Can this raise be profitable? - Page 2 - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

This is the Conjunction Fallacy. It's not sufficient to list a lot of things that have to go right. For you to win any pot, you're also relying on the dealer not misreading your hand, gambling not being illegalized in the time it takes to ship the pot to you, and so forth. This argument only becomes meaningful once we assess the probability of each of those happening.

So there are 17 combos from each of the 4 left to act that we're most worried about. If they have 20% of all 1326 combos of hold em, then sets+ only represent 6% of each players' range, so there's a 76% chance that none of them have those hands.

24 combos out of an UTG opener's range is more substantial, but again, I'm relying on the population read that a bet this size is rarely a strong overpair.

Of course we still need either AcKx and so forth to either fold or to fade all their outs to the river, but this is more relevant when we're comparing raising versus folding. As compared to calling, it is clearly superior to force these hands to either invest more money as a slight dog or to forfeit their equity.

All factors considered, we're probably winning this pot <50% of the time, so a raise isn't for straight value, but the value in protection is massive here. I would even argue that investing $80 more on the flop with a raise rather than a call doesn't even mean we're investing much more with this hand than we would with a call, as the raise earns us initiative on the only player who's acted on the pot and forces the players in position to play more straightforward on the remaining streets.

Ooh... Conjunction Fallacy. Sexy phrase. I like it.

Quote

02-01-2016 , 04:14 AM

#27

Renton555

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 5,905

It surely seems like minraising to 60 is more +EV than call here for simple isolation/protection purposes. I'm not sure if there's a better size than min, but 90 def seems a little too large. Whether this is good really depends on how reliably you can fold to the all-in (you had to expect him to go all in a significant percentage of the time). If his betting range was weak enough and you have dismal equity vs his shoving range, then you gained valuable information (in addition to protection and value) by raising, and I like it.

Quote

02-01-2016 , 04:15 PM

#28

patmister1

centurion

Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 181

We can't raise for Value and we can't raise as a bluff so I don't like raising in this spot. I think we are way behind UTG range when he opens big and bets into the field so I'd be inclined to make a disciplined fold although I'd consider floating one street if we were deeper and had more history with villain.

Quote

02-01-2016 , 06:33 PM

#29

jvds

adept

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,176

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renton555

yeah i agree with this, and i think it seems fine.

i'll add that the things that make this worse for TT (namely him jamming Ax often and you folding) are quite good for the rest of your range, so although you might not have picked the best counter-exploit to that strat, you are still doing very well with your range.

Quote

02-01-2016 , 06:37 PM

#30

E Mo

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 336

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvds

So you're saying this ended up having an element of bluff to it?

Quote

02-01-2016 , 06:47 PM

#31

jvds

adept

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,176

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Mo

So you're saying this ended up having an element of bluff to it?

im not quite sure what you mean by an element of bluff. are you referring to something in my post, or the one i was quoting?

in my post i added that when he bluffs you more often (by b/jamming Ax), the part of your raising range that is stacking off does really well

Quote

02-01-2016 , 08:03 PM

#32

E Mo

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 336

Quote:

Originally Posted by jvds

Your post. So I'm saying he's less likely to bluff over me because my range here is really strong? In other words: my hand is over repped.

Quote

02-01-2016 , 09:33 PM

#33

jvds

adept

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,176

Quote:

Originally Posted by E Mo

Your post. So I'm saying he's less likely to bluff over me because my range here is really strong?

more or less, yes, in theory. i was also saying that if he deviates and overbluffs, while it detracts from the ev of TT, it adds to the ev of your stronger hands.

Quote:

In other words: my hand is over repped.

not a big fan of this term generally, so i wouldn't put it that way. it is one of the weaker made hands in your range, and benefits a lot from protection.

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last