That's why I delayed my bluff. He plays in the games I do. They are extremely aggressive and against this particular opponent I knew I'd get more respect from a turn x/r. I've been experimenting with delaying more and I'm finding it to be profitable though the sample size is small.

Yea, and since the EV of xc and xr are similar in your sim, I'm assuming that the EV of checking intending to raise and the EV of checking intending to call are both similar to the overall EV of checking, which is 0.39. Would you agree, or am I overlooking something?

Disagree heavily. Most of the value of checking T4 on the flop is achieved when opponent checks back! We gain massive EV on free cards =D

Right. But what is your reasoning for favoring donking over checking with the intention of raising? It doesn't seem justified to me given your sim. The EV of both lines seems quite close using your numbers.

If a lot of the EV of checking comes from their check backs, then EV of XR is not similar to EV of donking... at all! It's much lower. T4 is obviously clearly worse once our opponent has bet.

On this flop, tons of hands in our range should be donking. This hand is squarely one of the hands I would donk often + check call the other times. I would never XR this hand on the flop (see posts above). I think it's a mistake.

I don't use EV at all to make decisions (it was just for another 2+2er's question) but the EV of donking > XC=XR and XR is too many bluffing combos. So (almost) never doing it is better strategically.

I think you are still not quite understanding my point or maybe we are just having a semantic issue.

The EV of checking the flop is equal to (EV when he bets) x (probability that he bets) + (EV when he checks) x (probability that he checks).

If we know the overall EV of us checking is 0.39 and we know that it doesn't much matter whether we check-raise or check-call when he does bet, then we should also know that the EV of us checking the flop with the intention of raising is equal to around 0.39. The 0.39 is already taking into account the fact that he is sometimes checking and sometimes he bets and we raise (or call...it doesn't matter).

I find this statement to actually be in line with the contention that the EV of checking with the intention of check raising is about the same as the EV of checking.

If we agree that the EV of checking is .39, then as long as we're not check folding, the EV of our check doesn't magically get slashed in half. It will be equal to the EV of a check-through plus the EV of either action we take after our opponent bets.

I follow Frankie's argument, and if it is incorrect, I would love to understand.

avoid, it was great meeting you a couple of weeks ago.

much love dude! <3



I cannot find another way to state it more simply than the following: Sorry!

You don't get to carry EV forward, every action (including opps) changes the EV of our decisions.

When we check, our EV is solid.
When he bets, it's bad for the EV of ten high.
When he checks, it's good for the EV of ten high.

The EV of our check has nothing to do with our XR EV; they are independent events.


For example: I cannot XR and say "the ev of my XR = the ev of my X" it's as goofy as saying "the ev of my bet/3bet = the ev of my bet"

-----------------
honestly, EV calcs don't really mean much and are totally useless at game speed. but yea =P

I agree with all of that, but this part makes me think:

that you're comparing the wrong expected values in choosing your lines. We should be comparing the ev check vs the ev bet. Then if and when the button bets, we should compare ev check raise vs ev check call.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

Decision 1) EV bet/Ev x
We check.

Result 1) He checks. = yay high EV for T4
Result 2) He bets. Now we have Decision 2) EV xr/EV xc

Yup.

There are two questions we could theoretically be asking:

Question 1: Given that it is our turn to act and we and our opponents will play GTO for the remainder of the hand (other than the following restrictions), what is the EV of donking and what is the EV of checking intending to raise 100%?

Let's call the EV of donking "A" and the EV of checking intending to raise "B"

Question 2: Given that we have checked the flop and our opponent has bet, what is the EV of check-raising the flop, assuming both players will play GTO for the rest of the hand?

Let's call this EV "C"

Ok. So if we are wondering what we should do on the flop when it is our turn to act, we can not compare A to C. We must compare A to B. B = C +D , where D is the EV gained when our opponent checks the flop.

Yes that's all right. But based on your EV numbers there is no basis for strongly favoring donking over checking intending to raise or checking intending to call. They are all roughly equal in EV. The only use for the .14 number is in comparing the EV of XR to XC once our opponent has bet. Once we know they are equal in EV, we can set both equal to 0.39 when deciding what to do one branch earlier on the tree. If you just compare 0.40 to 0.14, you aren't factoring in the nice little EV boost we get when he checks too. If the EV boost we get when he checks is greater than 0.14, than using 0.14 would be the absolute worst scenario where he never checks the flop.

*facepalming irl*

You could continue and add what happens after we donk and opponent raises (better analogy for facing a c/r), but that would be comparing decisions and different nodes again.

Not to interrupt the EV discussion which is a good one. But this whole hand is a little silly to question heros play because we turned literally the most obvious bluff card in the deck. Like you can say all you want about the flop decision but once we check call flop and this turn card comes we simply must fight for the pot. Fwiw I think donk turn is good too.

If he raises the river, does anyone like a 3 bet sometimes? I usually wait till I see someone raise fold to pull this in the future.

Does anybody think that given the description of the villain, he isn't betting this turn unless he has a hand that is somewhat strong. Which is often the problem with check raising the turn vs these types of players..they are checking back the hands that you want them to fold much of the time and betting the ones they won't. I would think the bottom of his range consists of hands like A8 (and he may chk that back sometimes) and much more likely he has a decent pair, if not top when he bets here. I am glad it worked out for you, but that is a ridiculous fold he made and I don't think we are even trying to fold out hands that strong.

Might be a better line to check the turn, hoping he checks, and then fire the river on a lot of different cards. When he does bet, on this particular card i think the raise is very reasonable considering its the 6s. But on a lot of other turns I would think check fold turn if he bets and bet almost all rivers if he checks.

great thread

Not to nitpick, but the way I think about short-handed is that you are constantly in late position. There basically is no under the gun, and you should not be playing differently because it is short-handed in theory (though some people do make what are in my judgement erroneous adjustments). Your raising standards UTG in short-handed 5 handed game should be the same as your standards for raising 2 from the button. Distance from the button is all that really matters so long as you discount bunching (in full ring the folds tell you that the rest of the hands are more A rich since most playable hands contain an A, but it is so unremarkable it is hardly worth mentioning).

Cliffs: You should also be playing aggressively in late position and to counter-act late position raises.

So we agree then? My point was that in this game most people don't adjust. So they are folding KT UTG in a 4-5 handed game because they are in EP. That was my point.

I don't think this is true. Of course in most games I play almost no one folds KT in early position even in a full game.

I am talking about the specific game that OP referenced.

Yes, we agree. I just want to make sure you still play aggressive in late position even if it isn't short, because well, attack the blinds dammit.

There are many players who do not see it that way though like you say, so it's a good read on the table if it's true.

I kind'a like the game where you're playing.