I can see a few people really don't like my posts.

My main point was that I assume Cheong 6b 44 because it has good equity versus a calling range. I guess people may get allin with 44 with a fairly short stack when flatting has little value. Here flatting has a lot of value, and I was sort of interested in how much value it had and whether it was too good to flat with than to semibluff with.

Also interesting how much how strong Cazals 3b range is effects whether call or 6b is better.

I know it is very read-dependent, but more interested in evaluating the situation without read and flow issues.

Friends, stop all this talk. Joseph Cheong is a f****king boss!

You're making all these assumptions about Cazals having a tight range from 40 hands of heads' up play. It's not a significant enough sample to determine anything from. The only hand that provides relevant information is the one where he flatted 9s, which makes 4 to 6 better, not worse, because his 3-betting range is polarized and has fewer hands we dominate.

Implied odds don't go up as stacks go deeper. Implied odds go up as the amount of chips being put in post-flop increases relative to the investment pre-flop. Your implied odds at 150 BBs are not static. They depend on how frequently your opponent is putting chips in post-flop, which will be a function of his pre-flop range to some degree, but not entirely.

I like your posts about math. They show a diligence and a desire to improve and learn the fundamentals of the game. Your posts on strategy show the opposite. You have had replies from quite a few players, ranging from good to excellent, telling you that you don't have enough information to determine what the best play is here. You persist in arguing based on a sample of 40 hands that you didn't see played that the play that you favor because of your inherent bias towards straight-forward, low-risk poker is the right one. The one valuable piece of information you had (that Cazals flatted 99), you misinterpreted as favoring your argument for a flat, when it does the opposite.

If you don't like my tone, I suggest you stop posting on a public forum or make use the free information you're gathering from a host of players who are better than you. If you do neither, I will continue to get frustrated with your willful ignorance.

I don't care for your tone. It seems like if you question an xbet play, you are a donk. I have been posting here for a long time, before the 2 splits into 3 different forums. I will try to be careful not post in HSMTT where I don't feel I can contribute. I certainly used to be regarded as one of the respected regular posters here. I think I make interesting strategy posts. I also am not impressed by the current quality of posters here, and have felt comfortable posting because don't feel totally outclassed by the average poster. Almost all of the regular posters from 3 years ago post rarely if at all here.

You make some interesting points and I was interested in getting input on this, and am glad to hear why I am wrong, but not that I am an idiot for posing the question.

I think your point that Cazals flatted 99 make a 6b better is valid and interesting.

As you define implied odds, as the amount you will win if you hit a set, it does go up as stacks increase. It certainly is much higher with 150xBB than 50xBB, but as OMG implied, there is not a big difference between 150xBB and 200xBB. It is a 3-bet pot, so you can get allin, so I do think the stack size effects implied odds.

Not sure if suited connectors or suited broadway have as much value to flat as 44. I can estimate the implied odds as you say for 44, but hard to quantify it for those hands. Assuming Cazals is calling allin with AQ, 44 has better equity allin than unpaired hands worse than AJs, so I can see arguments for using it to semibluff.

Aside from it being a profitable flat, my question is that if someone hasn't 4-bet or 5-bet in 40 hands, it could be variance, but I wouldn't automatically assume that everyone is xbet bluffing much short handed or HU for a bracelet. So it would seem like it might be better to take a lower risk approach and 4-bet/fold (not with 44) rather than get allin, until you know villain is willing to xbet/fold. Also, he is less likely to bluff 5-bet you if you haven't been 4-betting.

Again, I am just posing the question and am interested is discussing these issues. I posted in the other thread what I thought was a good explanation why two players got allin with A9o versus 44, so I am not automatically adverse to playing that way. I am not saying Cheong played this badly. Just interested in understanding why the play makes sense or doesn't make sense besides flow (which there doesn't appear to be much of) or reads.

Sorry, I REALLY don't mean this in disrespectful way but as others have said whilst you are probably qualified to comment on the games you coach, you seem to make long posts about spots way above your level (and mine) and the way you write them is probably too confident.. I also don't think you were one of the respected regular posters (in HSMTT). You're obviously entitled to your opinion, and to post anything but if someone like nsb tells you something I would suggest taking the free advice

Also no, I didn't imply there isn't a big difference between 150 and 200. I was making a point that you were wrong in assuming your implied odds just continue to increase with 44 as stacks get deeper. From 30bb to 60bb, sure. But from 100bb to 150bb to 200bb, no. It't not even "much higher" with 150 than 50, necessarily. Like I said a good player isn't just gonna auto-stack off with AA postflop mega deep. That's a "simple" way to look at it/simple example. Or just read what NSB said above and below about implied odds:stack size:chips postflop...
Also sorry but lol at not being sure if sc or sb have as much value to flat as 44. How many flops can you play/float 44 on? What about JTs?

40/50 hands? It IS variance, and plus I'm sure Cheong would have a decent idea if the villain is capable of x/folding from playing with him in the rest of the tourney or whatever etc etc.

Other stuff too but can't be bothered anymore lol

Meh /rant

I didn't call you an idiot. I said you are being willfully ignorant. It's different.

Implied odds do not go up in direct correlation with stack sizes. It's a matter of how many chips he puts in post-flop with second best hands or bluffs. Certainly having more chips behind gives him more chips to potentially put in postflop, so it increases the ceiling of our implied odds. But having more chips does not necessarily lead to putting more chips in the pot. That has more to do with his aggression factor, %WTS, bluffing frequency (since he doesn't always make a strong hand when he 3-bets, even if his 3-bet range is strong), and so on.

I think it's time to let this thread rest.

Yeh, I understand the play better. I am sorry for being willfully ignorant. I was interested in an explanation and sort of playing Devil's advocate, and I guess most people thought it was an obvious play.

Tbh, against any but a top player, flatting is the better play, because you will get paid off more postflop and they won't be x-bet bluffing enough. So the play didn't make sense to me as I don't usually play at that level.

As far implied odds, 60xBB deep, you have an SPR of 5 in a 3-bet pot, so I would think your implied odds are higher deeper than that. You do have big reverse implied odds really deep. You often could win a bigger pot from 2-pair or a combo draw. Are you assuming villain will not 3-bet postflop for value or semibluffing with less than a set? Hope I am not out of my league with this.