Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Micro-Small Stakes Limit Discussions about micro-small stakes Texas Hold'em (all stakes up to around 15/30)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2018, 05:59 PM   #51
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
What about in no limit games facing overbets?
I would still be surprised. But analyzing these sorts of situations in the first place is already going to be sketchy and non-specific. It's hard to interpret the meaning of lines like this.

My bottom line: It seems extremely unrealistic that you would have an opponent aggressive enough on the turn that K-high is a +EV call on the turn, but a pair of kings is a fold on the river. I'm not going to say it's impossible, because you can always crank up villain's turn betting range to be all hands and reduce villain's river betting to just the nuts. That would maximize the number of hands to call with on the turn and make the river a straight fold-to-any-bet.

Up to this point, no affirmative argument has been made that one should *expect* that there are hands that call on the turn and fold on ALL rivers. It seems that if you can't call on the river even if the best card fell, then there's not much value in calling on the turn. It seems like a hyper-exploitative move that could only work if your opponent is really awful and unbalanced in their strategy.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2018, 06:10 PM   #52
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
I would still be surprised. But analyzing these sorts of situations in the first place is already going to be sketchy and non-specific. It's hard to interpret the meaning of lines like this.
Take the hand from the op, make the river an Ace and change it to no limit just for the river. Big blind bets 4x pot. I think that's a clear fold.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2018, 06:29 PM   #53
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
Take the hand from the op, make the river an Ace and change it to no limit just for the river. Big blind bets 4x pot. I think that's a clear fold.
I think that change would also call a lot of the previous decisions into question*. You're trying to go from an extremely underbet pot preflop, flop, and turn, and then suddenly a massive overbet on the river but you can't call with top pair? The whole line seems unrealistic, and you would have to do a much more thorough analysis before I would believe that the hand was played correctly leading up to that point. (What happened to assuming that your opponent was good?)

Also, by changing the underlying betting structure, you're wandering quite far from where you started. It's starting to feel like you're trying to force your conclusion without understanding all the implications of the changes you're making. The rules of what governs good/bad play will be applied completely differently with the structure.

Edit: * Min-raise preflop. 1/4 pot bet on the flop, min-check-raise, call. 1/4 pot bet on the turn. 4x bet on the river. I'm sure at least one of those is a bad play before the river. There's not a lot of logic to the hand.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 06-23-2018 at 06:34 PM.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2018, 06:47 PM   #54
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
you're wandering quite far from where you started.
I thought that was the whole point of conversing. To explore the possibilities.

Quote:
It's starting to feel like you're trying to force your conclusion
I'm just talking poker. Nothing to prove.

Quote:
Edit: * Min-raise preflop. 1/4 pot bet on the flop, min-check-raise, call. 1/4 pot bet on the turn. 4x bet on the river. I'm sure at least one of those is a bad play before the river. There's not a lot of logic to the hand.
The stipulation I presented was that only the river was no limit betting.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 02:34 AM   #55
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
I thought that was the whole point of conversing. To explore the possibilities.
Ummmmm... perhaps to explore the possibilities within the confines of known and better understood poker variants? As soon as you start speculating on games that have structures totally unlike anything that has been studied or experienced, what meaningful conclusions can you draw? What are you actually saying that has merit or use or value?

Quote:
I'm just talking poker. Nothing to prove.
I don't read your responses in that manner. Why would you invent a strange variant you know nothing about that happens to fit the characteristic you're trying to say is somehow important/meaningful/accurate and then insist on the rightness of your conclusion (without a single word of analysis or evaluation) other than to try to prove that it can be done?

Quote:
The stipulation I presented was that only the river was no limit betting.
Sloppy wording on my part. I'm trying to say that under any "normal" types of analyses, you would conclude something has already gone wrong. So in the game you know nothing about, on what basis are you concluding anything meaningful about the line taken and how to best assess the hand ranges?

Edit: I'll quote myself --

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
The thing that *would* be surprising is if check-folding the river 100% of the time, even if you improved, were something that happened in reality.
The game you described does not reflect the reality of poker. Maybe such a game will exist in the future, but there is no precedent for this game in the past or present history of poker, and your speculations on some other game that is as far removed from reality in its betting structures as limit up to 4th street and a no limit river is not a meaningful addition to the conversation.

Last edited by Aaron W.; 06-24-2018 at 02:45 AM.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 06:43 AM   #56
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Look, I do this in my spare time for fun. If you don't like talking about abstract stuff then maybe you should ignore me. Because I do like talking about the abstract.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 08:22 AM   #57
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain R View Post
I think the point you're trying to come to terms with is that your calldown odds on the turn are worse than the immediate turn odds, and your true call downs odds include calling a bet on the river, so your effective odds from the turn on are worse.
Right. If the turn bet was all in then calling down with the A7o would be more profitable, or less unprofitable, than it would be if there was another call to make on the river.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 08:36 AM   #58
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Does this imply that any hand that can profitably call the turn, and can beat a bluff on the river, should be a call on the river?
Quote:
I think it’s entirely possible that a +ev call on the flop or turn can lead to check folding 100% on the next street.
The first part was an honest question that was correctly answered by Aaron. It's not my conclusion by any means, but I see how it could be interpreted that way.

The second part was speculation that I threw out there.

I had no motivations for posting these bits that Aaron claims that I'm insisting are correct other than a desire to chat about poker.

Quote:
insist on the rightness of your conclusion
Quote:
I don't read your responses in that manner. Why would you invent a strange variant you know nothing about that happens to fit the characteristic you're trying to say is somehow important/meaningful/accurate and then insist on the rightness of your conclusion (without a single word of analysis or evaluation) other than to try to prove that it can be done?
For fun.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 11:17 AM   #59
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
Look, I do this in my spare time for fun. If you don't like talking about abstract stuff then maybe you should ignore me. Because I do like talking about the abstract.
I don't have any problems with the abstract as long as there is accompanying argumentation and rationale being presented. If you're just going to make up something on the fly and insist over multiple posts that you have things right, it just doesn't come off as exploration and abstraction. Nor does it sound like you're trying to have a conversation.

You also went from:

Quote:
I think it’s entirely possible that a +ev call on the flop or turn can lead to check folding 100% on the next street.
to adding this addendum:

Quote:
Should have said that it's entirely possible that a +ev call on the flop or turn can lead to check folding the next street unless our hand improves.
then to

Quote:
Take the hand from the op, make the river an Ace and change it to no limit just for the river. Big blind bets 4x pot. I think that's a clear fold.
It's really hard to follow what you're actually trying to say because it almost seems that you've gone back on your addendum. That adds to the feeling that you're trying to prove a point.

For something you've been thinking about for 18 months, your ideas are very disjointed. You're not on the topic of the OP, nor are you on the topic of the main theme you were trying to hit. And at this point, I can't tell what poker you're actually trying to discuss.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 12:04 PM   #60
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

I posted specifically because I don't have the answers. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I have no agenda besides learning about poker for fun.

This back and forth isn't helping me learn anything though, nor is it fun. I'm just putting out some ideas and asking some questions. Sometimes I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that.

Quote:
insist over multiple posts that you have things right
What the ****? I did no such thing. It's this kind of bull**** that just pisses me off. I make speculative statements, yes. When someone shows me that I'm wrong, I try to change the statement in the hopes that it's correct. I consistently preface these statements with "I think..." or "Maybe.." or "It seems.." in the hopes that readers don't take it as gospel, which you seem to do on a consistent basis.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 12:54 PM   #61
Captain R
Wot
 
Captain R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: that ain't workin'
Posts: 7,510
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Completely ****show thread once again. You guys have one guess on what commonality is the best predictor of when a thread will devolve into complete nonsense.

Bonus points if you successfully eliminate that determining factor in future threads.

Spoiler:

Last edited by Captain R; 06-24-2018 at 01:00 PM.
Captain R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 04:46 PM   #62
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
I posted specifically because I don't have the answers. I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I have no agenda besides learning about poker for fun.
Then we use language very differently:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
The main theme I'm trying to present is this:

...

This is contrary to the (imo overused) statement that ...
This language feels like you have a specific point you're trying to make. There's a thing that you think is true that you think other people have wrong. The surrounding language sounds like you're trying to justify this "theme."

If this isn't a "theme" that you're trying to tackle, and this isn't a point you're trying to make, then I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I think the statements contained in that are true but in boring ways. I felt the phrasing you used was unhelpful because it gave away the whole game by defining the cards to already be below average outcomes for you. So there's not much happening.

You modified your statement at that point. And I've been trying to elaborate on the new point by providing specific examples, such as the K-high turning into a pair of kings on the river situation. I've attempted to show you that I think it's unrealistic that reasonable hand ranges play out in a way that calling to check-fold every single river even if the best card hits is actually a thing that happens.

You disagree. You think that in this limit/no-limit hybrid game you just made up, that somehow calling ace-high on the turn and folding a pair of aces on the river is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
Take the hand from the op, make the river an Ace and change it to no limit just for the river. Big blind bets 4x pot. I think that's a clear fold.
Why do you think this? Why not say a few words about what you think is happening with the hand ranges? So you think it's a "clear fold"? Maybe you should explore why you think it's a clear fold. Maybe you think that because it's a big bet that you can't call without at least two pair? Maybe you can put some hand ranges or something out there to support your position? That's where "learning" is going to come from.

Quote:
This back and forth isn't helping me learn anything though, nor is it fun. I'm just putting out some ideas and asking some questions. Sometimes I'm wrong, and I'm fine with that.
What would it take to "help you learn" something? I've stated my position clearly. I've provided explanations for why I think what I do. Why don't you try doing the same?
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 05:32 PM   #63
Montrealcorp
Pooh-Bah
 
Montrealcorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,886
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post

The thing that *would* be surprising is if check-folding the river 100% of the time, even if you improved, were something that happened in reality.
Imo If that was true, you should of simply fold the turn right away ...
Montrealcorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 05:34 PM   #64
Montrealcorp
Pooh-Bah
 
Montrealcorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,886
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post

The thing that *would* be surprising is if check-folding the river 100% of the time, even if you improved, were something that happened in reality.
You have 22 on a AAA X board and an A hit river would make me fold the river !
Montrealcorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 05:52 PM   #65
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

“You disagree”

Not exactly. I was looking to find the extent to which the statement applied.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 07:34 PM   #66
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp View Post
Imo If that was true, you should of simply fold the turn right away ...
Right. Unless villain's river check through rate is absurdly high, it's hard to see where you get value on the turn by calling if you can't ever call a river bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp View Post
You have 22 on a AAA X board and an A hit river would make me fold the river !
LOL -- You might have me on that one. In a very real way, you've "improved." Maybe call to chop if X = K saves my position?
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 07:38 PM   #67
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob148 View Post
“You disagree”

Not exactly. I was looking to find the extent to which the statement applied.
It applies to all of the realistic scenarios I can think of for limit hold'em with the standard betting structures. I make no claims outside of that realm, though I would take a skeptical position towards claims that you have found one. I would encourage you to show some work if you think you've found a situation in which it applies.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 07:53 PM   #68
Bob148
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Bob148's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: takin it to the streets
Posts: 9,870
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

There is no need. You’ve proven it wrong through concept.
Bob148 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2018, 08:12 PM   #69
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
LOL -- You might have me on that one. In a very real way, you've "improved." Maybe call to chop if X = K saves my position?
Sorry, it doesn't actually work. The statement is about folding *ALL* rivers and not specific rivers. I was just caught up in the amusement of the example.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 12:20 AM   #70
AKQJ10
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: I've been all over. Now Seattle.
Posts: 12,719
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

I'm just skimming through the argument about abstract versus concrete because I don't care about the pissing match but to repeat: In Seattle (really Renton) LHE games, there are players who are unbalanced enough toward [semi]bluffing turns and not rivers that I think it's 100% reasonable to crying call the turn and fold the river after improvement.

The K-high example above seems a little thin, but A6 on AQ97A might be a good example. (Or a 6 river, arguably a relatively better card.) If certain players bet again on the river, trips no kicker can never be good. But on the turn they might bet 86 or KJ or 98 or just feel lucky or whatever.
AKQJ10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 02:39 AM   #71
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKQJ10 View Post
I'm just skimming through the argument about abstract versus concrete because I don't care about the pissing match but to repeat: In Seattle (really Renton) LHE games, there are players who are unbalanced enough toward [semi]bluffing turns and not rivers that I think it's 100% reasonable to crying call the turn and fold the river after improvement.

The K-high example above seems a little thin, but A6 on AQ97A might be a good example. (Or a 6 river, arguably a relatively better card.) If certain players bet again on the river, trips no kicker can never be good. But on the turn they might bet 86 or KJ or 98 or just feel lucky or whatever.
This would violate the assumption that your opponent was a "strong" player, but whatever.

It does make me wonder just how skewed your opponent would need to be for this to be correct.

So let's say you raise A6 from the button and BB calls 60%:

22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T3s+, 95s+, 85s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, A2o+, K2o+, Q5o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o

The flop comes AQ9. The action is check-bet-call. We're going to assume villain calls with any flush draw, any pair, any straight draw. That's a pretty generous bad play. We're also going to assume that all big hands check-call because LOL-slowplay-LDO. That, and it's just simpler to do the counting.

The range is now

AA = 1 hand (no flush draws)
KK = 6 hands (3 flush draws)
QQ = 3 hands (no flush draws)
JJ-TT = 12 hands (6 flush draws)
99 = 3 hands (no flush draws)
88-77 = 12 hands (6 flush draws)
66 = 3 hands (2 flush draws)
55-22 = 24 hands (12 flush draws)

AK = 8 hands (2 flush draws)
AQ = 6 hands (no flush draws)
AJ-AT = 16 hands (4 flush draws)
A9 = 9 hands (no flush draws)
A8-A7 = 16 hands (4 flush draws)
A6 = 9 hands (2 flush draws)
A5-A2 = 32 hands (8 flush draws)

KQ = 12 hands (3 flush draws)
KJ-KT = 32 hands (12 flush draws, 2 flushes)
K9 = 12 hands (3 flush draws)

QJ-QT = 24 hands (6 flush draws)
Q9 = 9 hands (no flush draws)
Q8-Q7 = 24 hands (6 flush draws)
Q6 = 9 hands (3 flush draws)
Q5-Q2 = 48 hands (12 flush draws)

JT = 16 hands (6 flush draws, 1 flush)
J9 = 12 hands (3 flush draws)
J8 = 16 hands (6 flush draws, 1 flush)
J7s-J2s = 6 hands (all flushes)
J 7x = 3 hands (no flush draws)
Jx 7 = 3 hands (no flush draws)

T9 = 12 hands (3 flush draws)
T8 = 16 hands (6 flush draws, 1 flush)
T7s-T3s = 5 hands (all flushes)
T 7x = 3 hands (no flush draws)
Tx 7 = 3 hands (no flush draws)

98-97 = 24 hands (6 flush draws)
96s = 2 hands (no flush draws)
95s = 3 hands (no flush draws)

87-85s = 3 hands (all flushes)
8 7x = 3 hands (no flush draws)
8x 7 = 3 hands (no flush draws)

76-75s = 2 hands (all flushes)

65-64s = 2 hands (all flushes)

54s = 1 hand (flush)

So if I didn't screw up the hand counts:

468 total hands
118 flush draws
24 flushes

If the 7 hits on the turn and villain bets 100% of his hands, he will be betting 142 flushes and 326 non-flushes. This is about 70% non-flushes. But A6 doesn't beat all the non-flushes. Other hands that beat A6:

Sets:
AA = 1 hand
QQ = 3 hands
99 = 3 hands
77 = 3 hands

Two pair:
AQ/A9/A7 = 18 hands
Q9/Q7/97 = 27 hands

Better aces:
AK/AJ/AT/A8/A7 = 40 hands

This is 95 more hands that are ahead, which is roughly another 20% of his range. This means villain is betting 237 better hands and 231 worse (or tied) hands. So you're basically 50-50 now.

So if we take the 50-50 to be roughly indicative of where you stand relative to your opponent's range, then at 4:1 pot odds, if your opponent is donking at least 25% of his range that's worse than your hand, then calling is profitable assuming that your opponent will only bet flushes on the river. You get a small +EV bonus being in position because you can value bet if he checks, which gives you a bit of a buffer to reduce the number of worse hands that are betting the turn and still be okay.

I remain skeptical that 40-60% of the population meet this description, but I'm open to the idea that this actually happens for select players.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 11:35 AM   #72
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 28,847
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
So if I didn't screw up the hand counts:

468 total hands
118 flush draws
24 flushes

If the 7 hits on the turn and villain bets 100% of his hands, he will be betting 142 flushes and 326 non-flushes. This is about 70% non-flushes. But A6 doesn't beat all the non-flushes.
I don't know if I made a mistake in the hand counts, but I know that the next sentence misses some card removal effects once the 7 can no longer be in villain's hands. This is at most a small error because of the overall size of the range involved.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 12:38 PM   #73
callipygian
slowrolled by tpiranha!
 
callipygian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: but I don't know which
Posts: 19,605
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain R View Post
Completely ****show thread once again. You guys have one guess on what commonality is the best predictor of when a thread will devolve into complete nonsense.
1. Unlike in the NC thread, I'll +1 to the idea that there is a discrepancy between how useful this thread is and how useful this thread should be.

2. Despite the +1, I disagree that Aaron's posts are nonsense. They may even be factually correct. But they are unnecessarily antagonistic.
callipygian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 03:12 PM   #74
BigBadBabar
California Elephant
 
BigBadBabar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: I finished my website!
Posts: 21,359
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

I'm also getting quite tired of the thread hijacking and general pedantry and contentiousness. I'd also describe it as selectively picking on certain other posters. Aaron W, please cut it out right now. I'm giving you a day off. Please don't force me to escalate things in future.
BigBadBabar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2018, 11:33 PM   #75
Captain R
Wot
 
Captain R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: that ain't workin'
Posts: 7,510
Re: Bluffcatching ev and the multi street implications

There is some useful information in this thread, it’s just that the signal to noise is ridiculous. Admittedly I made some inflammatory remarks, but my purpose was that hopefully it would make people reevaluate what they were posting.

To actually add value to the thread, I think the closest spot in LHE to k/c the turn with the intention of k/f the river on a blank is the 4flush turn card. But it’s when villain was the last aggressor on the flop (such as raise pf and bet flop), not when they take some kind of donk line.

I.e. they raise pf, you defend A6ss. Flop AQ9ddd. K/c. Turn 7d, we k/c. River 4s. When I’m playing 20/40 in Vegas against your standard HEFAP grinder reg, I think the river is a k/f.

I'm curious if any of the solvers k/f the river after calling the turn. This is pretty much the bottom of our range.

Last edited by Captain R; 06-25-2018 at 11:46 PM.
Captain R is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online