On the button with suited connectors in LPLLHE

pkrooster · Aug 23,2005, 02:53 PM

Hi folks,

This hand came up on the 5-10 in Halifax and has been bugging me ever since. On the button with T9 suited five people have limped in so I call and the blinds check. The flop comes 369 nothing suited. The table has been very loose passive and the whole table checks around to me. What do I do? Check for the free card and hope to improve or catch a blank card on the turn. Bet out and have the whole table call for any variety of draws? Both choices have their downsides and nothing I can think of feels right in this situation. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks Paul

BBC Z · Aug 23,2005, 03:11 PM

5 bets in the pot.

By betting, you force gutshots draws, overcard hands, two pair draws and pocket pairs to call unprofitably.

By checking, you give them all those hands free shot to beat you.

Seems like a no-brainer bet against a passive table.

GTA Poker · Aug 23,2005, 03:34 PM

if you don't bet here when do you bet?

if you check you have no idea where you are in the hand when other cards fall, you give backdoor flushes a free card, etc, etc

pkrooster · Aug 23,2005, 03:47 PM

I did bet in this case but the variance on betting seems to be very high. There were a total of eight players that saw the flop and only one folded to my bet. So with 6 random hands drawing to god know what how do you then play this on the turn? Turns out Q3 and QJ called and hit their Q on the turn and it was two bets before it got to me and I folded. Thanks for the comments.

PokerKai · Aug 23,2005, 04:07 PM

betting with a hand that is likely the best is a good thing!

PokerKai · Aug 23,2005, 04:13 PM

oh...sometimes ill raise this hand with 5 limers, loose blinds and a passive table for value, image and a free ride to the turn.

ScoobyD · Aug 23,2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

I did bet in this case but the variance on betting seems to be very high.

The variance WILL be high in a game like that, but that doesn't mean it's unprofitable. If you're only going to bet the nuts in these games you're passing up value. Your hand in question might only win half the time vs. all the draws (or possibly less), but you're getting in 5 extra bets for every 1 you have to invest and you have greater than a 20% chance to win the pot. Sounds +EV to me. Remember, sometimes you'll even get a good card for your hand on the turn (another T), and people then might not be willing to call your bet, so you missed out on those 5 bets earlier.

Dave Scharf · Aug 27,2005, 02:00 PM

Bet with the best - good draw to invest - fold all the rest.

In this case you have every reason to believe you are the best. Bet.

Low-limit games are usually HIGH variance. This is because nobody ever folds. Note, however, that when measured in big-bets/hour they are also the most profitable. Fasten yor seatbelt, though, it's gonna get bumpy.

PokerKai · Aug 28,2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Scharf

Low-limit games are usually HIGH variance. This is because nobody ever folds. Note, however, that when measured in big-bets/hour they are also the most profitable. Fasten yor seatbelt, though, it's gonna get bumpy.

Ive always felt low limit hold'em to be lower variance then the higher limits because of the higher win rate. If your only a 1bb/hour winner, your much more likely to go on a monster downswing, then say if you were a 2bb/hour.

I also think the agressive nature of the higher limits adds to the variance while the passivity of the smaller stakes has the opposite effect.

I do agree that the no fold'em hold'em does add variance, but from my experience (I dont have any concrete numbers besides my own personal lack of big downswings in the smaller stakes) it just seems that low limit hold'em is a lower variance game then the higher games.

PokerKai · Aug 29,2005, 04:36 AM

after some reflection, ive come to the following reconciliation of the two...

in terms of pots won and lost...small stakes would have higher variance...you win less of the pots you enter...

in terms of your bankroll...higher stakes would have higher variance because your arent winning as much money (although your ratio of pots won to pots lost is probably better) because you arent getting the same overlay from the donks while pushing smaller edges.

thoughts?

ScottyZ · Aug 29,2005, 09:28 AM

Dollar variance is obviously going to be higher at higher limits. When most people talk about comparing variance between limits, they usually mean variance measured in terms of big bets.

In the latter sense, low limit games have higher variance.

Indirectly, winning a lower percentage of pots contributes to a higher variance. The direct mathematical reason that bankroll variance is higher (measured in big bets) in low limit games is that the pots you win are larger (in terms of big bets) on average in low limit games.

ScottyZ

PokerKai · Aug 29,2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottyZ

Dollar variance is obviously going to be higher at higher limits. When most people talk about comparing variance between limits, they usually mean variance measured in terms of big bets.

In the latter sense, low limit games have higher variance.

Indirectly, winning a lower percentage of pots contributes to a higher variance. The direct mathematical reason that bankroll variance is higher (measured in big bets) in low limit games is that the pots you win are larger (in terms of big bets) on average in low limit games.

ScottyZ

I was speaking solely in terms of big bets. Not dollar values. I realize that you are winning less pots (but bigger ones...in terms of big bets) at smaller stakes. I just dont feel that the highly contested nature of showdowns at the low limits brings the variance higher then mid/high stakes games which suffer from smaller winrates and stronger agression.

ScottyZ · Aug 29,2005, 03:16 PM

Pots you win are the dominating factor in calculating your variance. This is simply statistics. The largest outliers will contribute the most to variance calculations. In terms of poker bankroll movements, a pot you win is, by far, the largest deviation from the mean.

Let's say that a typical low-limit game has average pot size of around 12 times the big blind, wheras a higher limit game has average pot size around 8 big blinds.

A typical orbit might be represented something like

Low-limit: -1, -1, 0, 0, -3, +10, 0, 0, -2, -1
Higher limit: -1, -1, 0, 0, -4, +6, 0, 0, -3, 0

The variance of the first sequence is (1+1+9+100+4+1) / 10 = 11.6

The variance of the second sequence is (1+1+16+36+9) / 10 = 6.3

Notice how the pot you won dominates the variance calculation in each case.

A good rule of thumb is: higher average pot = higher variance.

Oh yeah, why do pots contain more bets in low-limit poker? As Dave already noted:

Quote:

...nobody ever folds.

ScottyZ

Dave Scharf · Aug 29,2005, 04:52 PM

Win rate <-------> varaince.

It's like the stock market, the higher your "risk" the greater your gain.

Any 2 BB win rate is, by definition, higher variance than a 1 BB win rate.

Is that not right ScottyZ?

PokerKai · Aug 29,2005, 05:07 PM

Something just seems intuitively incorrect about this line of reasoning and im not quite sure your numbers are an accurate reflection of how many bets go in and come out of our bankroll in each game. Â*In bigger games, players invest more bets on average then in lower stakes game (more raising and 3betting)...but your two lines have the smaller stakes game investing 3 more bets. Â*Furthermore, it doesnt reflect the fact that you win a bigger percentage of pots at higher stakes, albeit slightly smaller pots...you only have each player win one pot each... and as you said...pots you win are the dominating factor...thats a pretty glaring omission when you consider the greater return of investment when we win a pot as opposed to losing a pot.

I also think your overstating the difference in average pot sizes. Â*Looking right now at the party 50c/1 game, the majority of games are hovering around 8BB. Â*While looking at the party 15/30 game, the average is about 6BB. Â*So perhaps the gap in your wins (+10 for the small stakes game, only +6 for the higher stakes) be something smaller (like +8 and +6)

I get that the larger pot sizes of the smaller stakes creates greater outliers causing more deviation from the mean. Â*Im still just not convinced that small stakes game have more variance...in terms of the bb upswings and downswings of my bankroll. Â*

Once again, I am totally speaking from a lay mans instinct here as I am not statistically gifted. Â*I really wish I could offer up something more concrete, other then my intuition. Â*