B. Estructura de las llantas: Como se observa anteriormente las llantas están conformadas por una serie de componentes que garantizan su funcionamiento
5.4.2. Proceso de fabricación de las llantas:
Against these hands we will be roughly 75/25 underdog.
Check-raising brings us: 0.25 * $35,200 + 0.75 * -$28,000 = -$12,200.
Betting and calling the raise 75%: 0.25 * -$5,000 + 0.75 * (0.25 * $35,200 + 0.75 * -$28,000) = -$10,400. Now the bet makes the better result.
Summary
We gave our opponent four different possible holdings, and three out of four with two ways to play these hands. All our opponent’s flop-actions can be found in these seven groups. In each of the seven different situations we tried to make reasonable assumptions that would lead to exact and useful figures. Now we have to try to add probabilities to all the groups, the total being 100%.
First of all, I am happy that betting and check-raising both have positive results. As I said before, the check-fold was no option for me (note that check-fold has result 0), and these figures suggest I was right. Furthermore, I am also glad that my other feeling, preferring check-raising over betting, was also correct. Some people will argue about my assumptions and of course they can never be a 100% correct. But the results differ so much that check-raising is very likely to be the best option.
Hand 32: €20-€40 Live pot-limit Omaha in Amsterdam
This is a hand I played live in Amsterdam some time ago. I have A♦-A♥-J♦-6♠ in a nine-handed €20-€40 pot-limit Omaha game. Behind me, all players are playing between 40 and 60BBs. I start the hand with €5,000, 125BBs. The button has €2,400, the SB has €1,700 and the BB plays €2,000. It is folded to me and from the cutoff I minraise to €90. Everyone folds and Peter raises to €290 from the BB. I reraise to €890 and he calls with K♥-K♠-5♠-5♦.
The outcome of the hand is totally irrelevant. I choose this hand to emphasize a mistake that many novice players make, and it is reraising the wrong amount. At the end of the hand, I will explain my ideas.
Rob Hollink (€5,000)
Player 1 (BU) (€2,400) | plays the button Player 2 (SB) (€1,700) | posts the SB of €20 Player 3 (BB) (€2,000) | posts the BB of €40 Other seats: unknown
Rob Hollink: (A♦-A♥-J♦-6♠)
Preflop (pot = €60/seven players)
All unknown players fold
Rob Hollink (A♦-A♥-J♦-6♠) raises to €90 Player 1 (BU) folds
Player 2 (SB) folds
Player 3 (BB) raises to €290 Rob Hollink raises to €890 Player 3 (BB) calls € 700
Flop J♥-7♣-3♣ (pot = €1,800/two players)
Player 3 (BB) bets $1,110 an is all-in Rob Hollink (A♦-A♥-J♦-6♠) calls $1,110
Turn J♥-7♠-3♠-3♥ (pot = €4,020/three players)
River J♥-7♠-3♠-3♥-K♣ (pot = €4,020/two players)
Showdown (pot = €4,020/two players)
Player 3 (BB) shows K♥-K♠-5♠-5♦ and plays a full house, kings full of threes, winning the pot
Rob Hollink shows A♦-A♥-J♦-6♠ and plays two pair, aces and threes
Summary
Player 3 (BB) won the pot at the showdown and gained €2,020
Rob Hollink mucked at the showdown and lost €2,020 Player 2 (SB) folded preflop and lost €20
The flop is J♥-7♣-3♣; my opponent goes all-in on the flop and I call.
As I said above, the point to discuss is your opponent’s reraise. In case you reraise with a nice hand, for instance a rundown or a two-pair hand, the main thing you have to think about is how much your opponent can make after your reraise. Different articles and my own experience suggest that it’s important to get about a third of your stack in the middle preflop, to play A-A-x-x successfully and with commitment.
On the other hand, does this imply that you can play a nice rundown profitably (if you have a good feeling how to play postflop) against A-A-x-x, when you both put in 25% preflop? This means that you should reraise to a maximum 7% of the effective stack with these rundowns and certainly not more than that, so that the aces cannot get close to the 25% or 30% that they want in the middle. For two-pair hands, I prefer an even smaller reraise because my hitting chances are a lot worse than with the rundown. To give myself better odds, I prefer to reraise with these two-pair hands to just 5% of the effective stack. These are just my general guidelines — of course you have to mix it up a bit.
Looking back at this hand. We see my opponent making several mistakes. First, he reraises pot to 14.5% of the effective stacks, and then he compounds this error by calling with his kings. And then finally he sees a lot of money in the middle and decides to stick in the rest as well, although he knows he is probably beat. In his place, I would never have reraised, because the raise in front of me was already 4.5% of the effective stack. Hopefully this guideline concerning reraising can help you a bit.
Hand 33: €1,000 pot-limit Omaha tournament at the masterclassics of poker
First of all my excuses for the hand history that is not fully filled in. It was a live hand, where I forgot some unimportant details.This time we are looking at a hand that was played during a live tournament. It was the €1,000 PLO event of the Master Classics of Poker in Amsterdam. I played the hand in the cutoff against another Dutch poker player, Dennis Schrijvers. The blinds were 100-200 and all remaining players had over 10k. My hand was 10-9-6-5ds diamonds and spades.
Rob Hollink (15,000)
Dennis Schrijvers (13,000) | posts the SB of 100 Remaining Seats: unknown
Rob Hollink: (10♦-9♠-6♦-5♠)
Preflop (pot = 300/eight players)
Rob Hollink (10♦-9♠-6♦-5♠) raises to 400 Dennis Schrijvers calls 300
big blind calls 200
Everyone folds to me and from the cutoff I minraise to 400. Dennis calls in the small blind and the big blind calls as well.
Flop K♦-8♦-4♥ (pot = 1,200/three players)
Dennis Schrijvers checks big blind checks
Rob Hollink (10♦-9♠-6♦-5♠) checks
We see a K♦-8♦-4♥ flop with two diamonds and one heart. I have flopped a gutshot and a small flush draw. It gets checked to me. Without a flush- draw, I would bet a K-8-4 flop into two people more often than not. But with the small flush draw and a gutshot, I don’t want to take the risk of being check-raised out of the pot. So, I check as well.
Turn K♦-8♦-4♥-3♥ (pot = 1,200/three players)
Dennis Schrijvers bets 700 big blind folds
Rob Hollink (10♦-9♣-6♦-5♠) calls 700
The 3♥ on the turn. Dennis bets 700, the big blind folds and I call. Let me try to explain why I see much value in this call. First of all, I have 15 cards to make a straight or a flush. Just this alone isn’t that bad, and there is still the possibility to make a bet on the river. But more important, my opponent’s idea about my hand is probably wrong. Putting me on another hand instead of the hand that I really have will often result in him making a mistake on the river — and this will benefit me. The fact that I didn’t bet the flop will probably give him the impression that I got a little bit, mostly K-x-x-x, A-A-x-x or Q-Q-x-x; and as I called his bet on the turn he will have the idea that I might very well have hearts as well, or he might put me on 7-6-5-x. The conclusions I am going to make here are without putting him on some kind of hand, because his range is simply too wide.
So how can I still benefit from this situation? Well, because he might make an incorrect river-bet or river-check, simply because he expects me to have a different hand than I actually have. In case there is a blank and he checks the river, I have to check behind because this isn’t the right spot to bluff. But if he checks and there is a heart, a five or a six on the river, this is an excellent card for me to make a successful bluff. And if he checks after a diamond on the river, I have a good spot to get paid off, because he would rather expect hearts in my hand than diamonds. All in all, I hope this is sufficient proof of why deception plays such a big role in PLO.
River K♦-8♦-4♥-3♥-9♦ (pot = 2,600/two players)
Dennis Schrijvers checks
Rob Hollink (10♦-9♠-6♦-5♠) bets 2,000 Dennis Schrijvers calls 2,000
Showdown (pot = 6,600/two players)
Rob Hollink shows 10♦-9♠-6♦-5♠ and play a flush, 10 high, winning the pot
Dennis Schrijvers shows his hand and plays a lower flush
Rob Hollink won the pot at the showdown and gained 3,500 Dennis Schrijvers mucked at the showdown and lost 3,100 big blind folded on the turn and lost 400
The 9♦ on the river. Dennis checks and I bet 2,000 with my 10 high flush. Dennis calls, shows a lower flush and I win a nice pot.
What about the river action? Well, first of all Dennis’s check. When I put myself in his spot, I would think I had a certain winner. So to decide whether to check-call or bet, he has to find out how often I will be bluffing after his check — compared with how often I would pay off with a worse hand. I think both ways of playing don’t differ too much in value.
And second, what about my bet, after he checked? Of course I bet here, as I explained under “Turn”, although there is definitely some risk attached to this bet. It’s important that I am aware that many players would bet the flop with the nut flush draw. So, my opponent sees a guy value-betting the river and he might be aware that this person almost certainly isn’t having the nuts. What I am trying to say is that I should not be surprised if I got check- raised on the river. In case this would happen, I have to go by my feelings. Is this guy capable of bluff-raising the river? To find the right answer we have to go through a couple of thinking levels. First, is he able to analyze that I probably cannot have the nuts? If yes, then I have to ask myself: “Does he have the guts to check-raise me here knowing that I don’t have the nuts?” And if the answer is yes again, I have to ask myself how often he would go for the check-raise and how big his raise would be. He will not expect diamonds that often, so I could easily be bluffing. To rebluff, just doubling my river-bet, would be enough. But he might as well opt for a full pot-sized check-raise to make me lay down a small flush as well.
So, comparing the bluff probabilities with the chance that he really has the nut-flush is what I have to do in this spot to find the right answer. Situations like these are the things that make poker both complicated and interesting.
18 Note from Rolf: I have discussed this hand a few times with Rob. And even though he is 100% correct in his arguments why he (in
CHUFTY′s spot) would always continuation bet here with A-A + nut flush draw in order to play a big pot, I still would play it differently. If I were in CHUFTY′s shoes, I would probably check with A-A + nut flush draw here rather than bet. Given the short stack that howisitfeellike is playing, and given that he would be on the button after two checks including a preflop raiser who has shut down, my guess is that he would bet lightly in this spot - and CHUFTY could use this to his advantage by check-raising him all-in. Plus, in this case, CHUFTY would have Rob caught in the middle, whereas Rob′s relative position would be much better after a continuation bet from CHUFTY. In that case, Rob would be able to close the betting, whereas after a bet by howisitfeellike, Rob still has to worry about CHUFTY who is still to act, and who could well use this spot to bag both howisitfeellike and Rob.