This is a tough one. V2 is playing this like he thinks he has the nuts. And the people in my player pool with this description always have something better than 3rd set. I know, because in game I'm calling this on the river when I know I should fold.

Results:

Fwiw, if you re only good 10% of the time, you 're losing 90 bucks on average. If you are only good 15% of the time, you re losing $14.

Also, I am not sure V1 played the hand well to get max value. He probably should have raised/shoved turn.

I'm 100% folding the turn to a raise this deep when he comes over top of a nit donk.

Ghegotthemaxfromme,imoG

It's possible (probable?) I'm mathing wrong, but I get -$115 at 10% and -$53 at 15%?

Although point being that it is still <<< -$250 (which it always feels like in black versus white terms but of course never is).

GcluelessmathingnoobG

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much on this one GG.

So many people at this level wouldn't be able to fold an overpair, let alone 2p, and definitely let alone a set. And as you can see from the comments most of us cry call it off.

I can always make mistake with my math, but they are as follows.

Final pot is 1260 if you call the 240. 240*3+540=1260.

If you are good 20% of the time, you re making 1260* 0.2 = 252 when you win while losing 240*0.8=192. 252-192=60.

If you are good 15% of the time,

1260*0.15= 189. When you win.

240*0.85= 204. When you lose.

189-204=-15.

If you are good 10% of the time:

1260*0.1=126 When you win.

240*0.9=216 When you lose.

126-216= - 90

What am I doing wrong?

It’s 189-240 with 15% equity

And 126-240 with 10% equity

The first number is your expected pot share (eq percentage * size of pot). The second number is the cost to call which is fixed. Profit = equity - cost.

If V1 shoves the river and V2 comes over the top for $635 total, I'm folding 100% with given reads.

If V1 checks a brick river and V2 shoves $635 into $540, the only reason to consider a call is that V1 has been seen running a big bluff.

The main argument against folding is the good price we're getting on the river combined with our hand beating some other value hands. Once our hand turns into a bluff catcher things look differently.

@Overtly

I think you're including my donation to the pot on the river as part of my winnings.

Best way to see this is do your math on a $0 pot when a Villain bets $50 and you call $50 expecting to be good 50% of the time (where your math will get you as a $25 winner when clearly you should be breakeven).

GcluelessmathsnoobG

For V1 to have the nuts here is actually somewhat fishy. He’s calling $50 on the flop and he ended up winning a total of $870 on one of the cleanest runouts possible, for implied odds of less than 18:1. Meanwhile he is going to LOSE money if the board pairs, and he’s going to win less on rivers that put out 4 to a straight. I would not be afraid of this guy.

EDIT: Also is he going to check/fold a J or T turn?

If he thinks GG is sometimes betting 8x then he should count his J/T outs as sometimes live, which would improve his odds quite a bit.

The guy donked out 100 into 240 ott and we have middle set on 8739r. Even tight nits will probably just c/r there, or maybe he picked up a draw with TT, or it could also be a lot of things other than only the nuts. Personally I think giving up at that point would be mubsy, and when he jams his last 240 in on a blank turn, we have to follow through and call for that price.

I will disagree with the consensus and say I think you can find a fold here on the river. Some are saying V1 can have an overpair but I find this unlikely due to the flop check…also, if V1 is indeed solid (which is not a certainty) then he easily folds overpairs on the river since V2 is quite obviously on 2-pair+. The only hand you conceivably beat in V1s range is 98s.

If you give V1 something like 98s/JTs/76s and give V2 something like 98/88/33/JT/76, I think you will see your equity 3ways is a fair bit less than 20%.

That said, I think you will find some combinations of overpairs in V1s range because it is a mistake, I believe, to always make analyses using the worst case ranges. Even though AA/KK would be quite unexpected for V1, I might assign those combos at 25% frequency. Even then, I think the equity calculation will show this to be a fold.

I don’t think it is, because when you are good 15% of the time, you lose 85% of the time. You don't lose every time, right? So it’s 0.85 times 240 and so on.

However I think my mistake is adding our call to the pot we win. We win 1020 when we call, not 1260.

Yes, that’s what I was thinking as I was driving to the casino.

You can do it either way. Use 15% of 1260 minus 240. Or 15% of 1020 minus 85% of 240. You get the same answer. I like the first method because it involves less multiplication but to each their own.

I think I mighta been the only one suggesting overpairs can be in his range, as I've seen countless times players you think wouldn't do certain things end up showing up with odd played hands like TT/JJ, etc.

Agreed, his flop play isn't awesome. But he's got 2 overs + the stone cold nuts gutshot against 2 players (possibly more if his call invites another player or two along that are unlikely to be check/raising after his initial check). Prolly has a backdoor flush draw too. He's getting about 4:1 on his 10.5:1 gutshot alone, where a PSB paid off by one player on the turn almost gets him there. But yeah, he'll have to figure out what to do if he hits TP / etc. It's not awesome, but I don't think it's horrendous.

I mean, even good solid players make dicey plays every once and a while. If we want to put every single player into the poor player category just cuz of the occasional instance of this, I think we might be judging a little too harsh. I saw a video by Galfond on something along the same lines, where we sometimes don't give the benefit of doubt seeing perhaps a bad move here and there from good players, and yet we ourselves (perhaps not experts but definitely winning players) do bonehead moves every once and a while too.

GcluelessboneheadnoobG

My river call was pretty much banking on V1 sometimes having overpairs in his range, cuz I really don't see what else I beat. I mean, it did go lol 6way to the flop, so checking bigger overpairs on the flop ain't exactly bad (myself, I would probably lean to check/evaluating AA versus bet/folding 99). And he's getting 3.5:1 on the turn, although I think I could make a nitty fold of AA there. River I think is a pretty easy fold of AA even getting 3:1, at least against a guy like V2. But, I've played with V1 for all of 2 hours, so even though I'm convinced he's good I could be wrong given lol sample size.

GcluelessrangingnoobG

Yeah, the fact that V1 is sometimes showing up with JT makes me think this actually should be a fold. I was not putting it in either range when I got that 24% number.

GG, I've seen that same video. That's why I made sure to say that the flop call by V1 is a "somewhat" fishy play, not that it marks him as a fish.

The reason I say *I* wouldn't be afraid of this guy is that I play in a game with many people who fit your description of V1 (that's why I'm pushing back about V1 being TAG), and to a man, their weakness is that they play poorly when they're playing passively. CIE's comment about the overcards reminds me of one hand in particular at 2/5 where a guy similar to V1 called a raise from the BB after I had called on the button, then flopped a gutshot, called a bet from me, turned top pair, called another bet from me, didn't improve on the river, and I won. So I guess I'm saying the presence of overcards doesn't help too much due to RIO problems.

Wow. Really? Or limp rr?

You don't get to 3bet by raising!

GcluelessLRRingnoobG

Whew. For a minute there I thought you might have cold 3b. Glad to see you hadn’t blown all of our minds and all is status quo in LLSNL.