Even if they're going to have a better hand that you more of the times they call?

so developing good habits is only useful once you're playing mid stakes?

Right, your hand is overrepped but the board isn't scary enough for 77-TT, Jx, etc to fold. We're getting value from 5x, possibly 22 and 3x but is it enough to outweigh the self-value-ownage against better hands?

One good scenario we can talk about is A5 calling in the BB and the next player folding 88 because overcalling feels gross. But that might be wishful thinking, so we're back to asking can we really beat 3 players the majority of the time?

No, but within the context of this hand, I don't think it's particularly pertinent.

Rob, what range do you put these guys on?

I'm not good at coming up with a specific range of hands, but I think such mentioned hands hero beats but might call as A3, 65, etc, are a smaller part of their ranges than either better hands that will call (eg AJ, 88, 77) or worse hands that will not (eg AQ, KT, A7s).

so we only need to work on our core poker concepts once we hit mid stakes or once we're in a hand where its really important?

you dont think that meaningless low level hands are exactly where these things should be worked out so we have a better understanding when we get in an important hand? As a general practice you should be considering what your perceived range is several times a hand no matter on how trivial it seems.

Fine, I can get behind that.

I still think we have a value bet, regardless of how low we are here in our perceived range.

I think you're drastically understating the # of 3's and 5's in these people's ranges. Many of them will limp ATS in this spot. They're far more likely to have reached the river with a 3 than you think. And they're also far more likely to call with it.

OP did make it sound like a fairly tight game in my reading, and even if a lot of 3s are played, I don't think they are always going to call with bottom pair on two big bet streets.

if your willing to check AK for showdown value aspects 66 is probably bet fold here.

it is a call at best pre unless hands have been going off 5+ ways regularly then its still probably a call..

A3 has a straight draw so the first call is automatic.

"Get caught" barreling AK UI once in your lifetime and they will call any pair any board forever and ever.

Almost any hands that called preflop for two bets in this size pot are going to peel the flop. Any hand with any piece, including the Ace highs which also have the gutshot may call the turn; I agree any pair and gutshot combo is obviously going to call turn. I just think the hands that call on the river are much smaller, and they are heavily weighted to the hands that beat hero.

I guess I read this slightly different. I don't know how you cns call prelfop terrible given then reads.

You are correct. Betting the river is flat out terrible level 1 poker. And I don't think this is that hard to demonstrate.

For those at home, plug in a reasonable range for a tight BB's river calling range, then plug in a reasonable river calling range for a "relatively wide" MP opener, then do the same for the "lol coldcaller". Use simple hand reading to weed out hands by the river.

I'll do the work for you guys if you want:



Notes:

BB can't have 5-6o here, 5-7s, 4-6s? A3o seems reasonable, why isn't that included. Even if bb plays somewhat tight id still expect most 4-8 players to defend all of these multways pre. Obv the stove looks terrible if we fail to include lots of reasonable hands that we beat.

Maybee BB folds and MP opener has AK and decides to call river with AK/AQ unimproved. I played a hand yesterday where i cold 3 bet a Q-5-9 flop, bet turn and river and got called and overcalled on river by AK. Let them come up with reasons to call you with worse (and they will)

BB is presumed tight. Tight players do not call with those hands out of the BB after a raise and a 3bet. I think that's a pretty reasonable approximation. Also, 4x suited connectors can't be there due to BB not taking an aggressive action on turn or river (again I think that's a safe approximation).

For you, I'll put in some suited connectors in BB's river calling range (65s, 75s, 85s, and 53s). I think BB playing A3o or 56o after that preflop action is too absurd to consider from a presumed tight player so I'm still leaving those out.

I'll put in AK undiscounted in MP's range for you. This is equivalent to including 50% of AK/AQ combos.

Ok here's how hero looks now:

I like the ranges you've constructed as the hands that will call on the end, but it is very unlikely all 3 of the other players will have a hand that will call the river, and you haven't included the hands that will fold, so I'm not sure how to interpret this information.

Since you've left out the hands they fold, hero will definitely have more equity than your results show, but I don't see how this tells me if hero should bet or not. If you included the hands they will fold I don't think that would tell us either though.

What we need is some kind of ratio of hands that will call and beat hero to hands that will pay off, combined with the chance that hero has the absolute best hand of the four. If one worse hand calls but a better hand also calls, the river bet is still bad.

I think these players are seeing a river with any two overs. With three opponents, I think there's a jack out there often enough to check. They'll also occasionally show up with some overpair that they just decided to k/c the whole way.

I think I'd bet if it was only three ways.

There is no point in including "the hands that will fold" to our river bet so I excluded those hands*. We're trying to figure out if hero has a profitable value bet or not so all that matters is the "ratio of hands that will call and beat hero to the hands that will pay off", and my ranges in equilab are an approximation of that.

So what percentage equity in your simulation would be necessary for hero to have a value bet?

I see what you're getting at. Actually figuring out if we have a profitable value bet here vs 3 opponents is a very complicated math problem. Some reasons why that is:

1) The ranges aren't independent. I.E. if BB calls our river bet that takes out combos of hands that MP or the fish will call with.

2) MP's overcalling range will be significantly tighter than his calling range.

3) Even the fish's overcalling range or double overcalling range will be tighter than his "I'm the only guy left, I gotta see it" calling range.

The best way to view my equity calcs is: as a guide to making a pretty good educated guess as to whether or not hero has a profitable value bet. Based on those numbers I feel confident assuming hero is burning money betting against 3 opponents on the river.

Some further remarks, not addressed to you, but just regarding this hand:

1) Intuitively speaking one should be able to surmise that hero is an underdog against a tight BB's river calling range or MP's river calling range. If one can't do this they need to seriously work on their hand reading/range analysis.

2) My equilab numbers would work perfectly vs 1 opponent. If we have greater than 50% equity vs an opponent's river calling range then we should always bet under the assumption that our opponent will never check/raise bluff. And we need greater than 66.67% equity to turn a profit on a value bet if we're always calling a check/raise.

What if we decided to ignore card removal affects, and assume overcalling ranges will not be tighter and that will never get check-raised here? That should simplify the scenerio a lot, but I'm still not sure what percentage we should be looking for here.

The reason they won't call is because you won't bet.

Seriously.

I'm not sure some of you guys are even understanding my point. I'm not denying people will call with hands you beat. But they will also call with hands you don't beat, of which I believe there are more. Is this point somehow making it through? I haven't even seen anyone try to refute it.

I realize I haven't exactly provided data to back up my point, but it seems hardly anyone is even admitting that it is a valid question to consider. Like, they could have a pair of 3s or 5s, and will probably call with it, so you must bet, not even considering the hands they will call with that you lose to.