Grunch (means I have only read OP, not replies)

Call, then ask how many times they want to run it.

You have perfect information and can make the perfect decision here. This is an example of why math is so important.

You have 36.5% equity in the main (both FDs go down since they have each other's outs) That means that when you put your $160 into the main, it will be a 600 dollar pot, and you're 'entitled" to $219 of it, for a profit of (on average) $59.

Then you have almost 55.48% equity in the huge side pot (since two of your V's outs are gone) He has 11 outs twice, or approx 44% equity (for math you can do easily at the table). You'll be putting $665 into the pot of 1330, and winning (on average) $73.

That means that this spot is worth $132 in profit. Not a lot of pots offer that much profit. The variance is very high, but it's still a very obvious call if you run the numbers.

If V2 is also variance averse here, maybe you can run it twice. It doesn't change the EV at all, but smooths out the variance a lot. (Edit to add: I just saw that the casino does not allow )

I don't like games where people mess around too much. So, after stopping the dealer, I would have had him call the floor right then. If this was a first time, I would be happy with them getting a warning. If not, let the floor rule on the hands.

This is poker, not a social club.

Insane that this thread gets discussed over 27 posts whether we should call here or not when it´s so extremely easy to figuere that out and calculations make it a clear and highly profitable call.

why

on

earth

would

anyone

want

to

fold???

it is a mistake to fold here. quite a big one. you guys have to realize that.

The distinction is important in modern theory, and one might argue singularly important in the development of modern theory. "There's lots of big pots at that table," and "there's lots of dead money at that table," are two ENTIRELY different concepts.

It's not important here as it seems quite clear what the poster meant.

You are referring to the money already in the pot in which a player has surrendered equity. That money is obviously insignificant and not what the poster was referring to.

He is referring to the overlay of money in the pot prior to the decision point in which hero has equity as dead money.

He also called the side pot the main pot but I understood what he meant.

Other than correcting him on his misuse of the term (and a relatively common one) it is a pointless distraction itt.

To see the true equity for the side pot vs Jh9h you should run Jh9h vs QQ heads up with Ah and Kh identified as dead cards.

he did in his next post

Ha excellent observational skills sir.

This is obviously a call....and it isnt even close. Granted, its more difficult to make calculations while at the table.

There are a couple very flawed lines of thinking that have been expressed in this discussion.

The $80 we have invested is irrelevant. We have to call x amount to win x amount. Where the pot came from doesnt matter.

"We should fold because we arent favored." This is also very incorrect. Are you folding AA in the big blind if 6 people open shove in front of you?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

While call is clearly a +EV situation, sometimes when you are in really good games you can make the choice to avoid slightly +ev situations for spots with less variance. That said, you should recognize that preflop the winning villain is clearly trying to isolate the drunk fish pre-flop and you should be attacking that aggressively with QQ.

This is an interesting post, but it seems like the real issue has been side-tracked. The question is, and you need to ask this of yourself before every session, are you willing to GII when you have a made hand against a draw?

You also need to be able to re-asses your answer as you get deeper stacked. Are you willing to risk 400+ bb against a player that you know for a fact is drawing? It's really as simple as that.

Your answer probably changes if you only have 150bb or 250bb or 75bb.

You need to be ready to change gears as your stack size changes. All the EV math that the other posters might be distracting you from being honest with yourself. We all know "long run" poker and all that macro-view outlook says "call", but if in that situation, you were not willing to risk everything, knowing you were ahead, then you probably need to re-assess some of your playing characteristics. If, when you get deep, and are uncomfortable playing for stacks, even when you are ahead, you shouldn't play that deep.

All just MHO...

Thread should be done after post #26. We make $132 by calling here. That's huge in 1/2. A similar spot for our $865 stack would involve us having TT, someone shoving AKo and showing it to the table, with us being last to act. If you're passing up this spot due to variance, there is just a ton of value you're going to leave on the table, and you just can't play this deep.

Playing super deep in a juicy game its ok to fold.. how much $$ ready to reload if you lose also relevant.. if losing will also adversely effect your mental state and future profits in this game

The math about the call being ev is obviously correct but giving yourself a little leeway from time to time is ok

This is sort of correct on the surface.
Taking into account the mental EV / bank roll consideration is important.

But in this particular case, if we are folding while getting this much value, we are doing something very wrong.

Would anyone ever think about folding Aces heads up, pre flop, for a $150 shove?
We are 'only' making $90 by calling. So if we can fold in this spot because we don't want to make $100+ then should we be folding our Aces?

Both would be equally bad.

LOL

Thanks for all the responses, but this one hits home better than any other.

I ended up calling the hand, but I did feel like the game dynamic would allow situations when I would be putting money much more heavily favored.

Wow people want to fold here? Not trying to be rude but I was surprised this was even a thread.

Edit: Glad the OP didn't fold though. Sucks that he didn't take it down. OP, if you think you feel bad about it now, imagine folding there and knowing that you would have won the pot if you called. I would be really pissed. I wonder if you're just being at least a bit results oriented.

But you were wrong.

I see this type of thinking all the time but isn't this a leak? This is a highly profitable call. The extreme version of this type of thinking is the nitty OMC who waits for the sure thing before doing anything. We all know that doesn't make much money. Of course nobody is suggesting we go that far, but why not take advantage of this situation AND other profitable situations?

Yes, this is a leak. As you mentioned, n a cash game, we can take the marginally profitable spots and the hugely profitable ones, because (unlike in most tournaments), we can buy back in.

There are a few circumstances when passing up a +EV situation can be right (mostly if we have deep effective stacks against bad players in a capped game, where if we are felted we won't be able to buy back in deep), but they are few and far between. Passing up on this spot would be really bad if we are properly rolled. $132 represents about 6.5 hours worth of profits for a crusher. Passing up on it would be very bad and an indication that we are not sufficiently fiscally or mentally rolled to play this deep.

Yes it is.

To those suggesting a fold, what is the bottom of your calling range here?

of course -- it is human nature to be results oriented.

After reading all the posts, I am obviously patting myself on the back. A winning session also helps.

This was Sklansky's proclamation, and Sklansky was genius, so we took him at his word.

But it ACTUALLY DOES MATTER where the pot came from, which is why I continue to pound on the "dead money" nomenclature.

Sklansky made a SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTION so that he could present his theory separate from the ways that professionals has previously discussed the game. By ignoring the idea of dead money and saying "the pot is the pot," he left his theory incomplete. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; if a theory is perfect but 3% incomplete, that's very very good.

But to get all the way to GTO you need to realize that the idea of dead money is PROFOUNDLY important and there is a reason it was so important in theoretical discussions prior to Sklansky.

WTF does GTO have to do with anything? 2 players are all in and we have a straight forward risk/reward or EV decision on the flop. Based on the flop stack sizes and the pot presented to us.