Home Articles Books Coaching Free Stuff About

The No-Limit Toolbox — The Flop Overbet Semibluff

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

Simple Poker Tips from Noted Poker Authority The No-Limit Toolbox is a new series that showcases the array of tactics available to no-limit players.

The Play: The Flop Overbet Semibluff

How It Works: You flop a draw. Your opponent bets, and you move all-in as a semibluff.

The Play In Action: You’re in the big blind in a $2-$5 game with $900. Everyone folds to the button, who opens for $15. He has about $200 remaining. You call with the K :club: J :club: . The flop comes A :club: 9 :diamond: 4 :club: giving you the nut flush draw. You check, and your opponent bets $30. You move all-in for $170 more.

Why It’s Good: Fold equity combined with winning chances if called. By moving all-in, you force your opponent to have a hand or fold. Indeed, many players might fold hands as strong has top pair/weak kicker to the all-in, assuming that you likely have at least top pair with a better kicker. Since it’s uncommon your opponent will have better than top pair/weak kicker, your bluff will work a significant percentage of the time. If called, your draw still gives you solid winning chances. The combination of your fold equity and equity when called make it a profitable play.

When It Works: The Flop Overbet Semibluff is stack size sensitive. It works best when the all-in raise will be roughly 1 to 2 times the size of the pot. In the above example, the semibluff raise was $170, and the pot at the time was $90, so the raise was slightly less than twice the pot size. This stack size is best because it is large enough to get many hands to fold, but not so large that it risks too much those times you happen to run into a good hand. It’s also the right size to look like a natural raise with a strong hand. For instance, in the above example, you might well play AK the same way on the flop (preflop call notwithstanding). You can perform the play with draws of varying quality: big combination flush and straight draws, ordinary straight or flush draws, draws on paired or otherwise scary draws, or even gutshots or just overcards. The weaker your draw, the more you should insist on appropriate stack sizes and a good chance to fold out your opponents.

When It Doesn’t Work: The Flop Overbet Semibluff doesn’t work as well when the stack sizes are out of the sweet range. If the stacks are too short, then you don’t get much fold equity as your opponent will be more willing to call you with a weak pair or even ace-high. If the stacks are too deep, then you risk too much to win too little. Your bet may also look peculiar, which could induce calls from some players with weak hands. (You can take advantage of this tendency by overbetting similarly with your sets.) When the stacks are too deep, avoid shoving with weak draws. And with good draws, sometimes you are better off simply calling, hoping to set your opponent up for a big pot if you make your hand.

Variations: Your all-in move need not be a raise or checkraise; you can open-shove on the flop as well. Sometimes that play is better if the pot is already in the sweet range, as letting your opponent bet may make the pot too large relative to your raise, cutting your chance to get a fold. And you can sometimes use the play on the turn, though it’s riskier since you have only one card left to hit your hand. With deep stacks, for instance, you might simply call on the flop with a very strong draw. Then if you miss on the turn, you make an all-in raise. Playing it that way could ensure your raise is in the sweet range for maximum effectiveness.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “The No-Limit Toolbox — The Flop Overbet Semibluff”

Chris
@ Mon Jul 02, 2007 04:34:20 PM
1

Nitpick: isn’t the pot in your example $60? ;-P

Ed Miller
@ Mon Jul 02, 2007 04:47:48 PM
2

It’s $90 after your flop call. The preflop pot is $15 + $15 + $2 (the $2 gets raked lets say). The flop bet is $30, and you call $30 and raise $170 more. So it’s a $170 raise into a $90 pot.

It’s a very reasonable way to view it, because you’re definitely at least calling the flop with the nut flush draw.

Ed Miller
@ Mon Jul 02, 2007 04:49:07 PM
3

BTW, in general when people say, “pot-sized raise,” they are similarly counting the amount needed to call as part of the pot when they calculate the raise size.

James
@ Mon Jul 02, 2007 05:49:20 PM
4

Are you sure about your last definition, Ed? I could be wrong, but I’ve always seen the size of the pot defined as the size of the pot when it gets to you.

James
@ Mon Jul 02, 2007 05:55:45 PM
5

Looking at the language more closely, I’m guessing that you’re looking at it from the perspective of the opponent, who will need to call $170 to win a $90 pot. But normally, when I think of a PSR, if the pot is $60 when it gets to me, I will bet $60 for a PSR. Semantics, I suppose. I still like the example and love this series, so please carry on, Ed. Looking forward to the new book.

BTR
@ Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:20:58 PM
6

Pot limit games define a pot sized raise as a call + a bet the size of the pot after the call.

SidMaynard
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 07:32:39 AM
7

James, I don’t think it is semantics, as the difference in your definition has a significant impact on the odds you would be setting your opponent.

In the example above, Ed would bet $120 total for a PSR, meaning the villain had to pay $90 into a $180 pot. Whereas you state you would bet $60 for a PSR raise meaning the villain had to pay $30 into a $120 pot.

That’s a big difference in pot odds, which is why you look at the size of your raise as the bet your opponent will be facing. In the above example, your PSR would only be a min raise, which I’m sure you wouldn’t do.

Greyzy
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 08:27:26 AM
8

I never really thought about this definition before, but including the “call-part” of your bet makes sense, now that you mention pot odds. By this definition a PSR lays 2-to-1. ALWAYS! And that’s probably why PL exists as a middle-way between NL and limit: put a cap to how “bad” the odds are that you can possibly lay.

Just my 2 cents. ;-)

James
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 12:37:21 PM
9

I thank you guys for the clarification, and I will use your definition of “call + a bet the size of the pot after the call” from now on as PSR.

Will
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 03:54:03 PM
10

Hi there,

I’ve been thinking about this move lately and doing some rough theoretical calculations to help me justify the move as a +EV move in my head.

My question is, as this seems to be a play that what I’m assuming can be quite high variance, I’m just wondering what size bankroll you should have before you incorporate it as a standard part of your strategy?

I’m not sure how to go about calculating something like this or I would do it myself.

Will.

Ed Miller
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 04:01:53 PM
11

Will,

My thoughts on your question are more or less expressed by this post:

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/qa/qa-76-stop-waiting-for-better-spots-to-get-your-money-in.html

I don’t think this is a particularly “high variance” play, at least not compared to many other good no-limit plays. If you are playing so high compared to your bankroll that you are constantly thinking about how not to get stacked, I think you should move down or buy in for less in your current games.

Will
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 04:22:42 PM
12

I’ve read that yeah and I understand what you’re saying.

I was just assuming that due to it being quite possible to run poor and miss your draws more often than the expected percentage and the possibility of not getting a fold as often as you would expect in general then you could, in theory, be down a quite a few BI due to this play, in the short term.

I’m not that worried about my BR as I’m still playing micro. Just thought that I would inquire about your thoughts. I guess I’m being a bit weak and thinking about what I could lose rather than what I could win.

Thanks for your reply anyway. Will.

Ilkka Kokkarinen
@ Tue Jul 03, 2007 04:38:55 PM
13

Is this pretty much the technique of “Big Online Winner” described by Phil Gordon in the Green Book?

I had some problems with it, at least the way it was described as “unbeatable” in Gordon’s book, and wrote about it in my post “Add it up“. Namely, when you mix up your play in that you go all-in with draws and flopped sets so that your opponent’s don’t know which one it is this time, draws are more common than sets since you can have a set in 3 different ways, but a draw in perhaps 6 to 16 ways, depending on whether it is suited.

Bill Tucker
@ Thu Jul 05, 2007 01:25:35 PM
14

This may be too broad a question, but I would like to see something written on defining bets;i.e. situations, size of bet, which streets,interpretation of action that follows. If you can refer me to sources in any books, I would appreciate it.

Bill

James
@ Wed Jan 09, 2008 09:55:37 PM
15

Just felt compelled to say that I just found this site and I’m astonished at how good it is. Nice one Ed

16

[...] fevereiro 11, 2008 The No-Limit Toolbox – The Flop Overbet Semibluff [...]

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>