Who Doesn’t Get It?
It seems like I would have an opportunity to learn those things when they come up, no? Do I need to be preparing for what 100/200 players are doing when I’m playing 15/30? I know my player pool extremely well. I’m not routinely folding sets on the river... hell, I didn’t even fold a set in the hand in question! If Joker 3-bets the river, i would almost surely fold. Even in retrospect, we can’t come up with any reasonable ranges he can play this way where I should consider calling. And what if he does “exploit” me by 3-betting, doesn’t he still have to beat the big blind? I honestly don’t get where you guys are even coming from. People in my games are not 3-betting rivers to exploit the initial bettor. Like the first raiser is just some convenient pivot that is going to go away once you get rid of the initial bettor? Huh.
What would I do with second pair? Gee... do you want me to cover all the possible flop textures? I would imagine I’m betting most textures, especially when I have good backdoor equity... like if I had any of those JXdd hands I could have on this particular board.
What would I do with second pair? Gee... do you want me to cover all the possible flop textures? I would imagine I’m betting most textures, especially when I have good backdoor equity... like if I had any of those JXdd hands I could have on this particular board.
I didn't give a **** about the 10%/90% comment until you had to beat it like a dead horse 3+ times because it was the only thing you could find to nitpick about my post. I was going to let it go, but you obviously can't because you continue to mention it. And then when I explain it (even though I think it's pretty frickin' obvious if you're not a complete moron), you tell me I'm lying. LOL.
At this point, I actually pity you, because it's clear you have some kind of inferiority complex and feel an overwhelming need to prove to other people you are right or smart or something.
If this is how you deal with interpersonal relationships with other people ("it's not me, it's you!") in real life, it really is sad and I feel bad because it's clear you can't interact with other people at any sort of reasonably social level. But go ahead and ignore it, and continue being an asshat.
Oh, but nevermind, I forgot, it's not you. It's me.
Do I need to be preparing for what 100/200 players are doing when I’m playing 15/30?
I’m not routinely folding sets on the river... hell, I didn’t even fold a set in the hand in question! If Joker 3-bets the river, i would almost surely fold. Even in retrospect, we can’t come up with any reasonable ranges he can play this way where I should consider calling. And what if he does “exploit” me by 3-betting, doesn’t he still have to beat the big blind?
According to your read, beating the big blind isn't super-tough.
I honestly don’t get where you guys are even coming from. People in my games are not 3-betting rivers to exploit the initial bettor. Like the first raiser is just some convenient pivot that is going to go away once you get rid of the initial bettor? Huh.
What would I do with second pair? Gee... do you want me to cover all the possible flop textures? I would imagine I’m betting most textures, especially when I have good backdoor equity... like if I had any of those JXdd hands I could have on this particular board.
To be honest (and I'm actually being objective here), based on what I've read, I think you play better than Aaron W.
This happened the last time I pointed out something you did wrong, and it took about a dozen posts until you finally admitted it. But like I said, it wasn't worth it.
I didn't give a **** about the 10%/90% comment until you had to beat it like a dead horse 3+ times because it was the only thing you could find to nitpick about my post.
At this point, I actually pity you, because it's clear you have some kind of inferiority complex and feel an overwhelming need to prove to other people you are right or smart or something.
I didn't give a **** about the 10%/90% comment until you had to beat it like a dead horse 3+ times because it was the only thing you could find to nitpick about my post. I was going to let it go, but you obviously can't because you continue to mention it. And then when I explain it (even though I think it's pretty frickin' obvious if you're not a complete moron), you tell me I'm lying. LOL.
Here you go, after countless posts of arguing...
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...l#post52891827
I particularly like this post --
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=29
I'm done, catch y'all in the next stupid thread.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...l#post52891827
You realize the pot is laying him 9.5:1 on the 3-bet, so actually folding his 11.3% equity on the turn is a greater mistake than if we call and then bet the river (and he pays off). Even with the .12BB in rake, it's more profitable for us that he folds the turn than pay off the river. If you include him raising the river when he improves, it's even more lopsided.
So, once again you're wrong.
So, once again you're wrong.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=29
I'm done, catch y'all in the next stupid thread.
I’m not asking him anything. I don’t know who he is. He’s just a random name online to me. I was just making a point that it doesn’t make sense to consider that I might be getting exploited in these 3-bet river spots in some hypothetical game I’m not playing in... when the game I’m playing in just isn’t that advanced. No one is 3-betting rivers in my game trying to exploit anyone. They are 3-betting because they think they have the best hand or because they are recklessly bluffy. Joker is the former and if he thinks he has the best hand here, all variables considered, he 100% has my hand beat.
I’ll cross that bridge (of worrying about being exploited on the river) when I reach it. I don’t play the same game I used to crush 4/8. I don’t play the same game I used to crush 8/16. The style I play in 15/30 at Palace and 20/40 at Bellagio are not even the same. I haven’t had the level of success I’ve maintained for almost a decade now by not constantly adapting and learning as I go.
Making “big folds” is not something I’m trying to do. Folding to a 3-bet from J here is a relatively trivial fold because I have over 1000 live hours played with the guy and I know his tendencies. If he slow plays the 22 until the river here, for the first time in the last two years, then guess what... I can adapt.
Here you go, after countless posts of arguing...
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...l#post52891827
I particularly like this post --
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=29
I'm done, catch y'all in the next stupid thread.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...l#post52891827
I particularly like this post --
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=29
I'm done, catch y'all in the next stupid thread.
That's been my position since you posted something like "I didn't calculate how many queens he could have, I calculated how many were dealt out."
It is absolutely correct, and also absolutely useless to Captain R.
SSLHE is generally beyond the point where ignoring ranges is useful. Although I wish it were otherwise, the reality is that very few people in this forum play below 20/40. And as much as I appreciate people like you being there to teach new players how to count combos, I'm not going to spend the time double checking your posts.
Or, just a rational cost-benefit decision based on the likelihood your posts contain valuable information.
Like if I launched into a 10-paragraph explanation of probability starting with "the probability of drawing a card higher than 5 can be expressed as a fraction, where the numerator is the number of cards higher than 5 and the denominator is the total number of cards," I bet very few people would make it to paragraph 2.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's wrong for the audience. You seem to pride yourself on giving the most general advice to a total group of unknowns - if this were the poker equivalent of 4chan where everyone were anonymous or if we were Wikipedia editors or if Captain R hadn't been posting for 10+ years or if advanced tools for calculating range vs range equities weren't widely available, I think your posts would be received differently. In those cases, you really don't know your audience so general advice and your generic calculations are worth more.
As it stands, Alan already posted something like "flopzilla is your friend" and everyone who was interested in learning modern poker has downloaded it. Only people who were interested in rederiving Obama-era poker from first principles has benefitted from your posts.
It is absolutely correct, and also absolutely useless to Captain R.
SSLHE is generally beyond the point where ignoring ranges is useful. Although I wish it were otherwise, the reality is that very few people in this forum play below 20/40. And as much as I appreciate people like you being there to teach new players how to count combos, I'm not going to spend the time double checking your posts.
And if you think that a few paragraphs is too much reading, I would notch that one back in the category of "not interested in learning."
Like if I launched into a 10-paragraph explanation of probability starting with "the probability of drawing a card higher than 5 can be expressed as a fraction, where the numerator is the number of cards higher than 5 and the denominator is the total number of cards," I bet very few people would make it to paragraph 2.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's wrong for the audience. You seem to pride yourself on giving the most general advice to a total group of unknowns - if this were the poker equivalent of 4chan where everyone were anonymous or if we were Wikipedia editors or if Captain R hadn't been posting for 10+ years or if advanced tools for calculating range vs range equities weren't widely available, I think your posts would be received differently. In those cases, you really don't know your audience so general advice and your generic calculations are worth more.
As it stands, Alan already posted something like "flopzilla is your friend" and everyone who was interested in learning modern poker has downloaded it. Only people who were interested in rederiving Obama-era poker from first principles has benefitted from your posts.
SSLHE is generally beyond the point where ignoring ranges is useful. Although I wish it were otherwise, the reality is that very few people in this forum play below 20/40. And as much as I appreciate people like you being there to teach new players how to count combos, I'm not going to spend the time double checking your posts.
* Kill the forum and just have a single limit hold'em forum
* Actively do things to promote limit hold'em discussion among the new players.
Or, just a rational cost-benefit decision based on the likelihood your posts contain valuable information.
Like if I launched into a 10-paragraph explanation of probability starting with "the probability of drawing a card higher than 5 can be expressed as a fraction, where the numerator is the number of cards higher than 5 and the denominator is the total number of cards," I bet very few people would make it to paragraph 2.
Like if I launched into a 10-paragraph explanation of probability starting with "the probability of drawing a card higher than 5 can be expressed as a fraction, where the numerator is the number of cards higher than 5 and the denominator is the total number of cards," I bet very few people would make it to paragraph 2.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's wrong for the audience. You seem to pride yourself on giving the most general advice to a total group of unknowns - if this were the poker equivalent of 4chan where everyone were anonymous or if we were Wikipedia editors or if Captain R hadn't been posting for 10+ years or if advanced tools for calculating range vs range equities weren't widely available, I think your posts would be received differently. In those cases, you really don't know your audience so general advice and your generic calculations are worth more.
My argument was "If you believe your numbers, you're ahead 2/3 of the time when you flop a queen. I think you can play profitably from there." That's basically the bottom line.
If you don't agree with the numbers that lawdude provided, that's fine. It doesn't detract from the argument being made. And if you don't like my minor refinement of the method, that's also fine. Show me better.
As it stands, Alan already posted something like "flopzilla is your friend" and everyone who was interested in learning modern poker has downloaded it. Only people who were interested in rederiving Obama-era poker from first principles has benefitted from your posts.
I offered the challenge of using computer simulations to prove that the chances of getting outkicked was as elastic as Captain R said. He didn't do it. He shifted his argument from "anywhere between 10% and 90%" to "30% to 70%" because I think he started to recognize the absurdity of the range he provided. He's prone to exaggeration and tried his best to try to walk it back just to be more reasonable.
But here's the thing: I fully expect that the number will be in the right ballpark over a fairly wide range of assumptions. A couple quick things I did (simulations that I described) seem to confirm that. I'm still open to someone proving me wrong, but I'm pretty comfortable with the position I've taken and am not interested in pursuing it further until someone shows me something new.
The funny part of it for me is just the blind hand-waving non-argument of "You're just stupid." It's not like, "No, look at this simulation. It shows that you're getting outkicked 90% of the time under these assumptions." It was, "I think your assumptions are stupid, therefore LOL YOU STOOOOOPID! I PWN YOU GUD!"
I stand by my assessment of this forum. It's not a place where people are trying to learn anything. And I've decided that I don't care what all the rest of y'all do. I'm still going to put out reasoned arguments and show my work. I may be right, and I may be wrong. I will continue to weigh my thoughts on the merits of the arguments put forward, and not care about the personalities that come with it.
So it's not about "advanced" as it is about "people aren't robots." I'm reminded of the way to think about chess. Chess is a game of absolutely ZERO luck. So why is it that you can play someone once and win, then play again and lose? Shouldn't the better player always win if there's no luck in the game? In theory, perhaps. But that doesn't happen.
Even if the underlying game has no luck in it, humans do random things that sometimes works better or worse for them. By building out a strategy that's so narrow that you're folding everything but the nuts, you're creating a window of opportunity to be burned badly by things that shouldn't happen but end up happening anyway.
There are times when, for whatever reason, you've become absolutely convinced that doing something is right. At the end of the day, it's your money and you can do with it what you want. But it makes for a really terrible way to analyze things, and is incredibly prone to results-oriented thinking and post-hoc justification. That is among the MOST difficult things to shake as a poker player. You can basically *always* justify your plays yourself to yourself if you try hard enough.
I'm going to point this out to you again:
Here's an Obama-era EV calculation with made-up percentages. Feel free to change the numbers around and play with it. Let's do the EV calculation for Joker's coldcall on the river. There's 16 BB in the pot when it's on him.
At that moment of decision, he can reasonably conclude he's ahead of you a huge percent of the time or more since you've got so few flushes in your range. And he should also feel very good against BB's range because she's special like that. So let's say that he's 95% sure he has the best of it. You will fold some small percent of your hands. (I think you can fold one pair hands -- including AA -- on the river pretty comfortably. I'm not sure if you can drop two pair.) Let's say you end up calling 100% of the time anyway.
EV[Call] = 95% * (17) - 5% * (-2) = 16.05.
What about 3-betting? This probably only goes 4 bets if someone has the nuts. So let's call that 2% of the time. But let's also say that 10% of the time that you're losing, you just can't bring yourself to fold. Here's how the calculation looks now:
EV[3-bet] = 2% * (-4) + 3% * (-2) + 95% * 10% * (19) + 95% * 90% * (17) = 16.2
The combination of those very few times that you can't find a fold, combined with the extreme rarity of being 4-bet makes it more profitable to 3-bet than to call.
2% of the time, there's a loss of an extra 2 BB. With a 10% chance of you calling, there's a 9.5% chance of winning an extra 3 BB. That's money being left on the table. (I'll leave it to you to figure out the break-even point. Spoiler alert: It's a rather small percent.)
Are you enough of a robot to always 100% of the time absolutely fold a flopped set to a river 3-bet in this spot? That's for you to decide. With so little downside of doing it (if you never-ever-ever call, the loss is 0.04 BB), even if I felt that you probably almost certainly would fold, I just might pull the trigger anyway.
I think you might be making some poor assumptions here... since this pot had at least four players going to the river (could have been all five), let’s assume I’m never bluffing into three opponents on the river, a fair assumption. I think it’s reasonable to assume the worst hand I barrel off with is KT suited.
Here’s what that distribution looks like:
AA (6)
Sets (6)
AK (12)
Suited Kings (9)
Flushes (7)
That’s 7 of 40 combos that have flushes on the river. That’s 17.5% of my combos beating 43dd.
Even if you add KQo into that mix, which is reasonable, we are still at 13.4% of my river betting combos that beat 43dd.
Plus, I don’t always bet the river with one pair hands. This board seems pretty safe, but there are times when I have an extra sense of danger - for whatever reason - and my intuition/subconscious has proven to be worth listening to. What I’m trying to say is - whether good or bad - there are times I’m not betting the river with the one pair hands, so when I 3-bet pre and barrel off in this specific situation I’m probably showing up with a flush around 15% of the time. While I am not opposed to betting a jack (or QQ) on some rivers, this is not one of them.
So... in conclusion, Joker is winning on the river no where near 95% of the time — and we haven’t even looked at the big blind’s range yet.
Edit: I suppose I may check some of the flush draws (AQdd, ATdd) on the turn occasionally. However, it’s also worth noting that, given this distribution, I will have three nut flushes in my range, which means I will be 4-betting the river almost 6% of the time... so not only will Joker not be winning 95% of the time, he will be facing a 4-bet considerably more often than you think and, again, we haven’t even considered the big blind yet and she has all the ace high flushes in her range.
Here’s what that distribution looks like:
AA (6)
Sets (6)
AK (12)
Suited Kings (9)
Flushes (7)
That’s 7 of 40 combos that have flushes on the river. That’s 17.5% of my combos beating 43dd.
Even if you add KQo into that mix, which is reasonable, we are still at 13.4% of my river betting combos that beat 43dd.
Plus, I don’t always bet the river with one pair hands. This board seems pretty safe, but there are times when I have an extra sense of danger - for whatever reason - and my intuition/subconscious has proven to be worth listening to. What I’m trying to say is - whether good or bad - there are times I’m not betting the river with the one pair hands, so when I 3-bet pre and barrel off in this specific situation I’m probably showing up with a flush around 15% of the time. While I am not opposed to betting a jack (or QQ) on some rivers, this is not one of them.
So... in conclusion, Joker is winning on the river no where near 95% of the time — and we haven’t even looked at the big blind’s range yet.
Edit: I suppose I may check some of the flush draws (AQdd, ATdd) on the turn occasionally. However, it’s also worth noting that, given this distribution, I will have three nut flushes in my range, which means I will be 4-betting the river almost 6% of the time... so not only will Joker not be winning 95% of the time, he will be facing a 4-bet considerably more often than you think and, again, we haven’t even considered the big blind yet and she has all the ace high flushes in her range.
I stand by my assessment of this forum. It's not a place where people are trying to learn anything. And I've decided that I don't care what all the rest of y'all do. I'm still going to put out reasoned arguments and show my work. I may be right, and I may be wrong.
But it's not a one-dimensional problem. You score low on the useful-useless axis, especially in a poker world that now features free programs better than the best proprietary programs ten years ago. That's the part you're missing - you don't NEED to do "back of the envelope" calculations any more. You don't NEED to show your work. And as correct as it is to go back to first principles to show where it came from, the reality is that no serious player does that any more. Why would you calculate the percent time that a queen is dealt, when in thr same 7-10 second time frame you can load up a program, bang in some ranges, and get the percent time a queen is good?
Why would you spent more time to get an incomplete answer?
Let's put it in an analogy. If I were a high school chemistry teacher, I would teach the Bohr atom. It's grossly incomplete, but it gets the basic framework down. It's easy to understand and people need to understand it before they talk about orbital shapes and spin numbers. But if I were to show up at a scientific conference and talk about the Bohr atom, I would be booed off stage. I would be labeled as worthless, not because I'm wrong, but because I don't know what the audience knows. And if I started firing back at my critics explaining how crucial the Bohr atom were, I would be labeled stupid - not because I am factually wrong but I refuse to operate at the level of modern chemistry. I'd be some weird, archaic throwback to the early 1900s.
If it hasn't happened already, bots will soon be able to provide GTO decision trees for multiway pots. People will move on from where Captain R and Alan B are, and start talking about calling percentages (like what percent of the time they call/raise) and taking suboptimal flop actions to optimize their multistreet lines. You're about to become several steps behind the forefront of modern poker, instead of the 1-2 you are now.
And just to be clear, I freely admit I'm personally falling behind the curve. I haven't played a hand of LHE for over a year and I haven't studied it seriously for maybe three and a half. I don't even have Equilab much less Flopzilla or whatever the MSLHE bot du jour is.
So I totally get where you're coming from.
There is a GTO post I started drafting ... in 2011. I was very proud of it 7 years ago, but to be honest it's just embarassing at this point because everything revolves around an Excel sheet which does less than programs do now. It's all first principles, with probability matrices row-reduced to get eigenvalues and Nash equilibria. As a matter of fact, I had to upgrade it in 2014ish because I learned Excel 2013 solves matrix equations and it obviated a huge chunk of my work. It got me pretty far up the food chain in 2012-2015, so I have no regrets about the time I put in. But it's pretty laughable now.
I think you'd be impressed.
I think Captain R would laugh. Hopefully politely.
So I totally get where you're coming from.
There is a GTO post I started drafting ... in 2011. I was very proud of it 7 years ago, but to be honest it's just embarassing at this point because everything revolves around an Excel sheet which does less than programs do now. It's all first principles, with probability matrices row-reduced to get eigenvalues and Nash equilibria. As a matter of fact, I had to upgrade it in 2014ish because I learned Excel 2013 solves matrix equations and it obviated a huge chunk of my work. It got me pretty far up the food chain in 2012-2015, so I have no regrets about the time I put in. But it's pretty laughable now.
I think you'd be impressed.
I think Captain R would laugh. Hopefully politely.
bots will soon be able to provide GTO decision trees for multiway pots.
----
The analysis provided showing how frequently we face a better Queen? I think it could produce some cool graphs in the right hands, but I would put the analysis in my pile of (viewed and appreciated for novelty but not actually used in decision making) stuff. Like the graph of how often your pocket pair faces an overcard on the flop. 77 faces an overcard > 70% of the time. Yet we raise that hand from any position in almost any game type of limit holdem. It's interesting, but not instructive.
I think a better idea would be to look in a tracker for the ev of (my small blind calling range in limped pots and its ev as a whole and by hand for hand). I think there will be indications of what's unprofitable there. I don't have tracker though so I can't do that.
I, as the PF 3-bettor, can still have AJdd, QJdd, and JTdd in my range.
I’m probably showing up with a flush around 15% of the time.
Even if he's only best 75% of the time, he only needs a few calls from SB to turn a profit. This calculation is highly elastic (the conclusion is strongly dependent upon assumptions). He just doesn't need to see very many calls from SB with worse hands for this to turn a profit (17% of the time).
But it's not a one-dimensional problem. You score low on the useful-useless axis, especially in a poker world that now features free programs better than the best proprietary programs ten years ago. That's the part you're missing - you don't NEED to do "back of the envelope" calculations any more. You don't NEED to show your work.
And as correct as it is to go back to first principles to show where it came from, the reality is that no serious player does that any more. Why would you calculate the percent time that a queen is dealt, when in thr same 7-10 second time frame you can load up a program, bang in some ranges, and get the percent time a queen is good?
And as correct as it is to go back to first principles to show where it came from, the reality is that no serious player does that any more. Why would you calculate the percent time that a queen is dealt, when in thr same 7-10 second time frame you can load up a program, bang in some ranges, and get the percent time a queen is good?
And you're right that we don't NEED to do back of the envelope calculations. If I had a lot of experience with Flopzilla or PokerTools or whatever, I could probably whip out a simulation and get some exact numbers in a few minutes. (But I don't have as much experience with those, so it may take me 10-15 minutes to get there.) Or I can do a rough calculation that will be close enough to the answer in about 10 seconds.
I don't deny the value of these simulation programs. But the existence of such tools does not negate the value of quick estimates. (Edit: I'm actually reminded of one of my college physics professors, who made us to back-of-the-envelope calculations on some problems before diving in and doing them fully. It helped to gain some higher level intuition about things and assist with the development of conceptual understanding instead of mere computational proficiency. Maybe that's where I get it from.)
Let's put it in an analogy. If I were a high school chemistry teacher, I would teach the Bohr atom. It's grossly incomplete, but it gets the basic framework down. It's easy to understand and people need to understand it before they talk about orbital shapes and spin numbers. But if I were to show up at a scientific conference and talk about the Bohr atom, I would be booed off stage. I would be labeled as worthless, not because I'm wrong, but because I don't know what the audience knows. And if I started firing back at my critics explaining how crucial the Bohr atom were, I would be labeled stupid - not because I am factually wrong but I refuse to operate at the level of modern chemistry. I'd be some weird, archaic throwback to the early 1900s.
QTdd and T9dd. I’m calling with T9dd most of the time, but I will 3-bet in this spot on some occasions.
Let's say I'm calling with all my two pair or better hands... which I'm not. That means I'm calling his 3-bet 25% of the time, but almost 31% of the time I call, I have a bigger flush than him. In reality, I'm calling with the four flushes I can have on the river, so when I put more money in the pot vs a 3-bet, he's always losing. You guys can make whatever assumptions you want about Joker's range here, but I've played enough with him to know that if he happens to go call flop, call turn here and then 3-bet the river, I think he's always going to have a flush. I think he would err on the side of caution with his straights (and apparently his baby flushes too). I also think that Joker would not expect me to call 3-bets on the river with two pair/set hands, but I don't think he's ever considering 3-betting specifically to get me to fold better and hope that he's good against he fishy big blind. We play on a different level in heads up pots, but when there are stations and maniacs in the pot with us, we are not actively looking to exploit one another. If that day ever comes, then I can start adapting and reconsidering my strategy in these spots. I think he played the river fine and I think if he 3-bets and I fold, I'm playing the river fine.
Even if he's only best 75% of the time, he only needs a few calls from SB to turn a profit. This calculation is highly elastic (the conclusion is strongly dependent upon assumptions). He just doesn't need to see very many calls from SB with worse hands for this to turn a profit (17% of the time).
Let's say I'm calling with all my two pair or better hands... which I'm not. That means I'm calling his 3-bet 25% of the time, but almost 31% of the time I call, I have a bigger flush than him. In reality, I'm calling with the four flushes I can have on the river, so when I put more money in the pot vs a 3-bet, he's always losing. You guys can make whatever assumptions you want about Joker's range here, but I've played enough with him to know that if he happens to go call flop, call turn here and then 3-bet the river, I think he's always going to have a flush. I think he would err on the side of caution with his straights (and apparently his baby flushes too). I also think that Joker would not expect me to call 3-bets on the river with two pair/set hands, but I don't think he's ever considering 3-betting specifically to get me to fold better and hope that he's good against he fishy big blind. We play on a different level in heads up pots, but when there are stations and maniacs in the pot with us, we are not actively looking to exploit one another. If that day ever comes, then I can start adapting and reconsidering my strategy in these spots. I think he played the river fine and I think if he 3-bets and I fold, I'm playing the river fine.
There's some chance I'm doing these calculations wrong, but using Aaron's formulas earlier, with my generous percentages:
EV(call) = (85% * 17) + (15% * -2) = 14.15
EV(3-bet) = (5.7% * -4) + (7.7% * -3) + (17.3% * 19) + (69.3% * 18) = 15.3
That's assuming I'm calling with two pair or better, only 4-betting with nut flushes, and that the big blind never has Joker beat.
In reality, I'm not calling 3-bets and losing nearly that often and I'm sure the big blind wins substantially more often than 0% of the time. Also, with this board texture, I think I would give at least some thought to 4-betting my queen high flushes. While Joker will have a flush pretty often, I don't think he will have a lot of nut flushes after cold calling from the cutoff preflop in a 5-handed game - I think he's reraising most of his suited aces, maybe all of them (as he should). And if the fish in the big blind has a queen high flush beat, then she just gets to win all the money.
EV(call) = (85% * 17) + (15% * -2) = 14.15
EV(3-bet) = (5.7% * -4) + (7.7% * -3) + (17.3% * 19) + (69.3% * 18) = 15.3
That's assuming I'm calling with two pair or better, only 4-betting with nut flushes, and that the big blind never has Joker beat.
In reality, I'm not calling 3-bets and losing nearly that often and I'm sure the big blind wins substantially more often than 0% of the time. Also, with this board texture, I think I would give at least some thought to 4-betting my queen high flushes. While Joker will have a flush pretty often, I don't think he will have a lot of nut flushes after cold calling from the cutoff preflop in a 5-handed game - I think he's reraising most of his suited aces, maybe all of them (as he should). And if the fish in the big blind has a queen high flush beat, then she just gets to win all the money.
I stand by my assessment of this forum. It's not a place where people are trying to learn anything. And I've decided that I don't care what all the rest of y'all do. I'm still going to put out reasoned arguments and show my work. I may be right, and I may be wrong. I will continue to weigh my thoughts on the merits of the arguments put forward, and not care about the personalities that come with it.
I believe that *you* are not trying to learn anything. If you were, you'd post your own hands or concepts that you had questions about, in threads that *you* create. You'd wade into the medium stakes forum and debate the many players there who are better than you and who play higher stakes than you.
Perhaps you're making the mistaken and common assumption that other people think/act the same as you (and so if you're not here to learn, then no one else is either)? I think we're all guilty of this thought process sometimes.
If true, this attitude is part of the problem. We're a community with some rules aimed at keeping things civil and fair.
However, I don't think I've ever seen you let anything (a point, an argument, a detail, a debate) go, so I don't believe your statement aligns with your actions. You seem to care a lot about winning and lecturing and having the spotlight on you.
You clearly think very deeply about poker, and that's a valuable asset to the forum. It'd be great if you could bring that to the table without all of the other stuff.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE