Quote:
Originally Posted by Noles1724
Thanks for the feedback guys I tried to make this as vague as possible so that it was hard to tell what I thought the answer should be but I was one of the players and this was not just a random recap of a hand I was not a part of.
That being said I agree that SB should have folded preflop, if nothing else when he called he said "I'll give you some action".
I thought for sure there was no way he could call the river seeing how every possible Ace imaginable should belong to me,the bet smelled of "value"..especially seeing his fake posture by putting remaining chips in front while I was assembling the river bet.. but none the less he called my bluff. I was shocked that the rest of the table thought I was not logical in thinking sb could think I had anything but an ace..I thought the story was completely believable but second guessed my thinking based on table chatter..hence this thread
What? BB is the one who raised, right? He has lots of Aces in his range. Many players at this level will raise any Ace, in which case that's 93 combos. More passive players tend to raise AK, AA, maybe AQ, in which case there are 7 combos.
Let's say he raises {QQ+, AK} like a lot of weak tights. In this case P(Ace) = 7/16 ~ .4375
If he is relatively solid he might raise {QQ-44, 22, AdAh, KdKs, KdKc, KsKc, 3h3s, 3h3c, 3s3c, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, AdKd, AdQd, AhQh, KdQd, KsQs, KcQc, AdJd, AhJh, KdJd, KsJs, KcJc, AdTd, AhTh, KdTd, KsTs, KcTc, Ad9d, Ah9h, Ad8d, Ah8h, Ad7d, Ah7h, Ad6d, Ah6h, Ad5d, Ah5h, Ad4d, Ah4h, Ah3h, Ad2d, Ah2h, AdKs, AdKc, AhKd, AhKs, AhKc, AdQh, AdQs, AdQc, AhQd, AhQs, AhQc, AdJh, AdJs, AdJc, AhJd, AhJs, AhJc}
In this case, P(Ace) = 40/135 ~ .296
If he's LAG and not positionally aware, he might raise as wide as {QQ-44, 22, AdAh, KdKs, KdKc, KsKc, 3h3s, 3h3c, 3s3c, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, AdKd, AdQd, AhQh, KdQd, KsQs, KcQc, AdJd, AhJh, KdJd, KsJs, KcJc, AdTd, AhTh, KdTd, KsTs, KcTc, Ad9d, Ah9h, Kd9d, Ks9s, Kc9c, Ad8d, Ah8h, Kd8d, Ks8s, Kc8c, Ad7d, Ah7h, Ad6d, Ah6h, Ad5d, Ah5h, Ad4d, Ah4h, Ah3h, Ad2d, Ah2h, QTo+, JTo, AdKs, AdKc, AhKd, AhKs, AhKc, AdQh, AdQs, AdQc, AhQd, AhQs, AhQc, AdJh, AdJs, AdJc, AhJd, AhJs, AhJc, AdTh, AdTs, AdTc, AhTd, AhTs, AhTc, Ad9h, Ad9s, Ad9c, Ah9d, Ah9s, Ah9c, Ad8h, Ad8s, Ad8c, Ah8d, Ah8s, Ah8c, Ad7h, Ad7s, Ad7c, Ah7d, Ah7s, Ah7c, Ad6h, Ad6s, Ad6c, Ah6d, Ah6s, Ah6c, Ad5h, Ad5s, Ad5c, Ah5d, Ah5s, Ah5c, Ad4h, Ad4s, Ad4c, Ah4d, Ah4s, Ah4c, Ad3h, Ad3s, Ad3c, Ah3s, Ah3c, Ad2h, Ad2s, Ad2c, Ah2d, Ah2s, Ah2c, KdQh, KdQs, KdQc, KsQd, KsQh, KsQc, KcQd, KcQh, KcQs, KdJh, KdJs, KdJc, KsJd, KsJh, KsJc, KcJd, KcJh, KcJs, KdTh, KdTs, KdTc, KsTd, KsTh, KsTc, KcTd, KcTh, KcTs, Kd9h, Kd9s, Kd9c, Ks9d, Ks9h, Ks9c, Kc9d, Kc9h, Kc9s}
In this case, P(Ace) = 93/270 ~ .344
But once he bets the flop, the probability he has an Ace goes up due to Bayes Theorem.
P(Ace | betflop) = P(betflop | Ace)*P(Ace)/P(betflop)
Let's look at the weak tight example for simplicity.
P(Ace) = .4375
P(betflop) is an estimation. How often does villain C-bet in other words? This is based on your reads, but most at this level don't C-bet when the miss enough, so let's say P(betflop) = .4
P(betflop | Ace) is also an estimation dependent on your read of villain, but most villain's will bet their Aces here given he has at least TPTK, but some will trap or play passively, so say P(betflop | Ace) = .7
Therefore P(Ace | betflop) = .7*.4375/.4 = .766
So, with these assumptions, villain has an Ace 76.6% of the time.
Making these calculations at the table is borderline impossible, so just remember this:
- Proportionately, the more villain's range contains Aces, the more he has an Ace after betting the flop.
- Proportionately, the more likely villain is to bet his Aces on this flop, as opposed to slowplaying or passively checking, the more he has an Ace after betting the flop.
- Inversely proportionately, the more villain C-bets all hands on this flop, the less likely he is to have an Ace
It's impossible to say how likely he is to have an Ace given you have listed no reads of the villain, but the general process to figure it out is to put him on a range, figure out the number of Ace combos and total number of combos, then estimate how aggressively he plays his Aces here, and how often he would C-bet this board in general, and use Bayes Theorem to arrive at a pretty accurate answer.
If he plays like a typical weak-tight, he probably has an Ace. If he plays LAG, he is somewhat less likely to have an Ace, and if he plays TAG, he is even less likely to have an Ace.
If you give me a read on villain's range, how often he C-bets on this flop, and how likely he is to bet an Ace here, I can do the calculations and figure this out more precisely.
----------------------------
By the way, running bad for 6 hours is nothing, and I'm not sure you were even running that bad.
For instance, how often should we hit a set per 6 hours? Well, you get a pocket pair every 17 hands. When your pocket pair gets to the flop, you will hit a set or better 1 in 8.5 times. So you should expect to hit a set every 145 hands or so. Say you're dealt 30 hands per hour. That's 180 hands.
P(set or quads) = 1 - (7/8.5)^(180/17) = .87
So 87% of the time you should get at least one set over six hours if you play ALL pocket pairs. So you ran a little bad regarding sets.
What about Aces? You get Aces once every 221 hands. You played about 180 hands and got Aces twice. So you ran good as far as getting Aces.
I'm not disputing you ran bad, but it's probably not as bad as you think. Due to the slow pace of the game and a general lack of understanding of probability, most players think they should be getting certain hands and connecting with the flop more often than they should.
So next time you run a little bad, don't sweat it. It's completely normal, and you should expect losing sessions pretty often no matter how good you are. Try not to let it bother you. Just focus on whether you played well and got the money in good.