i think you've included the same factor twice. 8.5% already takes into account the times we spike an A or J but lose. i think you got it by multiplying 13% by our equity against his range.

(EDIT: oh, i think what you meant is that if you c/r an ace or jack he will just fold his busted draws right? but i didn't even include the extra BB you can win by c/r'ing. i just assumed you always call down (so you win 2SB on the turn and 2SB on the river). in reality we can of course c/r and win even more, but that's somewhat offset by the times he gives up on his bluff on the river and the times he 3bets you.)

so i still think that 50% is an overestimation. my calculation shows that if you have 32% equity, you can call the flop if he gives up on about 30% of his bluffs on the turn.

but that's if you have 32%. in reality you probably have more, as he often bets his gutshots and sometimes even any two. if you have 37%, that's pretty close to what you need to call down if your opponent bluffs perfectly against the type of hand you hold (my calculation gave 38%)

also, you say if you c/c your hand is face up and your opponent can now bluff almost perfectly. but note that perfect bluffing means he pretty much never gives up on the turn. if that's what he does, then we have a very profitable delayed c/r with other hands in our range, i.e. we c/c the flop and c/r the turn. to avoid that our opponent is forced to distribute his bluffs in an imperfect manner against the weak showdownable type of hand that we hold. this lowers the equity requirement to call down from around 38% in the worst case scenario by at least a couple of percentage points even against a perfect GTO opponent.

This is factoring for the times we improve but do not win the extra bet.

Again, hot/cold ultimately has no correlation with what's going on here outside of a bet everything sim (all I did was abuse Pstove a bit to break down how often certain events occurred), and I should have stated that a bit differently. The biggest difference here is that your opponent's distribution changes on the flop, bumping up the % he holds a bluff. Running it through some custom software, if he bets a pair or better every single time and a gutshot or better draw every single time they drawing range is just under 50% of his distribution.You can sub 0.5 for the 0.4 in the original analysis and see what it spits out. There will certainly be a narrower "sweet spot" for your opponent to play in, but I don't imagine it will be all that constricting or out of tune with how I'd expect many opponents to play.

In any case, you can certainly fabricate scenarios where the play will be profitable (I'm not suggesting that your scenario is unreasonable, but what you think an opponent is likely to do is not really something that can be debated or discussed deductively) but the point is that it is not a profitable play based off what I assumed my opponent would be likely to do.

so you are not talking about c/r's? i thought you were because you mentioned something about getting 3bet. in any case, you made a mistake because you multiplied 0.085*0.83*(2+2) instead of 0.085*(0.83*2+2). also it seems that formula assumes he checks behind all 17% of his busted draws on the river, i.e. he never 3-barrels - am i understanding you correctly?


i'm not insisting that it has a lot to do with what's going on, it's just a way to state the result of my calculation. i'll formulate this result more exactly:

if your opponent's range is such that you will be ahead a certain x% of the time UI and you also have 6 outs to improve to a hand with about 70% equity, where x is such as to give you overall 38% equity, then if your opponent distributes his bluffs perfectly (except he doesn't know when you improved), you'll have a marginal call on the flop.

a short way of saying it is if you have 6 outs to improve to a hand that can still lose a fair portion of the time you need about 38% to call against a perfect opponent.

The assumption is that if you c/r the busted draw portion you don't win the river bets, so it's more or less a wash. The notation is incorrect, but the actual 0.1SB number is correct, since I entered 4 into my calculator.

I'd like for you to write that calculation out in full, if possible.

it's a pretty long calculation, so i'm afraid i won't be able to write it out in full, but let me sketch some details so that anyone interested would be able to reproduce it.

first of all, a couple of simplifying assumptions:

- we'll give an advantage to the villain by assuming that he actually knows which of his draws will come in. in other words, he knows in advance whether he's bluffing or value betting. this is a smaller advantage than might seem at first glance, but probably worth at least a percentage point in our equity.

- we'll assume the same minigame that you've constructed, i.e. we can just check and call. the villain will control what portion of his bluffs he gives up on various streets.

you can now check the following:

if for every 6 value-betting hands the villain has 2.48 bluffing hands and if whenever one of our 6 outs comes up on the turn we improve to a hand that now beats 3.456 of the abovementioned 6 hands then

- our overall equity is 39.085%
- if we improve our equity is 70%

now the best possible way for the villain to distribute his bluffs is to make you indifferent to calling a river bet UI and to make you indifferent to calling a turn bet UI. you can check that that implies he'd have to 3-barrel with 1 of his bluffing hands and 2-barrel with 0.961 of his bluffing hands.

the first statement is intuitively clear but can be checked by writing out a full system of equations with unknown 1,2,and 3-barreling frequencies and performing minimization with contstraints to find the best values of these frequencies.

the 3-barreling frequency i quoted is obvious based on the final pot size. the 0.961 figure for 2-barreling hands can be checked by evaluating the EV of calling and folding UI (so you can win either when he checks behind those 0.961 hands or by c/c'ing when he valuebets one of the 3.456 of the abovementioned hands).

the remaining 0.519 of his bluffing hands are by deduction 1-barrelers. given that the EV of calling a turn bet UI is 0 the way we set it up, it is now a simple matter to calculate the EV of calling the flop bet and folding the turn UI (since you are indifferent to calling or folding). what you will find is that this EV is 0.00029BB.

so to summarize: this shows that given that we have 6 outs to a 70% equity hand and our overall equity is 39.085%, we have a razor thin marginal call on the flop if the villain plays perfectly. the remaining question is how did i magically guess at this 39.085%? i did it by performing the minimization with constraints that i mentioned before.

Absolute Poker $15.00/$30.00 Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

Pre Flop: Hero is MP with J A
1 fold, Hero raises, CO calls, 3 folds

Flop: (2.833 BB) 7 4 6 (2 players)
Hero bets, CO raises, Hero calls

Turn: (4.833 BB) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets, Hero calls

River: (4.833 BB) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

without the bryce the thread is dead

Ha. The above hand is fine, though. Knowing villain's VPIP would be valuable, but most CO cold-callers have a much, much different range than the BB in the original question

revisiting this thread, i can see how the bryce was way ahead of the rest of us.

no chit right...thx for revisiting, this is the first time that i have seen it.

upping

Haven't played 6max in a while, but in tough, aggressive hu games checking the flop at least some of the time in position is mandatory.

I would also be very excited to play hu against some who check-folds AJo in that spot.

If the BB has a never 3 bet strategy you should check behind some flops. Mid-high card with backdoor draws or maybe a GS on low flops are good, this way you won't be folding the turn too, too much.

I think you need some pairs that can call the turn and some strong hands that can raise the turn in there also or you're still going to be folding like 80%.

True, we should have some pairs and possibly strong ones vs really tough opponents. I don't fold anywhere near 80 of my high card hands to turn donks though.