Anyone know anything about 2-7 Single Draw?

[SuuPRlim]

Been experimenting with this game, seems fun but i'm really fishy at it and these hands might be ridic stnd or I'm whaling about

Full Tilt Poker Game #31470230904: Table Basin (heads up, ante) - $5/$10 Ante $2.50 - No Limit 2-7 Single Draw - 16:36:42 WET - 2012/11/20 [11:36:42 ET - 2012/11/20]
Seat 1: WtFoMFgOAO ($442.50)
Seat 2: lildavefish ($1,091)
WtFoMFgOAO antes $2.50
lildavefish antes $2.50
WtFoMFgOAO posts the small blind of $5
lildavefish posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lildavefish [ ]
WtFoMFgOAO raises to $20
lildavefish calls $10
*** DRAW *** (Total Pot: $45, 2 Players)
lildavefish discards 2 cards [ ]
WtFoMFgOAO stands pat
Dealt to lildavefish [ ] [ ]
lildavefish checks
WtFoMFgOAO bets $40
lildavefish has 15 seconds left to act
lildavefish calls $40
*** SHOW DOWN ***
WtFoMFgOAO shows [ ] 9,8,7,5,3
lildavefish shows [ ] 9,8,6,5,3
lildavefish wins the pot ($124.50) with 9,8,6,5,3
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $125 | Rake $0.50
Seat 1: WtFoMFgOAO (small blind) showed [ ] and lost with 9,8,7,5,3
Seat 2: lildavefish (big blind) showed [ ] and won ($124.50) with 9,8,6,5,3

Late play in this hand, I decide to c/call as i drew two and feel like that would make him VB a bit wider, is it better to lead into him? Should i ever c/r here? I had a hand where he c/r a hand like mine on the end I know its gonna depend on a lot of game flow/reads stuff but as a "stnd" whats like the worst hand you'd c/r for value here?


Full Tilt Poker Game #31470242437: Table Basin (heads up, ante) - $5/$10 Ante $2.50 - No Limit 2-7 Single Draw - 16:38:09 WET - 2012/11/20 [11:38:09 ET - 2012/11/20]
Seat 1: WtFoMFgOAO ($395)
Seat 2: lildavefish ($1,138)
WtFoMFgOAO antes $2.50
lildavefish antes $2.50
lildavefish posts the small blind of $5
WtFoMFgOAO posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lildavefish [ ]
lildavefish raises to $20
WtFoMFgOAO calls $10
*** DRAW *** (Total Pot: $45, 2 Players)
WtFoMFgOAO discards 2 cards
lildavefish discards 1 card []
WtFoMFgOAO is dealt 2 cards
Dealt to lildavefish [ ] []
WtFoMFgOAO checks
lildavefish bets $20
WtFoMFgOAO raises to $80
lildavefish calls $60
*** SHOW DOWN ***
WtFoMFgOAO shows [ ] 9,8,7,4,2
lildavefish shows [ ] 9,7,6,5,4
lildavefish wins the pot ($204.50) with 9,7,6,5,4
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $205 | Rake $0.50
Seat 1: WtFoMFgOAO (big blind) showed [ ] and lost with 9,8,7,4,2
Seat 2: lildavefish (small blind) showed [ ] and won ($204.50) with 9,7,6,5,4

This is the hand, this is deffo a value c/r from him yh? I'm sposed to call here yes or do i ever fold? IDK too much but he seemed tight(ish) I know he was sat 3 stakes and this was his highest stake so maybe a little more timid...could you 3b this hand ever vs some?


Full Tilt Poker Game #31470269532: Table Basin (heads up, ante) - $5/$10 Ante $2.50 - No Limit 2-7 Single Draw - 16:41:30 WET - 2012/11/20 [11:41:30 ET - 2012/11/20]
Seat 1: WtFoMFgOAO ($897.50)
Seat 2: lildavefish ($1,334)
WtFoMFgOAO antes $2.50
lildavefish antes $2.50
WtFoMFgOAO posts the small blind of $5
lildavefish posts the big blind of $10
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to lildavefish [ ]
WtFoMFgOAO has 15 seconds left to act
WtFoMFgOAO raises to $20
lildavefish has 15 seconds left to act
lildavefish raises to $60
WtFoMFgOAO raises to $150
lildavefish has 15 seconds left to act
lildavefish has requested TIME
lildavefish calls $90
*** DRAW *** (Total Pot: $305, 2 Players)
lildavefish stands pat on [ ]
WtFoMFgOAO discards 1 card
WtFoMFgOAO is dealt 1 card
lildavefish checks
WtFoMFgOAO has 15 seconds left to act
WtFoMFgOAO has requested TIME
WtFoMFgOAO bets $165
lildavefish has 15 seconds left to act
lildavefish has requested TIME
lildavefish folds
Uncalled bet of $165 returned to WtFoMFgOAO
WtFoMFgOAO mucks
WtFoMFgOAO wins the pot ($304.50)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $305 | Rake $0.50
Seat 1: WtFoMFgOAO (small blind) collected ($304.50), mucked
Seat 2: lildavefish (big blind) folded after the Draw

we were getting a LITTLE more aggro at this point, i 3bet pre-flop assume this is stnd? I'd seen him 3bet me earlier with a T8 so that's basically why i did it, calling and standing pat seems really bad I can only really c/c the end and he's gonna play perfect fit/fold against me right??? The best system is going to be to 3bet any Pat hand heads up?

I was going to c/f if he stood pat on the end, as it happens he;s bet $165 into $305 I assue his 4 of his cards are all below a 7 so he had 16-18 outs to outdraw my hand but my hand is totally face up, do i HAVE to call here, fold here or is my hand ever a 5b with 90bb stacks?

Really had no clue in this hand whatsoever!!

[George2Loose]

Nice stakes considering you don't have a clue! Lol

I don't play much either but all looks fine to me. 9 lo must be pretty strong heads up but I can't imagine betting is the way to get value from worse.

When u stand pat hand 3 you look ridic strong but then check so maybe he's taken this as a sign of weakness but more likely he got there?

Surely you could just ask pez? Stu Rutter and Spinks are also very good at moxed games

[Honeybadger]

Haven't got time to go through these properly.

But lol @ the fish-merge from villain in hand 2.

Plus hand 3 is a fold to the 3bet.

[pokerfan]

Cr1

Stand pat 2

Call 3

At a glance.

[pleno1]

Reserve me 10 for next years WSOP td events. Tyry

[Honeybadger]

Cr1

Stand pat 2

Call 3

At a glance.

Disagree with most of this, although could happily admit I am wrong since I am far from an expert in this game. But here are my thoughts anyway, after thinking for a few minutes only:

Hand 1: Villain is likely to check back lots of hands after the draw that would call a lead from us. So we should lead, and expect to get called a TON. Check-raising only works out well for us against a very small part of his range (we ran into this part of his range in the actual hand of course, so c/r would have worked out well for us).

Hand 2: I agree with standing pat vs his two card draw.

Hand 3: Definitely fold pre-draw to the 3bet. We are crushed by his pat hands. And very importantly, we are in fact an underdog to his one card draws - not in terms of hot and cold equity of course, but in terms of post-draw bluffing leverage if villain is able to bluff the river with even close to good frequencies.
Post-draw, silly bet-sizing by villain since he should be betting bigger to be allowing him to bluff with more frequency. As usual in these sort of spots, it doesn't matter a great deal what you do...

[pokerfan]

Agree 3 is a fold pre, but we have to call now.

1, we've drawn 2 so he can pat/bet anything, only checks back j/q type hands surely.
Deffo calling a post 3b too, I'm obv a lolstation though until we get some concrete on him.

[Honeybadger]

Agree 3 is a fold pre, but we have to call now.

Yes I guess I'd call too, just due to the small bet size and fact that I am a sucker for a good price. But I don't agree we 'have to' call now. In reality, it won't really matter what we do in the long run in these spots. Calling is always going to have an EV close to 0, which basically means it is the same as folding.

1, we've drawn 2 so he can pat/bet anything, only checks back j/q type hands surely.

Yes that's the reason we should bet... when we check and he bets we are favourite to have the worst hand, since he will check back Qs and Js quite a bit... which means we are only beating Ts and his absolute worst 9s (our 9 is a shitty one obv). Whereas if we bet he is calling with all his Qs and Js. So we should bet because it is the line that gets money into the pot vs the weakest parts of his range.

[SuuPRlim]

Very much agree with everything ppl have said r.e hand 1) betting over c/r or c/c, makes a lot of sense, felt at the time like a hand that I could never fold to one bet EVER but when i checked and he bet I kind of wanted to raise but the knew my hand wasn't good enough - so surely that makes the hand an auto-lead right?? without some game-flow/strategic alteration to my play.

I really don't get the stand pat in hand 2 though, surely I can bluff just as easily with a 1draw and he's got a decent enough chance to outdraw me + I cant VB my hand and likely slightly ahead of him atm??? IT makes not a lot of sense to me heads up when a 1card draw is still pretty strong surely??

HAnd 3 I get it all now yes, im OOP so am forced t stand pat (my hand is virtually unbreakable anyway) and his 4 best cards are almost defo 2-7 so im gonna be forced to play a REALLY face up hand passively OOP, which is defo one of the worst ways to play poker possible. DO we all llke the 3bet to 3bet fold? I saw him 3bet a hand similar once which is basically why i did it the guy seemed kinda shrewd lol

Thanks ev everyone! Interesting game this one

[Honeybadger]

Very much agree with everything ppl have said r.e hand 1) betting over c/r or c/c, makes a lot of sense, felt at the time like a hand that I could never fold to one bet EVER but when i checked and he bet I kind of wanted to raise but the knew my hand wasn't good enough - so surely that makes the hand an auto-lead right?? without some game-flow/strategic alteration to my play.

Yep that's pretty much it Dave.

I really don't get the stand pat in hand 2 though, surely I can bluff just as easily with a 1draw and he's got a decent enough chance to outdraw me + I cant VB my hand and likely slightly ahead of him atm??? IT makes not a lot of sense to me heads up when a 1card draw is still pretty strong surely??

Yes, there are benefits to breaking - but this would be much more interesting if we could break the Q to draw to something smooth.

HAnd 3 I get it all now yes, im OOP so am forced t stand pat (my hand is virtually unbreakable anyway) and his 4 best cards are almost defo 2-7 so im gonna be forced to play a REALLY face up hand passively OOP, which is defo one of the worst ways to play poker possible. DO we all llke the 3bet to 3bet fold? I saw him 3bet a hand similar once which is basically why i did it the guy seemed kinda shrewd lol

One of the key points about hand 3 is that all the energy of the hand - the bluffing leverage - lies with the drawing hand when it is facing a very rough pat hand. Depending on card duplication, the draw will have up to 18 outs. Whilst this makes it a dog in terms of hot and cold equity, it can actually become favourite if the player knows how to balance his bluffs on the end competently.

To understand this, imagine the hands are face up - I realise this is unrealistic, but stay with me and you'll see where I am going with this:

You have your shitty T low, and villain knows this. Villain has a draw to a 7632, and you know this - and thus you also know that you are a favourite to have the best hand post-draw. Villain has 17 outs (I think... I might have miscounted because I am doing this quickly through lack of time - even if I have miscounted it doesn't matter since it is the principle that is important not the exact figures). There are 42 unseen cards. This means that villain will have the best hand after the draw 17 times, and will have the losing hand 25 times. However, if villain bets the pot then he is allowed to have 1 bluff for every 2 value bets, which means he can bet as a bluff 8.5 times - let's call it 8 times for ease - and your EV of calling is 0, the same as the EV of folding. So if villain bets every time he hits one of his outs, and also bets as a bluff whenever he hits (say) a K or a Q (i.e. a further 8 outs) then he is able to bet post draw 25 times out of 42 draws. And when he bets your EV of calling is 0, which is exactly the same as the EV of folding. Which means that you have 'lost the pot' whenever villain is able to bet after the draw, regardless of whether you actually call and win or not. If your EV is 0 and there is money in the pot, then you have lost the pot - and the entire pot is now villains. So villain's draw 'wins the pot' 25 times out of 42, making him a favourite. Does this make sense?

So villain is actually a ~60/40 favourite with his draw provided he knows how to bluff on the end with approximately the right frequencies. Obviously, if villain is capable of overbetting the pot then the situation is even worse for you since he is now allowed to have a higher percentage of bluffs in his range whilst still making your call on the end have an EV of 0.

Obviously this is all theoretical, since we do not play with both hands exposed. But simplifying a spot like this in order to look at how the underlying maths works is very useful as a starting point in understanding such situations. It gives us an insight into what is going on with the equities/leverage points that we can then use as a frame of reference in the more complicated situations which arise when actually playing proper poker.

And of course, the fact that the hands are not exposed does not exactly make things better for us. In fact, it makes things worse! Because very obviously, when villain 3bets predraw we do not know that he is still drawing. He could very well be pat, in which case we have 0% equity (I assume he is not going to 3bet and then pat a worse hand than ours). So basically, we are going to have 0% equity a good chunk of the time (when he is pat), and then be a slight playing dog the rest of the time (when he is drawing). The old adage is to fold when your hand is either a small favourite or a big dog. Well in this case your hand is either a small dog or a HUGE dog.

I have typed this quickly and I haven't been able to explain it as well as I would have liked. But I hope it makes sense. If not, I can clarify it later on. As I said before, if I have miscounted something in my haste it does not really matter since this is a theory thing about GTO bluffing frequencies so the exact numbers do not matter (you can apply the same principle with different numbers and see that it still works).

[Honeybadger]

I want to give a further, more extreme illustration of the concept of GTO bluffing leverage. Even if you never intend to play any game other than NLHE you can still learn a lot from reading through what follows if you are not yet fully aware of how the maths behind optimal bluffing frequencies works. Using a game like 2-7 single draw (or something like lowball stud) makes it so much easier to explain the concepts involved since they apply in a very pure sense in these sort of games. It does not matter if you never intend to play these games - it is the concepts that matter, and once you have understood them in a simple form through looking at a game like 2-7 it becomes possible to apply them to NLHE. When I first looked at this sort of theory (first through reading the Theory of Poker and Pot Limit and No Limit Poker many years ago, and then more recently through having theory coaching with Matt Janda from Cardrunners) it smacked of witchcraft. If you have never thought about this stuff before then perhaps it will have the same eye-opening effect on you.

Imagine you are playing HU 2-7 lowball draw. Betting is pot-limit. You both have £2000 stacks and each have to post a blind of £50, meaning there is £100 in the pot to start with. The only other condition is that both your hands are dealt face up predraw. Any drawn cards are dealt face down.

You are dealt a pat JT984. Your opponent is dealt Q7432. You are a 52/48 favourite to have the best hand after the draw. And you know this, since you can see both hands. But if your opponent bets the pot you MUST FOLD! How can this be? You can see his hand and know you are a small favourite, yet still must fold??!! This must be wrong, surely? Well, let me explain...

To understand this you need to look at what happens post draw.

Your opponent has the following outs:

4 5s
4 6s
3 8s
3 9s
3 Ts
3 Js

Which means he has 20 outs from 42 unseen cards to make the best hand.

On the end, opponent will always bet if he hits one of these 20 cards. But he can also choose to bluff with some frequency.

Let's imagine that he adopts the following strategy: He bets the pot with all his outs, plus exactly 10 other cards. So for example, he can choose to bet as a bluff whenever he hits an A, K, or 4 - that is 10 'bluffing outs'. If he follows this strategy then you CANNOT 'win the hand' once he bets, even if he tells you exactly what strategy he is using. When he bets your EV is 0 whether you call or fold. And if there is money in the pot and your EV is 0 then this means that your opponent has 'won the pot' - regardless of what actually happens.

30 times out of 42 your opponent is able to bet and 'win the pot', no matter whether you call or fold. That is almost 75% of the time. Which means that you are actually almost a 3 to 1 dog in the hand pre-draw. You are only getting 2 to 1 on your call if opponent bets the pot pre-draw. Which is why you must fold if he bets.

Just to make things clear... if stacks were shorter then this would all change. For example, imagine that stacks are only £100 after the blinds have been posted. Now your opponent will check predraw, and you should will set him in for the £100 and thus guarantee a very small equity edge (52/48) in a £300 pot. You have deprived him of any betting leverage on the end and thus have become a tiny favourite. But let's imagine a more complicated situation. Imagine effective stacks after posting the blinds are £400. Now your opponent must check because if he makes the mistake of betting you can simply set him in and take away his post draw leverage. And when your opponent checks YOU MUST CHECK BEHIND! Because if you bet he will simply call, leaving exactly a pot-sized bet left post draw - and all that has happened is that you have created a pot 3 times the size that you are going to 'lose' almost 75% of the time.

As I said before, if you have not thought about this sort of stuff before it will likely seem utterly crazy. But honestly it is correct. And if you spend a bit of time going through the maths and creating other examples you will eventually learn to understand intuitively how this sort of stuff works.

[buffyslayer1]

nice analysis Honey ^^^^

I play some triple draw and have played a little nl single draw. Your analysis is nice but, there are some flaws

1) Villains dont play GTO at all if close
2) Cards are not dealt face up so with your weak pat hand you can certainly turn it into a bluff in some spots and rep a better hand, espcially if we know villain goes for thin value

[SuuPRlim]

Stunning stuff Stu tyty

with regards again to hand 2, and this guy might just have been no good at the game but he seemed decent to me, he had 3bet before on two occasions and drawn once 1 he had like T653 or something and the other he had 9743 or something like that, i'm not alltogether sure how he was deciding that these hands were 3bets because im fairly certain he flatted with hands of a similar ilk before - maybe in a heads up NL game you NEED to be playing with a certain level of aggression and he's decided that the kind of rough 9/T draws are the best hands to use as (gonna say light but don't REALLY MEAN light because he's likely to have a slightly better hand) "light" 3bets. This seems like a reasonable enough strategy if that's indeed what he was doing, bbut ofc I don't know (!) cos i don't fully get the game and im not a mind reader

Is he bluffing or value-raising on the end in that hand? seemed like a wierd kind of merge I think I'd have folded a LOT of the time but obviously im still learning and for $60 I wanted to see what he had

Also in single raised pots in position i was betting $20 on the end into $45 as a "stnd" on reading what stu's written then that is a mistake yh?? I noticed he was mixing it up between $40 and $20 which I found odd and idk easy enough to play against as $20 always seemed to be a thin-ish valuebet (I stationed him off a few times to see and bluff raised a few) I don't really know exactly why I was betting $20 either although i'd like to hope I had a reason at the time !

[Honeybadger]

nice analysis Honey ^^^^

I play some triple draw and have played a little nl single draw. Your analysis is nice but, there are some flaws

1) Villains dont play GTO at all if close
2) Cards are not dealt face up so with your weak pat hand you can certainly turn it into a bluff in some spots and rep a better hand, espcially if we know villain goes for thin value

The analysis is not 'flawed'. It is what it is, that's all. Obviously I realise that we don't actually play poker with our cards exposed and I also realise that most opponents are not GTO. That's not the point though. I gave a simplified model of a situation in order to demonstrate a principle in a very clear and pure form. This is the best (only?) way of explaining, and learning, this type of concept. A simplified model allows us to look at how the underlying maths works, and build our conceptual understanding. This can then be adapted to more realistic situations

It is the same as, for example, using a toy game to demonstrate polarised betting ranges.

[buffyslayer1]

nice analysis Honey ^^^^

I play some triple draw and have played a little nl single draw. Your analysis is nice but, there are some flaws

1) Villains dont play GTO at all if close
2) Cards are not dealt face up so with your weak pat hand you can certainly turn it into a bluff in some spots and rep a better hand, espcially if we know villain goes for thin value

The analysis is not 'flawed'. It is what it is, that's all. Obviously I realise that we don't actually play poker with our cards exposed and I also realise that most opponents are not GTO. That's not the point though. I gave a simplified model of a situation in order to demonstrate a principle in a very clear and pure form. This is the best (only?) way of explaining, and learning, this type of concept. A simplified model allows us to look at how the underlying maths works, and build our conceptual understanding. This can then be adapted to more realistic situations

It is the same as, for example, using a toy game to demonstrate polarised betting ranges.

ok maybe flawed was wrong term, but we make a exploitative adjustment because a) villain wont play gto and b) because of the hidden infomation we can rebluff/turn our hand into a bluff him if he is even close to exploit us.

And point b) u didnt count in ur gto analysis as far as i could see. which makes it more complicated than he we will out draw us x % of the time and bluff x % to make our weak pat hand a neutral ev proposition at best

so yes what u say is true to some extent but doesnt mean u can apply it here

fwiw i didnt look at the hands as they are not particularly interesting just ur post really