you're talking about, but I have to assume that in those situations you'll have a fairly wide and weak bluffing range as well as weak valuehands that wanna bet/fold a lot. There it is very possible that it'll make your opponent's bluffraise profitable, if you fold so many combos that include BP.

Originally posted by YohanN7
How old are you by the way? Four? Four and a half?

/Johan =

Yohan i think this was out of line. don't talk like that to anyone. madorjan has another opinion than you and he is very much entitled to have that opinion. Your opinion may or may not be the most right option/opinion. But don't go and bash others because they disagree.

I think it would be wise for you to be less stubborn about things and have a nice tone even if other people are dumb enough to spout such nonsense to you. saying such stuff only makes a fool out of yourself and only makes people wonder how mature/old you are. This is a board full of grown men and women and what you said right there. last time i heard anyone compare age was when i was at my daughters day care/kindergarten.

Originally posted by AvatarenI think it would be wise for you to be less stubborn about things and have a nice tone even if other people are dumb enough to spout such nonsense to you. saying such stuff only makes a fool out of yourself and only makes people wonder how mature/old you are. This is a board full of grown men and women and what you said right there. last time i heard anyone compare age was when i was at my daughters day care/kindergarten.

Don't bother, man, I told this exact thing to him weeks/months ago, and you see how much changed since then. It's funny that every second thread on the LHE board ends in a Yohan vs the whole world argument, but I guess he just doesn't realise that. So my advice to you is to take it easy, treat it as your daily humour-source.