If we assume he has a set, In my calculation he has a set of 7's so you still have all a full 9 flush cards, you are a 40/60 underdog. If we assume that he calls every time when you push $1500 more it is going to be pretty much neutral EV, since he may fold some amount of time it might be slightly +ev play or neutral. I know you play a different style than I do, but for me this is way more variance than I want to push a very slight advantage. I also disagree that hitting you flush will kill your action. Your check raise has done a nice job of disguising your hand, most players will only raise a flush draw in postion to gain control of the hand, to check raise out of postion is going to hide the fact that you are drawing IMHO.

Nice analysis Rhound. You are right on everything except you are overlooking one fact - he will not have a set everytime. For the purposes of discussion, IF he had a set every single time, I would break even. Clearly he cannot have a set 100% of the time here. In fact, I did not think it was likely that he had a set. I've seen this minreraise play so many times lately in shorthanded games and it seems to be more about keeping your opponent in check rather than building the pot. This is due to the fact that there seem to be so many more bluff checkraises since most of the time the person who opened PF will make a continuation bet if checked to...

Regardless of all that, if he has a set everytime, it's a neutral play. I put him on AQ AA or KK fairly often here, and something nobody has even brought up yet, a bluff. This is an odd bluff but it is actually highly effective and I've seen enough people do it to have to consider it in the range of his hands. I also think that him having two big spades is EXTREMELY unlikely as I've basically never seen a draw been played this way. Usually they will call the raise, occasionally they will raise big or just go all-in.

Bottom line of all this is that the all-in is +EV. I think we agreed on that already. However, variance is a whole different issue here. I realize that variance should be kept to a minimum; however, consider this - if you are gonna tilt and have problems dealing with losing a 4k race, then isn't it just as likely that the other person is? I know this is a lot of money but step outside the box for a minute and don't think about it in terms of money. Think about it in terms of chips. When I play I don't count how much money I am up or down, because that would probably drive me nuts. Losing a $100 at a $100NL game is just as bad as losing $2000 in a $2000NL game and being prepared to lose a buy-in or two is part of playing the stakes. If I wasn't ready to drop a buy-in then I wouldn't be playing the game.

That said, it still gets to me if I lose an all-in like this, but the upside is equally great. Your opponent could easily tilt, given that he just got "outdrawn". It is also hugely benefecial for metagame purposes as opponents will give you far less credit when you make big moves on the flop. The next time I'm in a big hand like this I will have a set and I will get paid by the overpair which I may not. I consider table image to be a very integral part of my game and setting a loose/gamblor image is always my plan. What better way to do this than show that you are willing to get it all-in with 6-high?

Justify playing even money situations for stacks outside of metagame to this situation because I don't see the value in your current situation.

I enjoy making big meta-game plays when I'm stomping the game and it has the best chance of true success, whether they fold or call, either in this current hand or another later. If I'm not stomping the game then against a shorter stack it is time to lay down the hammer, but that is just my version of variance control. Give me up a buy in or two and I think this kind of play is great, give the opponent half the money and it is time to make them cry if they call whether they are beating me or not. Give me up four or more buy-ins and they are doubled they will wet their pants with out a set.

I have a question: MG is on the st8 draw and the flush draw. That gives him 14 outs and that is excluding because it pairs the board. Doesnt that means he has about 52% chances of hitting on turn and river??

Why is he a 60-40 underdog? This might be out of topic (sorry for that) but I am confused and want to get it right.

Getting back to the thread itself I have to say that if you all agree with the move being EV+, I dont understand the point of not doing it, to avoid variance or to keep it in "healthy" numbers. I understand that if there is a way to put all your chips in even as a 51-49 favorite that is the only way to go because that move is making you money. Wrong?



AlexMR.

To Alex, I'm not going to try to work it out precisely, because it's fairly complicated against a set. But 60-40 is fairly accurate.

Essentially, if you hit your flush OR straight on the turn, your opponent has 10 outs on the river, and if the board pairs in any way on the turn, you have 0 outs.

But if he has AA/KK or AQ, then you don't have that problem, and you're probably something like a 55-45 favorite, possibly a little better with 15 clean outs (if all of them are really there).

The main reason I like to play this fast, though, is that despite being favorite against AA/KK, etc., you can become underdog if your opponent reads you right and bets appropriately on the turn--continuing to bet when ahead and folding if behind.

lol do you just wait until the post has 20 replies before you post results ?

I'm giving my opinion a little late I realize but I thought this hand was interesting.

I actually prefer your method of writing up this hand as opposed to using the hand-converter. Writing it up simply like this was much easier for me to read and digest.

My default setting (how I play an unknown opponent) on min-raises is to assume the min-raiser is weak. If I have some hands with a player and see he is playing a winning style I would be more inclined to read the min-raise as strength. I'll tell ya this, if I min-raise you in the ring-game you should usually fold. (unless I know you know I know blah blah blah )

The question is, What does a min-raise mean from this player? It is really hard to tell because 1- he raised from the cut-off, meaning he can really have anything and 2 - he is a player you have no previous knowledge of.

For tough decisions I usually think about the range of hands my opponent can have and then apply guesstimates as to what percentage of the time he will have a hand from each category.

1) 40% of the time I would guess you are up against AK Spades, QQ, 77, 55 or possibly a miracle hit on a suited Q7 or Q5 ( he could have these hands because, as I said, he's raising from the cutoff) - these are hands your opponent will not fold to an all-in bet.

2) 40% of the time I would guess you are up against AA, KK, AQ, KQ or QJ - these are hands your opponent may fold to an all-in bet, but not definitely.

3) 20% of the time you are up against a bad player who is making a play with you or "seeing where he's at" with JJ,1010,A7 suited or any of the other hands that may be ahead of you at the time but can not call an all-in raise.

Since most of the hands here will either call or probably call to the all-in raise here I would smooth-call and play from the turn. If he bets enough to take me off the hand on the turn than I would be done with it.

For this flop/situation, the min-raise by your opponent is terrible. You are priced in on all draws and if he does have a set he is giving away too much value with this chicken-shit raise.

gl
YD