Quote:
Originally Posted by jlocdog
Nice post.
I agree that AQ (and to a much lesser extent, AJs) is a hand that could be emulated in this exact fashion. I guess my trepidation with weighting them as much as I have AA/KK is the whole setup of the drunk MP getting in the mix with the BTN tagging along, creating the dynamic where he can reliable count on you, the BTN, to sufficiently manipulate the situation using your position and the drunk MP to his advantage by taking the line he has taken. Allowing himself to be put in the middle of the betting along with giving the drunk MP the opportunity to either trap or close the action on betting rounds almost ensures he sticks around from street to street.
As for thinking we can profitably deduce what percentage (see:the opportune time) to call/fold the river, needing ~16% equity to make the call, I'm not sure I agree. I think we probably have a better chance of being correct in a game theory sense by choosing one option always over the other given the hefty odds at stake and the human error involved in injecting "feel/sense".
At face value it would seem that if we got raised after calling, it would seem to be a trivial fold as the assumption being he couldn't make the play without the KK/AA. But with him being the caliber player he is, coupled with the fact that it could infact be more profitable to just flat behind the MPs river shove in an attempt/justification that the UTG is more likely to come along given the low bar the MP may be setting, and we now delve into the world of the UTG thinking along these lines allowing more flexibility in everyones range by the river and thus getting cute.
Think about it. Most everyone in the thread says we can call/fold the river facing such tremendous odds. The UTG can get cute if for no other reason then to need us to fold such a marginal amount of time in order for the play to pay off (and this speaks nothing of boosting his image as a sicko/tough player that will follow him around as the hand gets recited throughout the room, that will ultimately pay dividends moving forward).
initial note for clarity: i misinterpreted the stack sizes in my previous post, and for some reason thought there was an additional 4k behind the potential 2400 that V1 could put in. shorter stack sizes are beneficial to us, however, since it simply reduces the amount V1 can leverage his polarity advantage, so i stand by the conclusion that we need to call at least once.
re: what to do facing a V1 all-in: i think my last post was unclear. im not suggesting we should try to get into some leveling war/ try to pick what we think hes thinking. i think we can say okay, idk what this guy is thinking and ill call x% of the time at the mdf, and ill look at my watch to randomize. but i also think that it just doesn't make that big of a difference, and its not going to push the needle on the initial call/fold decision. even when we make a mistake by calling/folding to the all-in too much/little, it doesnt change the ev of the initial decision enough to make us want to change our decision. ill also point out that the analysis i did above accounts for us losing ev to his shove by allowing him to bluff. i basically think that focusing on what to do vs the all-in is losing the forest for the trees a little bit. if you believe he is likely to do this with {AA,KK, some AK, some Ax}, its very likely you should call the first time basically no matter what you are going to do later. if you think he would take this line only with AA/KK, then you can fold. so imo the question is which range is more accurate, not whether he will/can bluff later.
as for results, you really cant draw too much info imo. i think it makes range 2 slightly more likely to be right than before, but i still think range 1 is better based on what we know. in reality we should weight the likelihood of these ranges, but that going to be just as much guesswork and not provide more accuracy. either way its good that OP is introspective enough to question his play even when he got shown AA.
this:
Quote:
(and this speaks nothing of boosting his image as a sicko/tough player that will follow him around as the hand gets recited throughout the room, that will ultimately pay dividends moving forward)
is also a pretty interesting topic. its a good reminder that ev is measured wrt a time frame, so if you are measuring outside of the time frame of a single hand, its possible for ev not to be zero-sum among the players in the hand. he could be correct to bluff "too much" and essentially ship us a portion of his image ev when we call "too much."