Folding doesn't have EV = 0. As things stood at the beginning of the street (against just the range he bets with) you had a 33% equity share in a $100ish pot and after you fold you have a 0% equity share.

You don't get a choice in whether your opponent bets or not in poker, so analysis usually begins after the bet is made and folding gets baselined at EV = 0 so you can compare other options to it. But it's better for you if your opponent doesn't bet.

THis is meme worthy

I aspire to one day be good enough at math to understand that 60% is more than 50%. Any counterarguments, I'll drop some MATH BOMBS:

Can't argue with the math.

Hope you don’t mean me. Might be missing my point as how it pertains to what we are trying to achieve pre.
In a vacuum of course it’s a big deal but we’re not in a vacuum and this is a highly specialized situation. Intermediate players understand iso value, but 2 off the maniac is the perfect position to poker tf out of the spot and the table and leave the math at home, preflop at least.

To be clear I think you bring up interesting points but there are a couple conceptual issues i have wrong with this. The first is thinking we have fold equity at all, and I'm talking about pre-flop, on the flop, on the turn, and on the river.

Second, even if we hypothetically imagine we're able to fully realize our 60% equity against V over time (very difficult OOP against spewers), our skill advantage over drooler 1 and drooler 2 should be so high that we never have to risk a high variance 60/40 strategy against them (even if you argue it is +EV I buy that but EV doesn't tell us variance). Instead we should play our bread and butter value hands IP and the money will come our way. LLSNL is about maximizing return against fish and minimizing variance via exploitative adjustments. Not pure EV

Also the 40% equity our opponent has will have a good portion of IO against us. How do you play when we hit the A and opponent calls 2 streets? X/f river? Why are we getting ourselves into complex, uncomfortable situations with absolute bottom of the ocean fish?? Not worth the variance.

I'm not someone who underappreciates GTO type strategies but they simply aren't relevant here against drooler 1 and 2. I really think 3betting A8dd is a huge leak here.

I don't like the 3 bet OOP at all. IP I could get behind it. 4X seems a bit too much though. I like a call or fold pf.

V1's 4 bet sizing looks like a big hand to me here. He's giving great pot odds for us to continue and he just put in 1/3 of his stack.

This is a really weird argument, btw. A8s isn't in Polk's value 3betting range heads up, and your argument is that having another player behind makes threebetting BETTER? If A8s isn't a value threebet, adding players behind us doesn't turn it into one.

With standard bet sizes, heads up, it's not a value threebet, per Polk's ranges. It's possible that the smaller SPR cuts down positional disadvantage enough, but it's not like you have math demonstrating that. An argument that smaller SPR means less poker can be played is double-edged, because that also limits the scope for outplaying the maniac.

Wrong take. It isn't that A8s is not "good enough" to 3 bet from the BB and therefore should be folded from the SB. It's that BB always has more incentive to flat based on better pot odds and closing the action.

The SB gets 3-bet more due to flatting being generally an unattractive option because you'd rather increase your equity share by knocking out the BB. Flatting allows the BB to overcall somewhat wide and puts you in worse shape post-flop compared to getting the initial raiser HU. In live games I often flat in the SB vs the right players, but watch any tough online game and you'll find that the SB almost never gets flatted vs 1 raise and no calls.

Missing the point. I already said this earlier in the thread, and I hate repeating myself. Having fold equity here would be great, because winning the pot with ace high is always a great result. However, even if villain never folds to our 3-bet, that is still okay because our hand plays quite well vs an extremely wide range and it's still going to be more profitable on average to go to war with A8s vs this range than give up your SB.

My whole point about stressing 60/40 over and over is that it's in fact a big edge, not a small one, and that it's going to be really difficult for being OOP to overturn that much of an equity difference. I don't think you realize how wide of a range 75% of hands, or even 50% is. Villain's range is going to have all offsuit aces, a lot of offsuit kings, a whole lot of random offsuit undercards, and somehow all of you are terrified of villain flopping better than one pair when we flop one pair, with an SPR under 3? Who do you think is likely to flop better, A8s, or a range that includes all the above-mentioned hands?

If you are arguing for folding pre-flop because you are scared of variance, fine, but do not argue that it's the highest EV play, or that we should by default be trying to minimize variance because the stakes somehow should dicatate how risk-averse we are. If you fold this hand, you honestly deserve to get dealt trash on your next 3 hands (which btw is pretty likely, most hands are trash). Also do not complain about games getting harder when the absolute worst droolers stop playing and you haven't done any work to try to improve.

OK... like I understand that and I normally flat from the SB very rarely, close to never vs a CO raise. I want to do it here because V sucks at poker.

You're not addressing my point, though. You're claiming that A8s is an easy value threebet, but it doesn't appear in Polk's list of "mandatory" value hands (though it does appear in his "merged range", so he would probably threebet it vs a player with a low f3b). In other words, it's a very marginal threebet. My question: how does a player behind us help this situation? Shouldn't that make us less inclined to threebet it? To take it to the extreme, if there were 9 players still to act behind us, we should threebet tighter, right? I'm not talking about 3b vs flat here, I'm talking about 3b vs fold.

Edit: To put it as clearly as possible, I'm saying that 3b has worse EV due to the player behind us than it would if he didn't exist.

Do you guys even know what a 75% range looks like? If we flop an Ace or an 8, we are insta stacking off. i'd also x/jam any gutshots or open-enders

22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 83s+, 73s+, 63s+, 52s+, 43s, A2o+, K2o+, Q2o+, J4o+, T6o+, 96o+, 86o+, 75o+, 65o

A8s is the nuts vs this range.

AQo is about 55/45 or even less vs a standard MP/CO/BTN open yet everyone snap 3-bets SB vs those positions. i really dont see why A8s being a 3b pre cant be wrapped around your mind

Actually, against a relatively standard aggro reg MP open, AQo has less than 54% equity. Consider the fact that most live players open even TIGHTER than this range is going to see your equity drop even further.

SB vs MP 16% RFI

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,657,481,344 games 0.000 secs 731,496,268,800 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 46.973% 43.58% 03.39% 1594045260 123990702.00 { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 53.027% 49.64% 03.39% 1815454680 123990702.00 { AQo }

SB vs CO RFI (26%, relatively high):

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

6,102,651,456 games 0.000 secs 1,220,530,291,200 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 42.079% 39.76% 02.32% 2426325036 141638532.00 { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, Q9s+, J8s+, T7s+, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 1: 57.921% 55.60% 02.32% 3393049356 141638532.00 { AQo }

There are some exceptions for example on T98 I'm probably not stacking off but in general yeah any flopped pair or flush draw is going to be highly +EV. We have to check fold a decent number of flops but also likely win on very dry flops like Q22 etc.

People can't both be worried about not having FE and also simultaneously think that a 75% range is going to outflop a suited ace all the time.

If he sucks at poker and he will call 100% of his range as you guys suggest, which is never true but let's assume for the sake of it, then you want to play a bigger pot with him when you have a 20% equity edge on him and hopefully a skill advantage over him.

I would take what Polk says with a grain of salt for live poker, he's a nosebleeds online grinder and those games are way different than live low-stakes. He also has spewed a lot at live poker playing too rigidly wrt GTO and doing dumb **** like trying to balance his flop 3b jam range with air against a rec who doesn't x/r at a high enough solver-frequency.

You just said that A8s is part of Doug's "merged" range vs someone who has a low ft3b. Well, isn't the maniac's ft3b extremely low, thus this is a 3b for value?

It doesn't help us that there's an aggro reg behind us. He's precisely the reason why this is a much more mandatory 3b than flat, than if BB were your average fish. He's going to squeeze you out of the pot too often, and calling the squeeze OOP would be a huge leak.

Yes ofc our EV for 3b is lower since there is one more player behind us, and that this would hold true for one + n players behind us. In an ideal world, the BB behind us would fold 100% of his range vs the maniac's raise but we can't pick our spots. The fact still remains that 3b has higher EV than call here. Yes, it is a marginal 3b but so is AQo vs your standard live open. Yet almost everyone snap 3-bets there, barring the opener isn't some OMC. I'm sure most of you guys still 3b AQo from the SB vs a 10%-11% RFI.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

2,445,170,112 games 0.000 secs 489,034,022,400 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 48.494% 44.00% 04.50% 1075827096 109922022.00 { 77+, A9s+, KJs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 51.506% 47.01% 04.50% 1149498972 109922022.00 { AQo }


JJ only has 60/40 vs a 11% RFI yet everyone would unanimously agree it's a snap 3b, even vs tighter opens and from EP. People are even 3-betting JJ vs single digits opens.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

1,325,323,296 games 0.000 secs 265,064,659,200 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 39.754% 39.11% 00.65% 518314332 8560278.00 { 77+, A9s+, KJs+, QTs+, JTs, T9s, 98s, 87s, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 60.246% 59.60% 00.65% 789888408 8560278.00 { JJ }

Putting aside the other million reasons why 3b >>>>>>>> call, 60/40 is absolutely huge and if you can't see that even after comparing these ranges here and above then I don't know what to say.

Sabr's & Minatorr's thoughts pretty much echo what was going through my head at the time. It's not too often I get to play against maniacs like this, but when I do, I tend to push a lot of thin edges, aggressively going after every $ they put in even if I don't have the nuts. Many regs I see just sit around and try to nutmine against them, and wait until they have a premium hand and/or 2p+ on a safe board before getting it in. Against a bad maniac that always seemed profitable but sub optimal. Against a good LAG they get steamrolled and could be losing.

I'm not sure if some of the reason this discussion went off the rails is confusion over just how wild this V is. I didn't post this hand earlier, but to give some context on the nutso game I was in, here's a hand that played either shortly before or after, but didn't significantly affect my read on the guy.

Maniac opens CO to $13. Fish OTB calls.

Flop 753 Maniac checks, fish bets $20, maniac x/r to $65, fish 3! to $205, maniac calls.

Turn 753Q Maniac checks, fish jams for like $75, maniac calls. Maniac flips T3 fish flips 52. I had the jesus seat on both these guys and was loving it.

The bolded is just very wrong in a vacuum. Assuming that you are properly rolled and can buy back in to cover, there is never a good time to pass up a +EV spot in cash games. You can take the easy-peasy high-value, low-variance spots and the thinner higher variance spots. Passing up the latter is just throwing winrate away.

Let's take the example here, and keep it very simple for math's sake. We 3-bet, maniac calls, and no more money goes in the pot. Obviously that's not super likely, but I think we can agree that if more money goes in the pot post flop, we'll be at least break-even on it. So if we are 60/40, and the pot is $100, we'll make a profit of $10 on average from this hand. That's 5BBs of EV, or half-an-hour's worth of winnings for a crusher. If you are passing up half-an-hour's profits to "wait for a better spot," you are not a crusher, so it's probably more of your hourly down the drain.

Sure, there are counter examples where there is opportunity cost, such as not having enough cash with you, or low table max meaning that if you lose you won't be deep with the maniac anymore, but in terms of basic poker theory you should be taking every +EV spot, not just the low-hanging fruit.

What he said can easily be taken out of context but he is not exactly wrong. Ip equity realization diminishes raw oop equity, such that its really 55/45 or whatever.

Playing against maniacs is very difficult. 3betting here vs a tag is fine and standard, because standard ranges, standard fold equity, etc.

What even very strong minded pros like sabr still fail to understand is that you can in fact wait for better spots in poker. Each hand is not a vacuum. Not in live poker its not.

Live poker, up to 10/25 in NL and god knows how high in plo, is in fact still about low hanging fruit.

But, barring extenuating circumstances, there is no reason that you can't take both. That's my point.

This isn't a donkament where if we run out of chips we are done.

Playing against maniacs is pretty simple. Aggressively fight for your equity share pre-flop, and exploitatively check to them a lot OOP when you hit pairs and call them down. Also check your whiffs to them a lot and fold so they think they can always bluff you, until you have it and it doesn't work. You'll get stacked a lot but you'll stack them more than they stack you.

That you'd rather play a hand vs a competent TAG than a maniac is very confusing to me. Gimmie the guy that never folds any hand and the value of all of your hands goes way up.

There are reason's you cant do both. Ive posted on them extensively in chat.

Sabr, we are going to be talking past each other. I would 3bet A8s here. I know why we 3bet from the sb and flat bb. I know to check almost everything. Everything you posted is very basic and standard beyond the scope of this forum.

Im telling you there is another way. And the ev difference is miniscule...evn for good players...with A8s exactly. For 98% of players in this particular forum who still need to learn to crawl, the ev difference is massive. But not in the direction you think.

A little late to the party but calling pre is by far the worst option and folding is ok but weakish. Totally fine to 3b this guy with A8s. Bombing off against weak ranges is very +ev and sometimes these dudes actually fold the best hand post when you do it.

This is so correct, it has come all the way around and is entering incorrect from the far side of incorrect.

Respectfully will disagree with all but "60/40 equity edge being a big edge" and "we literally just have to lose less than 0.5 bb on average, and it will be a net win compared to folding." Both of these are clearly true in a vacuum. Unfortunately, that is not where poker is played. IMHO, I think assuming (or maybe it is "sheer arrogance") that you will be able to REALIZE the 60/40 equity edge often enough to get to better than 0.5 bb is incorrect for all but perhaps the best of the best players. Maybe you are one of those...I know that I am not. And whether I strive to be that or not is irrelevant to this specific example.

+1 to all of this. Nailed it.

1) By the way I'm not convinced it's +EV in the first place against a total spazz and OOP. Another poster mentioned 55/45 to account for OOP but truthfully it might be less than 50/50. It's easy to say that our plan is simple and we're going to "fight aggressively for our equity." There are a few huge issues here.

1A) our opponent will be firing bluffs frequently when he misses, whereas we will not bluff (with or without equity) since we have very little FE. In addition, V will have very little pattern to his bluffs because he is a fish and what sucks is that he will also bluff with hands that beat us (which he doesn't even know!)

1B) to realize our 60% equity we need to call with A high a lot since we won't pair on roughly half of river run outs. A lot of our 8's aren't good either as another post pointed out (T98 flop). And we will need to do this more often than is typical because of V's bluffing tendencies outlined in 1A

Yeah, very quickly this ends up being spew vs. spew and soon the table will be looking @ you like a fish. I play in home games and LLSNL games and play against these players frequently and frankly I doubt that SABR/Minatorr have this experience from the games they play. Not their fault either (just their loss )

2) EV doesn't account for variance, PERIOD. Variance should be looked at very differently in live vs. theory. If I entertained the thought that 3betting here is thinly 60/40 +EV, it would take thousands of hours to realize this over time. You don't have that time in live even as a semi-pro. I play once a week typically. So you tell me, what strategy is optimal? A general statement here: against these droolers, we win far more EV from their mistakes than vs. when we realize the equity of our range over time. Repeat that for me pls.

And as I said in 1) I don't think this is a +EV spot to begin with.

So what is the adjustment to make? Oh... surprisingly it's not very difficult.. its actualyl kind of boring... get good hands, flop good hands, and watch your stack grow. Make sure that when he says "Damn, didn't put you on an Ace there" you say "got lucky"

Who knew that to maximize EV and minimize variance against the worst poker players is actually very simple

FYI that means w/o the spazz behind us we should call