Is it possible they have 99? Sure. Is it as likely as there are combos of 99? No.

Is it possible that they have AJo? Sure. Is it as likely they're going to check-call as there are combos? No.

In isolation, is checking behind EV+? Yes. In isolation, is it the most EV+ play? I don't think so. I admit it may be close.

Taking a step back, is it better to be the guy who's known for checking behind with winners all the time or the guy who's known for betting too much? The latter by far. People at these stakes call WAY TOO MUCH. You bet? They call. You raise? They call. You 3-bet? They call.

And what happens when you bet and they call with QJo? It just reinforces them in all the ways beneficial to you. They call more because you're always "bluffing" (betting anything less than TPGK is "bluffing"). They say things like, "Why bet when you're going to do all the betting for me?" They think because you 3-bet 66 in position and barrelled 543-4-J, that when you 3-bet UTG+1 and barrel with 2 coldcallers behind on a J53-4-4 board you might also have 66.

Well here's one approach. Using ranges in my response to Jon Locke, and taking out 66 from all opponents to make the math easier:

Against BB, we are a 42.31% underdog when called.

Against MP, we are a 48.20% underdog when called (this number is a lot higher than it should be since MP is not overcalling with AK and may not even call with that hand).

Against the fish, we are a 70.59% favorite when called. If we include J7s, J6s, J5s, J3s and J2s to make my range more consistent that number drops significantly, to 62.61%.

Notice in our unrealistic hypothetical where overcalling ranges are the same as calling ranges (and we ignore card removal), our river bet will make 3BB's (.4231 x.4820 x.7059) = 14.4% of the time. We will lose 1BB (1-.144) = 85.6% of the time. Ignoring all other scenarios (which makes this analysis kinda absurd but whatev), that's an EV of -.856BB + (.144 x 3) = -.424BB

And of course the above begs the question: what about all the other permutations, eg when BB folds, MP calls and fish calls, or when BB folds, MP folds and fish calls, etc. Well to factor that in then we DO need to include the entire ranges that all these guys are taking to the river on this board so we can guesstimate how often they're folding on the river. Not an impossible task, but not a fun one either, and there's really no intellectual payoff either imo, since to me it was already intuitively obvious we should not value bet the river vs 3 opponents, and what little number crunching that has been done points towards that same conclusion.

Checking/calling down and praying is how typical rec players play 99s at 4-8, and again, one should not be surprised AT ALL when they run into TT's through QQs here too. So we should not discount 77-99s by much, and imo not discounting them at all and fully discounting TT-QQs approximates the combos wewill run into decently enough.

Again, check/calling down with AJ is how typical rec players will play that hand in this spot. So again, if we discount this holding at all, it should not be by much. I did however fully discount all other Jx combos, so that combined with not discounting AJ may have the same effect mathematically as including some discounted other Jx hands and discounting AJ a tad.


I don't think it's close at all.

I am on a short leash as the moderators here don't like me very much, but to put it nicely I think the above is a terrible way to think about this game at 4-8. Just make the right play. If one plays correctly they'll be making plenty of thin value bets that will create the same image youre talking about, under the dubious assumption that image is even relevant at this level.

Again, we will have plenty of opportunities to run into QJ in other scenarios where we are value betting correctly and run into the nuts. We don't need to burn money to capture this benefit. Seriously, I can't state this emphatically enough, correct play is so counter-intuitive and different from standard rec play that the few people who are actually paying attention will already think we have a few screws loose, so we don't need to "buy" more action.

lol

Like you said, calli, if you get caught barreling AKo one time that'll earn you money in future hands. But as a standard play, it's a bit expensive.

Metagame concerns aside, do we have the best hand often enough to value bet?

I don't think you get what I'm saying.

When you don't bet 66 here, people call more stronger hands and few weaker hands and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that you shouldn't bet 66 here.

When you bet 66 here, people donk more stronger hands (no it does not make sense but I think the idea is they're OK donk-calling and will kick themselves if you check AK behind) and call more weaker hands (AK! AQ?) and again it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that you should bet 66 here.

There are plenty of spots in limit holdem (even at 4-8) where it is correct to turn a pair into a bluff or Ace-high into a bluff. They don't come up often, but they come up often enough. So the idea of "barreling AKo one time" to "earn you money in future hands", is not necessary, especially at 4-8.

Assuming you accept the initial ranges I posted or the ranges I tweaked for Jon locke, then you can make a very safe deduction from those numbers that we DO NOT have the best hand often enough to value bet EVEN THOUGH those numbers do not "prove" that 66 is not a value bet.

The more interesting question now becomes this: Well then, what CAN we value bet profitably here?

There is some validity to this, but only if you are playing with the same players often, and they are the kind of players who pay attention to these kinds of things. The combo is very unlikely in most 4-8 games.

No, actually, it's more likely at smaller stakes games because of the huge difference in aggression, compared to the smaller difference in aggression at higher stakes.

That is, at smaller stakes, it's not unusual for you to be the only preflop 3-bettor for hours on end, and the only person to bet the river without the nuts. So you're perceived as a much bigger idiot than you actually are.

lol. as we've discussed both publicly in threads and via PM, this persecution complex isn't doing you any favors. i don't know you in real life and haven't formed any like/dislike opinion about you. at times i do dislike your posting style, which imo is overly combative, angry, and argumentative. you seem either unable or unwilling to accept/connect that when you post in a certain way i will respond in a certain way, but i'm not sure what else i can do about that.

your point is that people have handranges, right?

I have never had any issues posting on any forum of this site until this one. Whether it's me or my posting style, same difference. But either way, it's no big deal. I obviously strongly disagree with your characterization that I'm "overly combative, angry, and argumentative", and that's fine. There's nothing else you need to do. We don't need to see eye to eye on this. I'll make the necessary adjustments. As I've told you before (and ask anyone who knows me from the past, people like Leader, Deathdonkey come to mind) I am a very serious poster and I will not be a "problem" here.

No, his point is that others in this thread are not even considering the fact that people have hand ranges. And he was right.

Obviously those of us saying bet river are assigning a range to our opponents, otherwise how could we reach any conclusion as to the correct play?

Fwiw I still think ILP posts some of the best low-mid advice. If there was a SSSH Hall of Fame I'd nominate him and Oink. I credit ILP and theHip for getting me out of the low limit quagmire. He's usually spot on and when he isn't he still makes a damn good point. If we didn't allow overly combative posting styles I would never have made it to 100 posts

Because people do it all the time? Or you're assigning ranges incorrecting.

It seems to me that people are implicitly assigning ranges to the opponents, but not thinking hard enough about what they are, and ignoring the parlay of beating 3 of them. Also they are discounting strong hands way too much. I wouldn't be shocked to see someone check call this river and turn over KK or QQ, much less any bigger pocket pair than 66.

Yeah, this is the main difference between this hand and another one where we three-bet pre and somehow get it heads-up on the river. If HU, I'd buy into the value bet both for immediate value and for future "geez, this guy is an idiot, call him down always" value.

IMR

If the BB or the Fish turn over TT or QQ, one should not be shocked AT ALL. This is live 4-8 people.

+1



Maybe ILP posted mostly in SSSH. Little bit different over there.

Thanks for all the replies.

Did you get to see any of the other players's hands?