Originally Posted by NeverScaredB
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.