Stack sizes are important here for other players. You should list them, as it is very relevant. If you are all $245 effective this is a very bad call pre. 80bb calling here is torching money

Ap flop is fine, i dont like raising to $110 and then shoving lol 25% pot on any turn.

Their argument?

“Im so confident in my postflop plays that im sure i can profit and lol outplay the other players despite being OOP, not having a card advantage, and rake”. Poker players tend to have the biggest egos. That’s one reason why poker will never die

50-80% of players’ reasoning for borderline calls and/or very loose calls pre that are often -EV. And they often dont provide any math, numbers, or concrete reasons for why calling is profitable.

Although i will say it’s definitely not a 3b or fold pre. 3-betting here is really bad. Call more or less = fold assuming you crush postflop (which btw is not very high % of regs, although they like to think they are), >>>>>>>>>>>> 3b. 3b pre is torching money

To be clear, the four way equity of T9s exceeds 20%, and Hero has to call 9 to win 39, or let's say 36 with rake factored in. Hence, to justify a call, we have only to realize our equity in the best relative position against bad players with one of the most playable hands in NLHE. But this is totally unpossible, hubris to think it can be done, snap fold pre.

In my scan of some of the long winded posts attempting to justify a fold that would be made by no pro or sim, I noticed somebody arguing that we need 36 to 1 implied odds to justify a call. This is of course insanity. It assumes we auto-lose when we don't flop a monster hand. But look above and you will see Hero making a fat +EV shove without two pair, trips, a straight, or a flush. Wow! It's almost as if T9s is a good hand.

And let me anticipate an argument that I can already see being made against the above. Some one may try to argue that this is not a fat +EV shove since he is never bet/folding into three other players, and because he always calls, the shove ends up being BE. I don't agree, but let's say for the sake of argument that this is correct. What this would mean is that the raiser is checking all his misses, which creates a high likelihood that the flop checks through. This means we will often see a turn, making it even easier to realize our equity, which remember is the only thing we need to do to justify calling.

My grandmother defends t9s in this spot

Remember you aren't trying to win out of the big - you're trying to lose less

Sorry for the quadruple post, but I want to put this nonsense about folding T9s pre to bed permanently.

Let us imagine that we decide to play a very stupid postflop strategy, where

- If we flop a combo draw (12+ outs against AA) or big made hand (two pair, trips, flush, straight), we check/jam.
- EVERY OTHER FLOP, including flops where we make a naked flush draw or naked OESD, we open fold. We don't even check to try to see a free card. Just toss our hand into the muck.

Say on average this strategy with a combo draw shows a profit of $20 and with a big made hand shows a profit of $120. Remember, there will be $45 in the pot before the flop is dealt, so if you think these figures are unreasonable, idk what to tell you.

According to *this epic linked post*, the probability of flopping a 12+ out combo draw with a suited connector is 6.9%. The probability of flopping a big made hand is 5.6%. Thus the EV of the above strategy is:

0.069*20 + 0.056*120 - 0.875*9 = 0

Given that this terrible postflop strategy is breakeven, folding pre cannot be justified.

Dude, you just *made up* numbers that fit your argument. You can't just say you'd profit $20 or $120. Show your damn work!!!

Oh, and I think it's HILARIOUS,

Buddy, if you put in $9, then everything you do afterwards breaks even......then you lost $9.

You do realize the goal of the game is to make money right?

lol the 120 I took from you. You said you believed 36 to 1 implied odds will show a profit (speaking of making up numbers), even though we hit 18 to 1. Therefore, you believe that we win a little over half the effective stack on average when we hit.

Also, you don't understand the elementary EV calc, where the 87.5% of the time we lose $9 is clearly factored in.

Prove it.

I gave the opener a "weak-tight" opening range, and put two fishy calling ranges in between that and our T9s.

Not 20%

Equity Win Tie
MP2 44.41% 43.81% 0.60% TT+, AQs+, KQs, AKo
MP3 18.13% 17.09% 1.04% 99-44, AJs-A2s, K8s+, Q8s+, J8s+, T8s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, AQo-A7o, KTo+, QTo+, J9o+, T9o
BU 18.12% 17.09% 1.03% 99-44, AJs-A2s, K8s+, Q8s+, J8s+, T8s+, 97s+, 86s+, 76s, 65s, AQo-A7o, KTo+, QTo+, J9o+, T9o
BB 19.35% 18.44% 0.91% Ts9s

18 to 1 are the odds of hitting, not winning.

If you play an 18 to 1 hand, hit it, get max value every time, and never lose, and don't pay rake, then you're just breaking even.

You need more than 18 to 1 to make a profit.

You need more to cover the times you lose (T9s almost never makes the nuts)

You need more to cover the times you get less than max value.

You need more to cover the rake.

My number is 36 to 1. What's yours? Don't say 18, because you'd be a loser.

Learn math.

There is no error in the calculation. Maybe you now think, contradicting your own "36 to 1" post, that there's some flaw in the assumptions about the profit when we hit, but the calculation is correct given those assumptions.

I also wanna know how you're making $20 with your combo draws.

Stacks are short. It takes very little betting to commit all of your money. If you commit all of your money as an underdog....you lose money.

In this particular hand, we have a 13 out draw against AJ, or QQ.

Assume we stack off, the final pot will contain 514. We need 45.3% equity to break even.

Our equity against AJ or QQ is right around 47 or 48%.

$514 x 48% = $246.72

We've voluntarily put in a total of $242 into this pot.

Profit = $4.72, not $20.

And $4.72 is too high because we haven't accounted for the possibility of V having a set, or better flush draw, or if he blocks any of our outs. We have alot less than 48% in those situations.

Also, rake is probably more than $4.72, and we should tip the dealer.

I arrive at the $20 because we have fold equity. You're ranging the Villain much tighter than I am. This is a 4x raise and people are bad about adjusting for position. I would definitely not rule 88 or KQo out of his preflop range.

Show your damn work!

Against 3 guys?

Out of position?

with an SPR under 5?

No you don't have fold equity.

Like in this hand, I'd put his cbet range as something like

AJ, QQ+, 88-TT, JJ, 77 (not sure if he raises pre, but let's include it), KsQs, AsQs, AsKs, and let's take 15 combos of other hands like AK/AQ/KQ that he could be bet/folding.

Then, he bet/folds those 15 combos, 12 combos of 88-TT, and bet/calls the rest (39 combos). We have 43% equity against his all-in range, and he folds 27/(27+39) = 41%. Then the EV of the shove is

0.41*(48+35)+0.59*(0.43*(48+233)-0.57*(233)) = 27.

But we put in 9 to reach this point, so subtract to get 18, right in line with my estimate (if you like, change the estimate in my calculation to 18, although twelve-outer and no dead money callers is the one of the worst scenarios that silly strategy c/jams in).

You seem to be totally discounting the description of "weak tight".

He limps KQ and 77 dude, and probably never cbet bluffs AK into 3 people.

youre trying to reverse engineer ranges that fit your argument for calling.

You're taking a shaky description to the extreme. The description was:

This does not sound like someone who never cbets AK in this spot. And again, if he always checks his misses, that is not bad for us (since we are more likely to have something weak like a naked GS or midpair that wants to see the turn).

Ok, I don't agree at all. We're at an impasse. I'll just say in conclusion that if fold pre were right, the terrible strategy I outlined should not even come close to BE. If you change my $20 profit with combo draw to $0 profit with combo draw, the EV - factoring in rake - of calling the $9 is -$1.15. If you don't think you can make up the difference by, for example, not open folding your OESDs and at least trying to take a free or cheap card, then you have low faith in your game or a super high opinion of your opponents.

It's actually less

So, not +ev then?

You keep talking about OESD's like they're the roast chestnuts. That's a hand with 30% equity dude!! To make a profit, you need to over-realize your equity that hand. The low SPR and number of opponents makes our bluffing prospects low. The other way to make money is to get crazy value when we hit. But we can't do that either cause V has no money!!

It doesn't matter how cheap the card is, putting money in the pot as an equity underdog is -EV. Period. There are only 2 ways around that. 1) Fold equity, which we wouldn't have because we're calling in the situation you describe. And 2) Implied odds, which we also don't have because V only started the hand with 80 BBs

Totally false.

Literal nonsense. You have implied odds of up to however much the players have behind.

So u describe the V as "weak tight" and you are getting just 20x implied with a hand that plays like crap when OOP no matter what you flop (as evidenced by what you did with it postflop). Weak tight players don't stack off with overpairs so how exactly are you getting paid off by worse?

I don't think I am the one who needs to get real.

Huh? So you're saying he has huge amounts of fold equity with his combo draw? That's a really good reason to play the hand.

I won't defend as deeply as owl, but I think calling OOP vs a weak tight opener at this stack depth is a pretty big leak. And I like to see as many flops as I can.

Ding Ding. OP said $245 was the effective.