V1 TAG low 30s Asian female. $2k. Seems like a reg. MP.
V2 TAG pro young WG. $2.5k. Button
Hero straddle tight image though ran a semi bluff against V2 and got there so maybe looks a tad spewy. $2.5k

Entire table is straddling

V1 opens to $35
V2 calls
Hero calls from straddle with QsTs

Flop $105 9h7h4h
Check around

Turn Th
Check around

River 3h
Hero checks
V1 check
V2 bets $40
Hero folds
V1 snap calls

Should V1 be snap calling or calling at all here? I've heard people tell me V1 is a good player, but this call seems really bad if we are calling to chop at best. V2 obviously does not have many strong hands in his range here, but he's capable of going for thin value.

I just want to confirm my logic or understand the situation better, thanks.

Id think they both have higher than a 10h but maybe im just being naive.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

This depends on what V2 is capable of thin value betting and bluffing small with. If V2 will throw a small bluff in here with anything after 2 checks then V1 can call just to chop some of the time. In this sort of situation there is likely history between V1 and V2 that you are not aware of. If these two run into each other semi-regularly then V1 might be calling just to prove she can't be pushed around.

The snap call likely indicates V1 had already planned to call a small bet before she checked. I would expect V1 to have a low heart that beats but the board but nothing else. Something good only for bluff catching.

But even if villain has like a a 90% bluff frequency here, isn't V1 just being free rolled if she is calling and never raising (I say never raising because she snap called here so seemingly not even considering bluff raise)

Seems like being exploitable in a spot like this is totally fine, no?

ETA: I meant to include results in OP, though I know that's discouraged. I thought they were relevant and that this type of HH is ok

ETA 2: basically V1 has a reputation of being a good player in the room. If V1 is snap calling here to chop, that tells me that a good player thinks this is a standard call... the call seems really bad to me.... am I missing something?

EV of fold = 0

EV of call to chop 90% of the time and lose 10% is (.9*(.5*145))=.9*72.5=+$65.25-(.1x40)=$4, so EV of calling in that scenario is +$61.25.

Hell, when you're risking $40 to win $65, you could lose half the time and still come out ahead. He'd have to have a heart > 75% of the time for this to be a bad call. With any history at all, this seems like a fine call.

I don't think the river is an automatic call. I think it's most likely that V2 had made her decision before she checked river. She thought about what V1 might do at least a little and had already decided to call a small bet.

It's also possible that she is a station in the face of small bets but if that is the case then I don't think V1 is likely to make a small bet.

I always struggle with this one, if you're going to flat the river it's because other V has no H in his hand. If you're $40 confident he has no H, why not raise it to $105 induce a fold and take the whole pot? I hate the call, but always screw this one up myself.

raising is better than calling even gets opponent off non nutted hearts sometimes

Because now your risking a whole lot more on those times he does have a heart. While you double the amount you win when he doesn't (assuming he never re-bluffs), you are also more than doubling the amount you lose when he does.

Not saying it's always a call, because it depends so very heavily on V tendencies, but given history it could be either a fold, call, or raise.

When nobody bets on the flop, turn or river, the odds are low that anyone has a heart. The villain got the basic idea of a post oak bluff down, but forgot the element that you have to show you can do this with a made hand enough times to get people sick of paying him off.

The format of your equations is tilting with all those '=' signs.

In the first part it's only (.9*(.5*105)). We don't win half of villain's $40, just half of whatever was in the pot to start.

Anyway, if we say the EV in that scenario is .9*(.5*105)-.1*40 = $43.25, raising is still almost definitely higher.

Using the same percentages and the suggested raise sizing of $105, Raising is massively better if he never calls to chop and never re-bluffs. .9*(145)-.1*105 = $120

Using algebra we can set x*(145)-.1*105 >= x*(.5*105)-.1*40 and find that x >= 65/157.5, or about 41% bluffing frequency. This is the frequency above which raising is better than calling against someone who doesn't re-bluff or call to chop. However, at and below this bluffing frequency both calling and raising are -EV.

Calling to chop here when we have much better bluff-catchers which can win the whole pot is spew, and almost never correct from an exploitative standpoint (villain would have to be capable of re-bluffing us or bluff-catching with chops sometimes)

Im out. To much math for me.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Citation needed. It's in the pot now. We are risking $40 to win half of what is in the pot.

Agreed, but I never said calling is the most +EV option, just that it is not being freerolled as argued and can be +EV if he's bluffing enough.

I think he means we don't win half of villains 40 in a chop, we just keep our 40 and then half of whatever was in before that. I think.

That's not usually how one figures calling EV. One figures the chances of winning the current pot (or in this case half of the current pot) minus the chances of losing our call.

Math covered. V1 just called BS because she felt semi-entitled to the pot as PFR, 40 is nothing in this game, and why not herochopblockbluffcatch and get to see some cards.

Just 2 fish clicking buttons. Start value betting thinner.

Citation? I’m not making any claims requiring citation. If you don’t understand something I can explain what you are missing, or possibly discover that I have made a mistake.

The number in your equation is not supposed to be the pot size. It is the amount we win when we call and chop. That amount is .5*105, not .5*145. If he had bet $100000, the EV of calling and chopping would still be .5*105.

I didn’t realize it was a question of whether or not calling could be +EV. Certainly it can be. Usually we are not trying to just find a good option, though. We want the best option. Calling is literally never the best option with assumption that he doesn’t 3-bet bluff our raise or call our raise to chop. Given those assumptions further villain tendencies don’t matter.

The "citation needed" bit was a wikipedia ref. I see what you are saying now, though. I'm used to doing EV calcs in ref to losing or winning the pot, in which case we get our call back, so I just throw it out of the calc. Here, though, we only get half of our call back if we chop, so if we throw our call out, we also have to throw his bet out (or include both of them). My bad.

As for the "I didn’t realize it was a question of whether or not calling could be +EV," the question I was answering was "isn't V1 just being free rolled if she is calling" and the answer is "no, because there is money in the pot already, so V1 can make money by calling. I agree that V1 could often make more money by raising, but since I didn't make the assumption that V2 "doesn’t 3-bet bluff our raise or call our raise to chop," I said that the most EV play depends on V2 tendencies.

I mean, river call is exactly the same for a chopped pot. determine pot odds, estimate how often he is bluffing. $40 to wn $52.50, so if he is bluffing 50% youre winning money, so yeah im snapping with atc, but i also wouldve probably gotten squeezed and folded as hero (assuming its $40 to win $35 with an extra person who might have low flush). WP by V2

At my casino all 5 cards to the flush play so if you have a card lower than the highest card on a 5-flush board and someone else is just playing the board then you would scoop the pot.

Yes, that is 100% standard. A T9754 flush beats a T9743 flush, ldo. Bluff in this discussion means "has only the 2h or no heart at all."

If both players have lower card than the board it doesn't matter if someone has the suit in there hand. You only play 5 cards in poker. Not the 5 on the board plus your 2

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Thats incorrect. The 10 plays

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I'm very confused now