mpethy gets it, he must not be playing LLSNL.

There are plenty of hands that V can have that don't put in more money when we hit but have significant equity against us. Just because we are an equity favourite doesn't mean that a fold isn't good for us OTF. If V is holding QTo is he really going to pay more on heart or K turns?

If he is holding a QX type hand and we just flat he plays pretty well vs our actual holding because he's going to bet blank turns and c/f ones where we he our draw. I can't see how the 'flat and play poker in position' line of thinking is actually beneficial in this case.

Just to emphasize, not to criticize your post: we ARE NOT an equity favorite here. We are an equity favorite ONLY IF we get all in. Our roughly 60% equity against a pair breaks down to 30% ish per street. To realize all our equity, we have to make it to the river. But if we call, whiff and villain pots a brick turn, we're again making a small direct odds mistake to call, meaning we need implied odds to subsidize our two "incorrect" calls, AND to pay for the times we lose, such as when V has a better flush or we make a flush on a paired board and lose to a boat. All that subsidizing has to come from those times when we make the best hand and win. Not saying it is impossible, just pointing out the non-obvious costs of doing business with this hand that have to be deducted from the total profits we make when we win.

Completely agree. You articulated this point better than I did in my previous post. GII on the flop realizes the ~55% equity of 15-out combo draws with one bet for two cards. There seems to be a fallacy to the idea that 15 outs=55% equity=raise always. If it takes over two streets to gii, a 15-out draw is still a semibluff that still requires fold equity to be profitable.

I tried to work it out below. Hero has ~30% to hit on each street. I'm not factoring in implied odds to either equation. I'm assuming all 15 outs are live.

To call the flop:
Pot = $45, Villain Bet = $25, Eff stacks = $360, SPR = 8
EV = .3(70) - .7(25) = +$4.5

If we assume villain continues on the turn with a slightly more than 1/2 PSB:
Pot = $95, Villain Bet = $50, Eff stacks = 335
EV = .3(145) - .7(50) = +$8.5

If hero raises the flop to $70:
Pot = $70, Villain call = $45
EV = .3(115) - .7(70) = -$14.5
17% fold equity is needed to make this raise profitable.

If the turn blanks and hero shoves:
Pot = $185, Eff stacks = $290
EV = .3(475) - .7(290) = -$60.5
25% fold equity is needed.

It seems hero should call the flop in this instance against villains who are unlikely to fold.

Comments, thoughts, and criticism all welcome in the name of learning.

Nice post. Two things:

1. Villain is definitely folding at least 25% of his range, assuming some air, some A9, TT and JJ donks, and some weak queens like QT and QJ.

2. One of the benefits of raising is that if V only calls the raise, he will often check to us on the turn. That allows us to check back in those instances where we want to realize our equity rather than barrel again, which I would do, for instance, if the board paired on the turn. This effect actually reduces the FE we will need in practice for the flop raise to be profitable. But I don't blame you for not modeling it above, as it would be tough to do. But it is an issue that works in our favor.

Great work. There's definitely a lot to model.

One permutation I'd love to see you add in the "call flop" scenario, as I think it's key:

1. Hero calls flop (you already have this...), and then

2. Villain bets turn ~1/2 pot (again, you have this too)...

3. BUT instead of hero calling the turn, now hero raises the turn.

Obviously imperfect, but how do you model our EV there?

I ask because this is a common scenario imo. I think x% of the time, villain bets small again on the turn, and I think we have a lot of fold equity in that case. My experience is that a smallish flop donk followed by another smallish turn bet is often weak. However, 1-x% of the time, villain actually springs to life with a much larger turn bet... one that gives away the strength of his hand and against which we have very little fold equity (though, when we call, we do have significant implied odds vs. his strong range on the river...).

Curious how the 1/2 bet turn bet + hero raise looks in terms of EV, required fold equity, etc.

It's pretty easy.

First, create a range that would call pre and bet flop.

Second, assign cards that would induce V to barrel small again.

Third, figure out how many of those would fold to a raise of x size.

Then you got yourself a decent model.

If you can't come up with that many combos in step 2, this model is irrelevant.

If you get to step 3, ask yourself, how many combos of that range would call flop raise

If this is the first time you're thinking about a model like this, you really shouldn't argue that calling on flop is better.

~Logical thinking at llsnl.

~Sneaky Pete's level 8 dissection from behind a computer screen.

> pick one <

Sent from my SGH-I747M using 2+2 Forums

Stupid, please be quiet and let adults do the talking.

Eddie's calculation makes sense because we can make reasonable assumption that V is folding x% of his range.

Agreed.

Your model makes less sense because you would have to rely on a lot of assumptions to think that our FE will increase or remain the same as flop raise.

Better question to ask is why do you think Hero has more FE in 1) than 2):

1) Donk flop -> barrel turn small

2) Donk flop

Enough so that you are willing to give up maintaining a strong range by raising flop.

You are basically hoping that V would isolate bottom of his flop donking range on turn by betting small, but this assumption hinges on several variables and questions:

1) What would be considered non-scare cards that would induce V to barrel again?

2) How many of these combos exist, that he would donk small on turn to a non-scare card?

3) Why would V double barrel and fold?

1) 2 - 7 for total of 21 combos, or 18 of remaining 47 cards, 38%.

*disclaimer: I removed 8 even though 8 is obviously a non-scare card, but it no longer applies in this context, because we don't actually want him to fold.

2) see mpethy's quote:

3) Double barrel in LLSNL is very unbalanced, almost always polarized (top of range or bluff). Willyoman seems to imply that when V double barrels small, it's a subset of this polarized range that's almost equivalent to checking.

If V is double barreling with a weak range, he must assume:

1) Hero is weak and willing to fold.

2) Hero is on a draw and V wants to charge him for it.

3) V is weak and wants to make blocking bet to get to SD.

4) V is on a draw and wants cheap river.

All 4 of these assumptions rely on some sort of higher level thinking.

1) V is thinking about Hero's range and fold equity.

2) V is thinking and targeting Hero's draw range.

3) V thinks Hero will bet bigger if V checks.

4) same as above.

So if the argument is that V would somehow voluntarily separate his range on turn, you cannot deny that he is at least somewhat aware of Hero's perceived range.

This weak range also exists on flop.

So if there is fold equity on turn, there must also be fold equity on flop.

You're overestimating your implied odds when V bets big on turn.

mpethy agrees.

First let me say that I was never arguing NOT to raise the flop. My position ITT was simply that, AP, OP needed to shove the turn. I probably raise the flop also, but not for FE necessarily.

However, if you are conceding FE on a blank turn, that is certainly an argument for calling the flop (you make more money), unless it is your contention that there is no amount of the money left to bet that will gain us the same FE as a $45 raise OTF, which I find hard to believe.

I don't really follow what you are saying. Calling flop is not making more money, and I don't even know how you get that idea.

If you think raising flop and raising turn have the same fold equity, there is really no point to argue further.

Um, one assumes he will lead the turn.....

And raising the turn usually is seen to have MORE fold equity. How does that theorem go again? Oh yeah, "You should strongly re evaluate the strength of one pair hands in the face of a turn raise"?

Some guy named Baluga, I believe.

EDIT: This is, of course, assuming one has any fold equity at all.

LOL, really?

Are you really suggesting that value is in "slowplaying" our draw?

Maybe you shouldn't keep posting in this thread.

I was only slightly making fun of you, but if we keep going, it's gonna get rather ugly.
First you suggested that no one in LLSNL knows anything, then you are using Baluga Theorem as argument that V would recognize Hero's range as strong.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about...

These ideas are so convoluted in your posts that you are probably better off just playing level 1 poker.

The Baluga Theorem was created because, quite simply, a turn raise is much stronger than a flop raise. Even the fish understand that.

Had to RE register just for this hand because it's extremely important. Flush draws are the hardest proposition to make money with in nlhe.

Mpethy and sneaky Pete are on the right track. There is a difference between odds to win and equity, and the GTO tells us to randomize our play, and there is more than one inflection point in the hand.

Turn is a trivial spot as played.

Two things I will say to OP

1. Be careful of long winded wall of text posts from people who don't beat the game and don't actually play, which is sadly a large % of your advice

2. You did not have to look at your hand to play pre and flop the EXACT same way you played it to that point. If you are not capable of having a pure bluff in that spot you will (theoretically at least) not beat NLHE, and unyheoretically not beat it for enough to call yourself a pro.

I did a little bit of modeling this spot out and because the sb has so few Qx in his range I ignored the possibility of an overcall. Therefore I think a good distribution is raise 60% call 30% fold 10%.

That means you should not be folding this particular flop very often regardless of the actual cards you hold.

Your going to win the hand so often very many scare carcs for villain to worry about that these %s should rep your entire range

So now fish gets credit for Baluga theorem but not capped range?

Raise flop => $100, any smaller is bad

Amen.

And thats why the flop needs to be raised. His folds pay those costs.

Re. play OTF. In this case, we have only one OOP player to consider who hasn't "acted meaningfully." I think the best choice is read dependent re. that player. The benefit of a call would be that it may induce that player to "squeeze," which would be fine for us. So if we can give SB credit for making a play in this situation, I think calling is fine.

If not, I think a raise has significant advantages, which mostly boil down to "striking while the iron is hot." We have one player who seems willing to give action, and in this case, we're willing to go to the felt, so we should be willing to speed up that process.

So, overall, I find it hard to criticize OP's play OTF.

I disagree that the turn donk is a trivial spot, because it seems very unexpected given the prior action. I doubt that I'll ever find a fold there, but I don't think the choice between calling and raising is particularly easy. The donk bet seems very unorthodox, if it's not the nuts.

I think the turn is a call, but I don't think it's that obvious.

Does anyone actually believe Villain is donking the turn like that with TP & A ? It seems horrible, plus it seems to be an excruciatingly small part of his range, to that point. A set makes a lot more sense to me.

iirc there was this one poster who didn´t really give actually "bad" advice but still had a very flawed thought process, who liked to "redfront" everyone who only slightly disagreed with him. he could also never ever be convinced of taking another line than the one he suggested.

unfortunately, he got banned, but I guess we are seeing some sort of resurrection...