I've mainly been a limit holdem player and the move to raise in LP on a flop when you have a draw to get a free turn has worked very well in limit. I was wondering how this is done in NL. If you are in late position with a drawing hand such as Axs and the flop comes 2 of your suit, what do you do when someone bets an average amount to you? Do you often raise a decent amount hoping for a fold or if not, see the turn and river to make your draw? If you miss on the turn, do you often bet it anyway? Calling in LP seems to be weak and mostly announces that you have a draw and I hate taking a passive role in a hand.

Betting it the whole way seems to be a very expensive way to play it and checking the turn afterwards announces what you are doing so it would seem unlikely to get paid off on the river if it hit.

It depends on a LOT of things - stack sizes, pot size, opponent's position, other players in the hand, opponent's playing style, your table image, etc.

Having said that, let's consider a typical scenario. Two MPs limp, you limp on the button with the [Th]. Blinds come along and it's a 5-way pot. Flop comes 8-4-2 with two hearts. It's checked to the player before you, who bets 2/3rd the pot. You both have 100xBB. Typically, I just call here. I don't like raising here for two reasons - you don't want to put too much into the pot on the flop in an unraised pot - why risk more than you need to in order to win such a small amount? Also, I want to encourage the blinds and the limpers to come along with mid-pair or a gutshot. Raising will usually knock out all the marginal hands that would build the pot nicely for you. And finally, you don't want to be re-raised, in case the bettor has a set. When the turn comes a blank and he fires out again, then I'm usually folding because it's pretty clear that he's got a set or an overpair.

In a raised pot, I play this very differently. If the same situation arose and it was a raised pot, there should be 20xBB in the pot assuming he raised to 4xBB. If there is a bet and a call before me, I will usually just go all-in. If there is a bet, I would either raise it a reasonable amount or raise allin if the raise is no more than the size of the pot. The reason why this move works much better in a raised pot is that not only is there more to win, but you will usually be facing a big bet (often an all-in) on the turn by your opponent. You will only have hit 20% of the time on the turn and to ensure that you get to see both cards, as well as to get some folding equity, I like the raise on the flop.

Check out this hand for what I do sometimes
forum/viewtopic.php?t=492

Wow. I'm experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance here.

(1) Mad Genius is a way better poker player than I am. OK.
(2) Mad Genius advocates going all-in can be a good thing to do with a nut flush draw on the flop, in certain circumstances.
But (3) My gut tells me that this is a total loser of a play.

So I'm going to try to sort through this. Let's make the imaginary hand more concrete.

BB is $1.00. Everybody has $100 in front of them to start the hand.

[Th] in my hand, [4h][2c] on the board.

There's $19 in the pot from the preflop action minus the rake. Preflop raise was to $4.00, with a total of four callers including both blinds. (Not so likely to get both blinds with a raise like that, are you? But that's the situation. OK.) I'm on the button.

My analysis at this point is that I am clearly going to lose this hand unless another heart hits. Wiith 5 people in a raised pot, somebody has an AK AQ or AJ, and somebody has a pair higher than TT, so I have zero A outs and zero T outs. (This assumes it goes to showdown with nobody folding.) If another heart hits, I'm golden unless the board pairs in which case I'm a little worried. The odds of a heart hitting on the T or R is about 35%.

My further analysis is that this flop is just about as good as I could ask for (other than ATT or a flopped flush). And I have position for the rest of the hand. Therefore, if there's not some pretty large +EV play available to me here, I should never be playing AT suited again.

Blinds check, EP bets $12 (about 2/3 pot), MP calls. There is now $43 in the pot. I still have $95 in front of me. Mad Genius says he goes all-in at this spot.

Ignoring the rake the rest of the way, as I calculate it, here are the possibilities:

No callers: I win $43. Nice outcome.

One caller, I am risking $95 to win ($43+$95) = $138. My odds of winning are around 35%. So 35 times I win 138, 65 times I lose 95. +4830 vs -6175 = -$13.45 average over 100 runs. Not so good.

Two callers, I am risking $95 to win ($43+$95+$95)=$233. 35 times I win 233, 65 times I lose 95. 8155 vs -6175 = +$19.80 average. Better.

Well, OK, maybe it's not as bad as I thought overall.

Except this isn't quite right. Anybody playing a flopped set or two pair (ok, 2 pair is unlikely with this flop on a raised pot!) would be likely to call and would have outs even if I hit my flush. Anybody with a hand less good than that would be more likely to fold anyway. Say my odds of winning are really only 32% with 1 caller and 30% with 2 callers (more out cards to beat me), then my EV ... [works it out on calculator] ... is ... let's see ... -$20.44 (1 caller) and +$3.40 (2 callers). Much less good, even with the +$43 if everybody folds.

OK, this is all theory. But it seems to me that I have a much better chance for a +EV here if I see the turn/river as cheaply as possible, so that I can bet when I'm winning and fold when I'm not.

The basic issue, I think, is that if I play like Mad Genius recommends I will be throwing a lot of money at a pot that I have significantly less than a 50/50 shot of winning if I'm called. When there are 4 others seeing a flop with me and a big pot, an all-in is going to look to somebody like a steal attempt -- so I have to expect to get a caller, don't I? In this situation, I prefer to bet big with a made hand and hope for calls, not bet big with a hopeful hand and hope for folds. My gut tells me that's got to be a bad play most of the time.

But I'm sure I can be corrected by the smarter & more experienced people here. Thanks in advance!

If you are corrected I'd love to hear it 'cause I'm in agreement with you here. I don't really like to push my draws as hard as Mad Genius recomments unless they are really strong, such as an open ended straight draw with a flush draw or A[h]K[h] where you have overcards that will likely be good if you hit. With these kinds of draws you are much closer to a coinflip when you are called, making it a much more profitable play.

Im not saying I would go all in here (but then I dont call a 4BB raise with ATs either)
But a case CAN be made for going all in. Theres a decent chance that everyone folds and you win.
Theres a better chance of something like this happening. The raiser (and flop bettor) has AK. The caller has 99. The raiser cant call your all in and folds.
The guy with 99 is a foolish calling station and calls.
Now you have 15 outs and you are the favorite. 14 outs if you subtract the raisers ace (which you normally wouldnt do because you dont know he has it when you make the play). Depending on how much the guy with 99 has in his stack, you are getting around 2-1 on your money when you are the favorite.

You would be surprised what people will call with. What if the AK folds but the other guy calls with AT (no hearts)? Think it cant happen?

Heres a hand I played today. I limp UTG with [8d]. Folded around to SB who min raises to $2. BB calls and I call.
Pot is $6. The flop comes [6h][7c]. SB bets $6, BB calls, I raise to $40 which is enough to put either of them all in. SB calls and BB folds.
SB called with [Jh].

Having glanced at some of the responses, let me clear a few things up. First of all, the AT situation was a hypothetical one, in that I don't get myself in those situations. I muck AT to a raise 99% of the time. Having said that, going all-in on the flop CAN be a good play for a few reasons. It depends largely on your table image and the quality of your opponents. Often times, a solid player will fold 99 or TT in that spot if they are raised. Furthermore, if you have a solid table image then you have enough respect from your opponents that they almost always will put you on a high pair or a set here. Against a table full of monkeys, the all-in is obviously dumb.

Also, I wasn't saying that I would go all-in into a $19 pot. However, if the PF raiser had bet something like $15 and there was already a caller in front of me, there is a good chance that I'm raising here. Since a lot of online games involve smaller stacks (less than 100BB), raising anything less than your entire stack is pointless. I have almost never seen a table where everyone has 100BB or more; most of the time the majority of them are sitting with 60BB or so at the lower limits. As I said, I usually don't like the call there because if the heart doesn't hit on the next card I will likely have to pay without the right odds to draw for one last card.

Having said all that, I again can't emphasize enough how player-dependent this type of play is. If the PF raiser is a solid player who can let go of JJ here, then I am more inclined to make this play. If the caller inbetween is a bit of a calling station but can be bullied out if he's got something like 98, then it's also a good play. Etc. etc. Also, your Ace will almost always be live here, since nobody in their right mind will call you with AK, AQ, or AJ. The AT example was also a hypothetical one, and in real life we are much more likely to hold AQ or AK of hearts in this situation, making it very possible that both cards are outs, thus making it 15 outs with a small chance of redraw if the opponents decides to play his 99-JJ.

If you make such a move and you end up going to showdown by getting called, this will also do wonders for your table image if there are some observant players at the table. Next time, if you have 88 and make the same move, you are much more likely to be called by the same idiots who think their small overpair is good. If you play longer sessions in general and play against your opponents on a regular basis, this type of play can be great moneymaker for your future plays.

Just some thoughts, feel free to argue/disagree.

You say you don't like calling in that situation. Are you saying you rarely call and peel a card off and hope for a cheap turn? What do you do if you limped in from the button, the pot is $2.50 with 5 players and there is a $2 bet to you and a call? Since the pot is small, do you just normally call in these situation or raise it to about $6 hoping for a checked turn if you miss?

Brian, in that case I probably wouldnt raise unless all the players had full stacks. Alot of times theyre not going to have a hand good enough that they want to play for their whole stack which is what theyre going to think will happen if they call my large raise.

The guy who called the $2 definately doesnt have much. He may have a draw or 2nd pair.

In an unraised pot, I would probably call 50% of the time and raise 50% of the time. Raising is often the better play with deeper stacks, but I don't like committing a large portion of my stack if I'm not guaranteed both cards. If I raise and opponent comes out firing with a big bet on the turn, then it's probably time to lay it down. If I hit my flush, then I keep betting as though I am trying to prevent the last flush card hitting. I know most weak players will check with their flush, trying to squeeze a call out of their opponent on the river, but clearly this is not a good play.

Thanks for the long, detailed replies. I learned a lot from them. Still thinking!

One thing I had not thought about is that although I am drawing to only 9 outs (max) in this case if all four people stay in, my outs probably go way up if only 1 of them calls. So that helps a lot.

A second thing that is probably worth thinking about is that I am still playing micro-limits, where people really don't care so much when they lose their stack. I mean, I'm annoyed when I lose my two bucks, because I am really trying to play well and win at this level, but it's not the end of the world. I am more likely to call an all-in because a lot of people go all-in as a bluff/semibluff, just because 2 bucks doesn't bother them that much if they lose it. In fact, I have seen a lot of people making this exact play, going all in with a flush draw, and they ALWAYS get called and they win less than half the time.

Also, there is no such thing as a table image in online micro-limit poker. Nobody is paying attention -- at least, so far as I have seen.

With the hypothetical ATs hand we're talking about, I would actually rather be first to act. I would call the bet on the flop and then throw out a smallish blocking bet attempt on the turn if my flush card doesn't hit. Other people who are on a draw will probably call the blocking bet, and with luck the guy who thinks he's ahead gets worried by my small bet as well and just calls. (Whatever overpair he is playing, maybe I have a bigger one or just hit a set. He doesn't know what's going on, so he takes the easy way out & just calls.) In a perfect world, I then have a bigger pot with lots of contributors if the flush does hit on the river, and I can still get away cheaply if it doesn't.

But then this kind of play probably only works with that idiots I prefer to play with.

I re-read briachek's original post in this thread, and I realized that nobody is responding to it. I feel bad, like I hijacked the thread. Apologies.

The original post is about betting in late position on the flop to get a free turn card. This play is standard in limit, with the idea (as I understand it) being to get to the river as cheaply as possible when you're on a draw.

The original question was, is there any analogy to this play in no-limit?

My guess (just a guess) is that there isn't. Here's why.

In limit, turn bets are always twice as big as flop bets. So if you're on a draw with a better in front of you, if you can raise the flop and then he checks the turn so you can check behind, that's actually 1 small bet cheaper to get to the river, compared to calling the flop and then having to call a bet on the turn.

In no-limit, if you raise a flop bet, you have just increased the pot size significantly. If there is a turn bet, it will have to be significantly larger than it would have been otherwise. So instead of shrinking the size of the pot by the river, your flop bet actually has a very good chance of increasing it significantly.

Put otherwise: your raise on the flop will probably have to be about pot sized to impress anybody. So even if you do get a free turn card, you've increased the pot by the size of a pot-sized bet. But if you just call the flop, the same guy will likely lead out with a pot-sized bet on the turn. If you call this bet, you are in exactly the same spot in terms of total $$ in the pot.

So best case scenario, your flop raise doesn't gain you anything. Worst case scenario, it does the opposite of what you're trying to do.

I hope that made sense.

No need to apologize. I've learned what I wanted from reading you guys going back and forth. Thanks everyone.