Here's a hand for limit players. I'm interested in thoughts about my play and the play of my opponent.

It's a live $6/$12 game. I'm in the CO with 4d5d. There are three limpers to me, and the table has been relatively passive. I limp, too. The button is a very good player (probably the best at the table), and he raises. The SB folds, and then the BB and the rest of limpers call. So 6 players see the flop with 12.5 bets.

The flop is perfect for me: Qd 6d 3c, giving me flush and open-ended straight draws. We all check to the raiser, who bets, and then only I and one other call.

Now here's the key street: the turn brings another diamond to complete my flush. After a check to me, I decide to bet. The button re-raises, and the other player folds. I call, thinking that I could be up against AdKd.

The river is 7c, and we both check. I win the pot with a baby flush, and the button shows AdAs.

1. I bet the turn to make someone holding one higher diamond fold. Is this the highest EV play? In retrospect, I'm probably not going to cause anyone holding a painted diamond to fold, and I could earn 3 bets if I check/call the turn, and then check/raise the river. How would you play the turn with a baby flush?

2. Why did the button raise me on the turn? He was a very good player, and I'm sure he put me on a flush when I led into him. His bet is not going to get him a free card (as might happen if he had raised to my bet on the flop, creating the possibility that I might check the turn). His bet will also not save him any money (3 likely scenarios, and all have him putting in 2 bets: (a) I call his 2 bets on the turn and we check the river; (b) I raise his 2 bets on the turn, and then he probably folds; or (c) he calls me on the turn and the river). Given these three likely scenarios, what was he trying to accomplish with his turn raise?

Originally Posted by mxp2004

Given these three likely scenarios, what was he trying to accomplish with his turn raise?

If he thought he was beat, he would not have raised the turn. He probably thought he was value betting it, and even if he was beat, had some outs going into the river. Although if he was a good player, he should have realized you had caught the flush, and check called the turn hoping to hit a diamond on the river.

Even if you had the flush he had outs to draw out on the turn.

You should have check-raised that flop. You had 9 flush outs and 3 straight outs twice.

Originally Posted by Beavis68

You should have check-raised that flop. You had 9 flush outs and 3 straight outs twice.

hey beavis... thanks for your thoughts. I didn't check-raise the flop because I didn't think it would accomplish anything. The button was not going to fold to a check-raise, and thus, I still would not have position on him on the turn. As a result, if none of my outs hit on the turn, it would be very unlikely that I could get a free card. If I were the last to act on the flop, I definitely would have raised.

Sometimes, I'll bet my draw in an early-position and be prepared to call a raise. But I wouldn't do that here where my draws were not the nuts. I didn't want to be in a position having to pay 3 bets in order to make a draw that could be 2d best. Does that make sense?

Plus, you don't want folds, you are raising for value. With two opponents, I wouldn't raise with just a flush draw, but the added straight outs, I raise. It could possibly earn you a free-card too, but with your position that is unlikely.

1) your turn actions (lead and calling the raise) is really dependent on reads.

2) about opponent's turn play, i have no idea what to make of it. I tried doing ev calcs of raising for a free SD vs just calling down, but the third player in the hand really messes things up. We could try to reason it out:

if he knows that you can only bet with a flush there, then the raise is incorrect duh
if he knows that you can bet w/ a weak queen OR a flush there, then a raise should be considered. b/c a) forcing the third opponent to either call 2 cold or fold a 4-5 out draw increases your pot equity/protects your best hand and b) the weak queen pays another bet to chase his outs or maybe he decides to fold, which I think might be a mistake on his part.

The question then becomes how often is AA actually the best hand here. So i tried doing ev calcs to figure out what % of the time he would need to have the best hand in order to make the raise correct, but then the third player really throws things in a loop. so i gave up on that

I might try explaining more but his turn river combo is weird. (it looks like he's raising for a free SD, but this doesnt seem to be the situation to do it) It might even be possible that he just misapplied a free showdown concept, so it's moot to analyze b/c he made a mistake. its a tough question to answer but its good that you want to see what his thought process is like.

actually i just thought of this:

After you lead the turn, AA guy decides that his hand is still worth seeing a showdown. But he has two choices, a) raise now and take the free SD or b) call down. If he calls down, the third player most likely will stay in the hand, which is bad when AA is infact the best hand b/c the third player would most likely have outs. If he raises, he has a higher chance of getting rid of the third player or forcing him to call 2BB cold, which is good in the instances that he does have the best hand. In both cases, he spends 2BBs, but in the latter case, he improves his chances of winning if he does indeeed have the best hand. So raising looks better.

The downside to this is that he runs the risk of getting 3bet by you with the flush. Like if he knows that you will always 3bet a flush here, he should be less inclined to raise. BUT if he knows that you will slowdown with a baby flush here, which you did, the prospect of raising becomes more attractive because the risk of getting 3bet by a better hand is lessened.

This is still missing something though. Like if you were 100% to have a flush in your situation, then raising blows. If you were 90% to have a flush and 10% to have a weaker hand, then raising gets better, but calling might still be best. If you're 80% flush 20% weaker, then so on etc. If you were 0% flush and 100% queen, then raising is better I would think. The more likely we are to have the best hand, then the more we should like raising. But, where is the break even point? What percentages make calling and raising equal in EV? If we know that, then we can determine for sure whether or not Mr AA should raise in his spot.

Ex: Let's say we find that 65% flush and 35% queen means an equal EV in calling and raising. Then if Mr AA geusses that you have a queen 40% of the time, raising is better b/c we are above the break point. But if instead we knew that 50% flush and 50% queen makes raising/calling eqaul, then a queen 40% of the time would indicate a call, because we are now under the breakpoint. See why the break even point is important?