First thing to state is that the EV of the two lines in my model is very close, less than 50 cents. I've tested slightly different assumptions and "raise flop" always seems to come out slightly ahead. But the differences are small enough that simplifications or mistaken estimations of SB's range could shift the conclusion towards calling. Perhaps significantly, I haven't accounted for the possibility of him semi-bluff raising the turn after I raise the flop. Plus the model doesn't take metagame factors into account, i.e. the implications of raise/folding the flop on my image and how it affects his play against me.
Originally Posted by Nick C
I'm having trouble seeing why this is. You say that in your model you have him 3-betting gutters and strong flush draws, after which you fold. This part of the equation seems like a great result for him (he wins 1 BB on the flop, plus the preflop pot, with a hand that had ~50% equity).
If I'm understanding correctly, you have Villain just calling with the OESDs and weaker flush draws. Which is fine -- you're creating a model in which Villain does not always play draws the same way. But, in terms of results, I'm not seeing the value here either. Villain is calling your raise with ~50% equity. Overall, when Villain has a draw that's a gutter or better, it seems like his net result versus a raise-fold is better than his net result versus a call.
I misstated things slightly - in my first version of the model I had SB calling the raise with gutshots. I changed that to 3-betting with gutshots to see how much worse raise/folding could become as it occurred to me that raise/folding could leave me open to getting owned by hands that are equity underdog. Notably, even gutshots have about 42% equity versus my hand. The raise/fold line still seems to be more profitable than calling.
I'm unclear myself as to where the value is coming from in the "raise flop" line. You're right that SB is calling with about 50% on the flop. Assuming he raises TP+ on the turn (in response to which I fold) and calls with any pair or draw, he's calling the turn with about 63% equity. I think the value's due to the fact that I'm getting more money in against the weaker parts of his range in addition
to the money that's already in the pot.
In the "call flop" line of the model, I've got SB betting the turn 100%, which may not be realistic but does increase the EV of calling the turn. On the river he's checking if there's an A on the board and he doesn't have one. Otherwise he's betting all pairs and some bluffs, and checking everything else in which case I check behind. Even if he only bets MP+ and bluffs, the EV of raising the flop is higher (by all of 10 cents).
At the same time, I'm wondering if a LAGTAG holding 7h6h does not in fact sometimes peel one off or even occasionally 3-bet.
I've been away from the games since Black Friday and in that sense am not to be trusted, but it does strike me that you do have Villain playing a little more "honest" in your model than I recall encoutering vs. LAGTAG's at 2/4. It seems like the airball bet/3-bet should at least be accounted for, although in what proportion, I don't know.
Well if he peels 7h6h it's +EV for me. I don't think there's much incentive for him to 3-bet junk hands like that. He has 133 combos of Qx+ on the flop. When he 3-bets, I'm getting 9:1. So he should be value-3-betting approximately 9 times as often as he bluffs (more because there are cards to come but let's just go with that). Point is there are 15 combos of Ax, Kx flush draws in his range and 78 combos of gutshots. Assuming he's 3-betting all those value hands and draws, he's 3-betting 32% of the time.