Originally Posted by shootaa

He man, I did misread your post. In any case, it's going to be closer if villain is value betting one pair hands. My point is that there are still plenty of combos to attempt to fold out, but it does make calling the more attractive option.

Originally Posted by lnternet

check turn

dont jam river wtf both can have KJss or 87 (or J8ss)

Originally Posted by sauce123

yea for real

Originally Posted by shootaa

By shoving here, you are trying to get one player to fold a few combinations by turning what is nearly the top of your range into a bluff. You are risking too much when calling gets you better results. I think you are being optimistic about folding out sets 100% by check-shoving this river against almost any two opponents (possibly for slightly different reasons). I know it's possible some people will fold slightly better hands, and I know strong players probably should fold a set here against a player who they view as completely straight forward, but it just won't happen often in an actual poker game where everyone has 6+ tables of 6-max running and sees they're getting check-shoved on and getting great odds on a call with the third nuts and so many other events having to line up for them to be against a better hand (would you ever check-raise KJ here, could you ever turn a hand into a bluff, I have great odds and a set, I call!).

I don't want to say your idea is poor in principal, but with such a strong hand your options are quite different than if you had a hand more similar to QJ here.

Option (1): Call $325 to win $1170 probably close to 80% of the time.
EV = 0.8($1170) + 0.2(-$325)
EV = $871

Option (2): Risk $1130 to win $1170 85% of the time.
EV = 0.85($1170) + 0.15(-$1130)
EV = $825

Option (2b): Risk $1130 to win $1170 90% of the time. This represents your view in OP.
EV = 0.9($1170) + 0.1(-$1130)
EV = $940

I am in agreement with most in the thread that people just aren't folding 99 here and nobody mentioned that really only one person could have 99, which would change our 85% chance to win the hand in "Option (2)" and 90% chance to win the hand in "Option 2b" to a number closer to 81% or 82%. If this is the case, calling is clearly the correct play. "Option 2b" represents your optimism for folding, which I believe to be incorrect. If somehow it were true, then you are correct that check-shoving here could be more valuable.

For turning your hand into a bluff here, you have to win the hand far more often than you will given that the second Villain will have KJ much more often than a set and that both Villains will almost never fold a set, as exemplified by the responses in the thread and by what I have seen in practice with timing, especially facing such great pot odds.

Feel free to make the EV equations a bit more complex with different assumptions about Villains in the hand. For our purposes and in this situation, we lack information to make a more complex equation that would be any more accurate or meaningful. The crux of the problem is how often they have KJ or if Villains will ever fold sets. There is also something to be said for showing people that you're willing to turn literally any portion of your range into a bluff at any time. That will make plays like this far less likely to work in the future than if you were called and had JT or another clear raise or fold hand facing this action.

Originally Posted by asianflushie

No he doesn't win the thread. There is way more than 15% chance that AT LEAST ONE player has KJss and/or 87 here. Lets say KJss and every 87s combo thats 5 combos compared to 6 combos of 999/TTT for both Villains (which may not fold 100% of the time to a jam, but lets assume they do). Lets also assume each of the other Villains has 3 combos of Q9s and 2 combos of QTs and give them 1 more combo of randomness (6 combos total). Thats 17 combos total, 5 of which are snapping, 12 of which are folding out to a bluff jam (6 of which are better hands) i.e 70.5% of the time EACH OF THEM are folding to a jam.

Lets also assume for simplicity that both UTG and BTN have the same ranges (which in reality is not the case since BTN's range is weaker). That gives us a whopping 50% chance that AT LEAST one person has KJss/87 (simple binomial calculation here)

Option 2 (jamming) becomes: EV = 0.50($1170) + 0.50(-$1130) = $20.

Now same scenario. There are 17 combos for both Villains, 6 of which we beat, 11 we don't. This gives us around 12.5% (6/17)^2 that we're good when calling.

Option 1 (calling) becomes: EV = 0.125($1170) + 0.875(-$325) = -$138.125.


Surprising result, not one that I expected at all, turns out that jamming is better with this derivation, but I was probably too strict with assigning Villains ranges in that there are probably more combos of random 2pair/1pair hands that we beat by just calling (this will most certainly improve Option 1 more so than Option 2). And on top of that there are some very overarching assumptions that Villains are folding 999/TTT 100% of the time etc.

Originally Posted by asianflushie

No he doesn't win the thread.

Originally Posted by 4JesseJames4

Wanted to throw in that even if jamming was slightly higher +ev move, its also higher variance, and takes some assumptions into account that are very dangerous (ie, when the original ranges are incorrect, or the calling shove ranges are incorrect, shoving becomes MUCH worse, while calling either stays the same or gets much better).

Originally Posted by shootaa

It's not about winning a thread for me.

All I want to do is teach poker and prompt constructive discussion; I love both. Sometimes motivating another player to do some math or at least consider why they post an answer to a question is a win for me.

Originally Posted by nikinblinds

because i think ur god @ poker, can you please explain why check>bet turn in this spot.

also elaborate on how you would play certain rivers etc. pleeeeeease.

Originally Posted by bodogsponzi

bluffing here is awful
just call
every better hand calls you and every worse hand folds
nobody ever has a higher set here except MAYBE rivered 10 10 and even thats unlikely
and if somehow someone is dumb enough to have any other set theyre never folding it