WA/WB flop situations and the merits of checking

[hackers238]

Hey All,

I've been reading some interesting stuff lately about this tactic, and I'm wondering the general consensus on it. (This is relating to FR, of course, specifically NL25 for me)

Here's an example of what I'm thinking about:

100BB effective stacks, villain has you covered. Villain limps from MP2, you raise to 5 BB in CO with AK. Blinds fold and MP2 calls. Villain is unknown, but you suspect he is a donk.

Flop (13BB): A83, checked to you.

Generally, I bet this all day long. CB when I miss and CB when I hit, because it's unreadable. But I feel now like I should check this in position more. The flop is very dry and so it's WA/WB. It's very unlikely the turn card will improve either of us, villain's most likely drawing dead with a2c, drawing to 2 outs with a PP, 3 outs with Ax, or already ahead of me with a set or some whack 2pair. If I bet, I'm folding all hands I'm ahead of, called by most hands that are slowplaying sets, and confused when I'm c/r-ed.

If I get c/r-ed I may have the best hand (pretty much only beating a bluff, but a bluff is a decent move here), but more often than that I won't. I will probably need to fold.

So I would check here and then go for 2 streets of value assuming villain checking on the turn and river, and consider myself commited to this pot.

Thoughts?

[Talking Poker]

If the flop came AA3 and you were holding A8, that would be one thing, but here, I feel like it's a mistake to not CB, especially if your style involves CBing a lot. You're very likely ahead, so build the pot. People don't fold worse Aces at this limit.

I think checking behind here in hopes of getting MORE value out of your hand at $25 NL is a good example of Fancy Play Syndrome. Anyone disagree?

I mean, read your own sig!

A
B
C

[Zybomb]

The concepts you are discussing are correct however your example is not. With AK on a A83 rainbow board you will be called by tons of hands that you are beating (ESPECIALLY at .10/.25 NL stakes) such as AQ AJ AT...maybe even Ax. Especially at low limits where TP=Nuts checking behind is losing major value in this spot.

A better example (and we've had the discussion before) would be if you had KK in this spot, you could check behind in order to induce a turn bluff out of your opponent and thus gain more value out of your hand when it is good (where if you CB they are folding pretty much always). There are pros and cons to this (aggro betting can fold out medium aces for example) which we can get into more detail later if you want

[hackers238]

Points taken.

From my point of view it seems odd that AQ isn't really a likely holding for a l/c line. More likely is Axs, which is most likely to call turn+river than flop+turn. And since its WA/WB, we don't run the risk of being outdrawn. Additionally we exercise pot control against sets.

Just thinking.

[Talking Poker]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think playing it your way will cost you a lot of value in the long run.

Do people really fold Ax at $25 NL? I'd expect you to get 3 streets of value - or at least the same two you would get from playing it your way, with one less card for villain to suck out. And if you are "exercising pot control vs. sets," does that mean that if you get bet into on the turn, your plan is to just call this hand down?

That's just WAY too passive for my liking.

[Wes]

Yes technically you are WA/WP on the AK hand, but WA/WB should really only be used for marginal holdings where there are like no draws but probably will not have the villain continue with a worse hand the majority of the time. In that hand, there are a zillion hands he will continue with that are worse so you should be build the pot as quickly as possible to maximize your earn with the hand. Which in this case, is probably by just bet-bet-bet the whole way.

[stormswa]

here is the WA/WB method explained by Dbitel off of cardschat forum sorry about saying another forum but have to give credit.

I posted this hand, and the reason why checking >>>>> betting in hand analysis. So just thought I'd x-post it here too, as its kinda burried at the end of a long thread:

6max, Full Tilt, 100NL, both hero and villain have $100 in their stack. Assume no reads.

Preflop (6 players): Hero is dealt KK on the button
2 folds, CO calls, Hero raises to $4.5, 2 folds, CO calls.

Flop A92($10.5, 2 players):
CO checks, Hero.....?


Most people said betting is best here. They are wrong. Checking is best:

Its a concept know as WA/WB, which stands for way ahead/way behind. It for spots where if you're ahead, then your opponent has very few outs and if you're behind, then you have very few outs. Now there are a few situations that we can class as WA/WB, and some don't fit in with this generalisation, but most the time in a WA/WB situation we will have a hand that is of medium stregnth and by betting, worse hands fold and better hands call/raise.

This situation is a perfect example of that (hence why I picked it). A few people for some unknown reason said that A4 will fold if we bet the flop. This is clearly wrong. NO-ONE will limp/call A4 preflop just to fold to a flop cbet when an ace flops. Some other people also said that villain will lead the flop if he had the ace. This is also wrong. EVERY1 c/c or c/r the flop with the ace here (leading this flop with the ace is obv bad, as it misses out on a cbet.) ANYWAY, as I was saying, If we can't fold out A4, its obvious that we can't fold out a better hand by betting. Next question, can we get a call from a worse hand. Answer...maybe....but only just. 89 for instance *might* call us on the flop, but so what? We're only getting 1 street of value out of him, so it doesn't really matter where we get it.

SO, if we bet this flop and he folds, have we really accomplished anything? Well we've won the pot, thats a good thing, right? Well, yes and no. We've won teh money, so thats obv good, but all we've done is made him fold a hand that was most probably drawing to 0-5 outs. Next question: could we play the hand in such a way so that we could have got MORE money from his 44/78/QJ etc etc. Answer...YES, we could have checked.

Look up through the post. Look how many people have said that checking is bad, because otherwise on the turn, he will bluff with his bad hands and make us fold. Its amazing quite how close every1 is. Every1 sees that, but not enough of you have taken it that 1 step further. Rather than folding to a turn bet...CALL A TURN BET! You've all said yourself that he will bet just about every hand he has, and we're ahead of just about all of those hands, so pretty obviously, calling on the turn is the best move, as we've now induced a bluff.

So consider the 2 options you have up to the turn if he has 44/QJ/67 etc. either, we can bet the flop and win the $10 pot. OR we can check the flop, let our opponent see 2 cards and possibly outdraw us, but make him pay $8 to do so. Without doing any major maths at all, it very obvious the better choice is to check the flop. Sure we win the pot LESS OFTEN, but more importantly, when we win the pot, we are winning a BIGGER POT. Now as the situation is a WA/WB one, we don't get outdrawn all that often, so the bigger pot is WAY more important than losing the pot once or twice.

Now comes the tricky part. if there is never a river card, very obviously as I hope I have shown, checking is best and please believe me when I say this (these ideas are not made up by me, they are from the top online players, way better than all of us) thats so far, its really not even close. Put yourself in villains shoes. You limp preflop with 67s and call a raise. Flop comes A-high and you check and so does the preflop raiser. The turn gives you nothing, but he checked the flop, so you decide to bet the turn as a bluff. WTF IS THIS....HE CALLED!!! Whats going through your head now? You obvoiusly think he has a decent hand. Most probably an ace and maybe an even better hand that he's slowplaying. But its pretty obvious that he has SOMETHING, or else why would he have called the turn? So on teh river, you have sweet FA. What are you going to do? Well obv you're not going to bet, because you know he has a hand, so he'll call you, so instead you bet.

Now I've played a lot and a lot (probably over 300,000) hands of online poker in the last few years, and I see this exact proccess the entire time. Players take 1 shot at the pot when you show weakness. And when you show strength again, they freeze up. So if after you call his turn bet, he fires on the river, he really really will have your KK beat 95+% of the time. (NOTE: if you are playing vs an aggresive/bluffy player, you should also check the flop, but you should just call the river as well as the turn)

OK, so I really hope I've now shown you why checking is so so so much better if we're ahead. What thought if we're behind? What if he has Ax? Then obviously we want to put as little money in the pot as possible and obviously we want to see as many cards as possible so that we can hit our king. So, what flop action accomplishes these two tasks best, betting or checking?

Lets follow the hand through: lets say we check the flop and he bets $7 or w/e on the turn and we call. We have now paid $7 and seen both the turn and river cards and are very close to showdown. What if we decided to bet $7 on teh flop though? He can C/R us and we have paid $7 and seen no more cards! or maybe he will call and lead the turn, and again we have paid $7 and just seen 1 more card. OR VERY BEST CASE, maybe he just call AND checks turn and then obv we check. THEN we see the turn and river for just $7. But even that best case, is just the normal case if we check the flop!


So, to conclude, the reasons why checking flops in position with WA/WB hands like this are:

We induce bets from worse hands
We see all the cards for the same price
For metagame for the times we check here with a set
Because we get to showdown with more ease
Because we are less predictable (we don't just bet flop no matter what....we keep our opponent guessing)
We still gain information, just by simlpe knowledge of how people bluff

[hackers238]

Thanks Raistlin, I looked for that article earlier today but couldn't find it!

I'm pretty sure they fold Ax. NL25 is pretty damn aggro on FullTilt. Unless they are a calling station of course (VPIP pretty high, Aggression Factor real low by street), but I'm talking about an unknown here.

Yes that was what I was inferring. That way you once again keep it to two streets of value rather than three.

[Zybomb]

Granted Ive never played .10/.25 NL before, but I can't imagine players at this level are going to be limp calling with Ax only to fold when they hit TP... in fact you can argue that villain probably isn't very good if he limp/called Ax HU OOP in the first place, so it makes it even less likely

If that is the case (I dont believe it is) then the entire KK example given above is null and void since betting can now bluff out most aces

[hackers238]

Hmm it seems like perhaps this is a problem involving weighting the chance your opponent calls 3 streets of value with a hand you beat, and the danger of them sucking out with the extra card you grant by checking the flop IP.

Obviously if they will never call three streets of value with any worse hand and had no chance to improve, it's trivially better to check behind. You get the same outcome (2 streets of value), plus additional bets fired at you by PP on the turn, and a sightly likelier chance of getting your bets called on the turn and river than on the flop+turn. You also potentially lose less in the hand when villain has flopped a set. You may still lose the same if the villain goes for another c/r, but I can't see a sane villain taking that line.

However the higher the chance for villain to improve and the higher chance a hand can give you 3 streets of value, the more betting the flop looks good. Seems like just a number crunching game with the villain's stats. And if you don't have stats, knowing the most likely style of an unknown at the level/site you're playing.

[hackers238]

No, I'm not saying they fold the flop. I'm saying they won't give you 3 streets of value with Ax, and the chance that they give you 2 streets of value with Ax is greater when betting the turn+river than when betting the flop+turn.

[melioris]

I am late to this dance and I am not reading all the posts, but this isn't the best example of WA/WB. You have TPTK, bet it to build the pot and protect your hand, you will get called by worse hands. IP against someone who calls my CB AND calls my turn bet, then on the river you can decide if you should check behind or shove. Alternatively, you may decide, particularly if the turn card is a in the OP hand, then, maybe you can check behind and call river or bet river for value. But you got position with a strongish hand, shit son, what else do you want. TPTK is the nuts, yo.

If you are bummed because you everyone is folding to your CB in these situations except for sets, don't forget that you are claiming these pots when you don't have TP so don't worry about it.

[hackers238]

Hmm thanks for all of the interesting replies!

Sorry if I'm being thick-headed about this, I'm just trying to learn

Nah, I'm actually not really basing this off experience, rather another thread. I'm also trying to think of this in a theoretical vacuum, so I'm not considering other hands which balance my range in this spot.

I understand building the pot, but I don't feel like TPTK really is the nuts in FR with all 100BB stacks, which is the reason for this post.

I think that's my problem with it. We aren't protecting against anything, (WA/WB), and I don't want to build the pot to 100 BB.

[stormswa]

You should be looking to get max value from your hand at every street, TPTK isnt a time to get cute with your hand. Its not powerful enough to try to trap your villian, if we dont bet we have zero clue where we stand in the hand. When you flop a set you are pretty sure where you stand in the hand unless someone else flopped a higher set and in that case.....well your getting stacked.

Here is the problem if you check there could be a ton of turn cards that could give you problems. The players at that level are not to smart and they usually are not to aggressive with top pair so you should be able to extract tons of value from them on every street. TPTK just cant be checked on most flops, I personally dont ever trap my players no matter what I flop. I always bet out on missed flops and monster flops, I bet quads lol. I do this because im not strong enough in cash games and I know if I always bet then im pretty much unreadable.

But again im not super strong cash game player like Wes and others so take my advice for what it is my opinion. If Wes or any of the other real good cash game players disagree with anything I have said then they would be the ones to listen to.

[hackers238]

This is the part I disagree with... I think there are remarkably few turn cards that give us problems. This is why I think this situation is WA/WB.

It's true, I agree with it mostly. But I think that Ax hands aren't calling 3 streets.

That's exactly what my strategy has been thus far! Literally, I'm 90-95% CBet, and the conditions that cause me NOT to CBet are sitaution dependent rather than hand dependent. For example being OOP in a 4-way flop, or against multiple Laggy opponents, or when my image is totally shot. This is one of the reasons I made this post as well, as it seemed like an interesting spot to check behind for pot control. However now that seems not to be the case.

Thanks again for the thread post, I'm still surprised you posted EXACTLY the thread I was looking for earlier!

[melioris]

I don't know fuckall about FR these days, but there are tons of suited Aces that will call for one, or even two streets, even OOP. You are protecting your hand from the miracle 3-outs by betting, you are building the pot against AT and the like. If you are worried about hands that have you crushed, well sure, don't call a raise if raised on the flop. If called, check behind the turn if you must, but I would rather b/f the turn and then either call (depending on villain's river bet) or bet or check on the river.

We haven't gotten into the whole validate your CBing thing either, which is another reason to bet here. If you are giving the players enough credit at $25NL FR where you do not think you will get paid off by a weaker A here, my god man, think of the information you are giving them if you SD after checking this flop. Expect none of your CBs to be respected after that.

Here is the trick to that last sentence. The second part of the sentence seems a little ridiculous at these levels, no? Well, it is entirely consistent with the first part, which you have stated strongly. So either the second part is not crazy, or the first part is wrong. I go with the latter. Bet this flop. ABC wins the monies.

[Talking Poker]

Cha-ching.

Again, read your own sig!

P.S. Excellent thread!

[hackers238]

First of all, thanks for the help and analysis here. I do agree that betting is better.

All of the insight here is great, and I'll add my analysis now: The problem with going for pot control here is two-fold: there aren't enough hands you are behind, and there aren't enough hands you can milk extra value out of.

There aren't enough hands you're behind

The limp call preflop line looks like either a baby ace, high random cards, or a PP (excluding JJ-AA). If we assign this as a general range for villain, there are only 10 combos ahead of you. This includes 3 combos of each flopped set (excluding AA), and 4 combos total of A8s and A3s. The total number of hands that are behind you but will probably allow you to build the pot here is much greater: Assuming at this level Aces will call multiple streets of value, There are 75+ combos of AQ- and PP behind you. So going for pot control is catering to 10/85 of the villains range.

and there aren't enough hands you can milk extra value out of

My main argument before was that hands are more likely to pay off turn+river with an ace than flop+turn. This has huge holes! What about the flop+river line? What about the higher number of chances for opponent to get frisky and put a raise in somewhere when you start on the turn? At this level it's important to give villain as many chances as you can to make a mistake, and betting the flop accomplishes this.

What about hands that would fold the flop but lead/call the turn? There are some of these imo... many PP, especiall >8 would go for a cheap showdown because you skipped out on the obvious CB. They may even lead the turn. And even though PP are a rather large part of villains range, it's much more valuable in NLHE to get THREE streets of value from AQ- than ONE extra street of value from a PP. Because of the ever escalating size of bets, you may miss out on 40BB if you pot control against AQ where you are gaining an extra 10 from a random PP.

Thanks for all the responses!

[Talking Poker]

I'm glad you've seen the light. I think the key factor you were missing is that the WA/WB scenario only applies when we have a MEDIUM STRENGTH (ie, second pair) hand.... a hand that if we bet the flop will get called only by hands better than ours and will fold out all the ones worse. the KK on A92 example above is a good one.

In your example, we've flopped a very strong hand (albeit not the nuts), so we need to be betting for value and building a pot. A more extreme example that will reinforce this:

We have 33. Flop comes AT3.

Now, we certainly don't have the nuts here, and chances are we are WAY ahead, but if we are behind, we are WAY behind (drawing to one out). But this is not a WA/WB example! Our hand is just far too strong, and there are a ton of worse hands villain can have that will still call if we bet. Yes, it's very unlikely he will improve to beat us, but that also has nothing to do with anything. By checking behind here, we are going to get a max a two streets of value (which I know was your plan), but that will often times cost us the third street of value, which is often equal to the first two streets of value combined!

Bet bet bet. ABC.