I'm not trying to save $200. I'm trying to make as much as possible when I hit. We don't know what villains have, but to give them the option to fold on a diamond or King turn or river is terrible. Yes, folding would be criminal for them (if they are ahead), but they have a very good reason for doing it -- because you just called the flop. I've seen it more than once when the dreaded card comes on the turn or river and a villain knows they can't win. If I am willing to gii here, the flop is the place to do it -- why give him the option to fold the turn or river since you are never folding? Doesn't make sense. The only way it makes sense is if you are trying to save $200.

So we're shoving in case V might fold on turn or river?

Doesn't make whole lot of sense when you agreed that hero's hand unimproved isn't going to win.

Sorry OP. Have nothing to add. I would shove this all day at any typical 2/5 table. Just love your picture. It's going in my phone.

Since every other poster, including OP, agrees with me, except maybe au4all, maybe one of them can help you understand in simpler terms.

Shell, your view is different than everyone else and I would like to learn more about it. The thought of flatting here never crossed my mind - it was ship or fold and here is why.

1) CO is already all in
2) UTG2 flatting the 250 here means he is calling CO all in without a doubt
3) UTG1 being a total nit and check/minraising means he's going to call CO ship 99% of the time

with that being said, flatting here puts the ball in his court to either flat or make me ship on flop. With his line there he is either repping JK or a set.. 5% of it ever being anything less than that. Now he knows if that he ships, i'm calling.

If turn is a brick with the pot being 2k+, we can assume that he's going to make me ship in which case I will call for river.

If turn is a K or Diamond and I ship .... do you think he's going to fold? It may seem extremely farfetched but yes we have seen super nitty players fold to a $200 sidepot on a 2k+ mainpot when they know they're beat. They tank and whine for a while, but that is possible and we have seen it. In this case, are not missing out on extra $$$? If he calls the turn when the diamond comes then there is really no point in not shipping the flop. The main point i'm trying to say here is by flatting we are giving UTG1 the chance to save $$$ while we are still putting ourself in the same level of risk.

Technically the burden is on you.

Not here to confirm whether my thinking is in the box either.

Let me lay it down in a plainer term.

Say you have a gut shot here instead, are you looking to get more money in the pot or less for the draw?

It is no different here, we are not equity favorite, and the player most willing to get more money in the pot is one that is.

I agree we will want to get less in for the draw since we're not the equity favourite here, but that only works if folding is a still a choice.

Let me ask you this then, if the turn is a brick and UTG1 ships will you call?

btw I don't want you think that I'm bashing your play or anything. I like to hear from players who thinks differently than the rest in hopes of learning something new.

Do you guys not realize that we have less than 50% equity for the $200 sidepot, so if we don't have to put it in, it should be pretty obvious that we don't want to.

How many times is that question going to be asked?

You guys are lost in the whole thing because you think that big draws mean to shove as much money in as possible.

Let me try again.

There is $200 side pot.

We have less than 50% equity and zero fold equity.

Shove or not?

It's a moot point 99.9% of the time because UTG nearly always shoves the flop when it gets back to him but, assuming he also flat calls and assuming he has a set or a straight(??):

1. If he ever checks a blank turn then calling flop is best.
2. If he has a straight and ever check-folds a diamond turn (but shoves a blank turn) then shoving flop is best.

I think all other scenarios are the same EV whether we shove or call. Of course, both 1 and 2 are very unlikely but I think 1 is slightly more feasible - he could have set and decide he doesn't want to shove unless he fills up, for example. He's also more likely to have a set if we get to the turn because he'd shove the flop with the nuts.

But, yeah, realistically it doesn't matter what we do as long as we don't fold.

We have less than 50% equity in HU for whatever side spot. Why would a shove be better?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

To stop UTG playing optimally against a draw. Of course he doesn't know that we have a draw but he could play his hand as if we did have one, either accidentally or by design.

Say the cards are turned face up and we just call the 550 on the flop. It would be correct for UTG to just call as well, even though he has the nuts. That way he can check-fold the turn if we hit and shove if we miss (knowing that we'd have to call).

If we shove the flop then it stops him playing that way.

I still think a flop call is marginally better btw but if we somehow knew that he'd play as if he knew our hand then a shove would be best.

Of course. In scenarios in which H is never folding, naturally V prefers the one where he has more equity + the option of never putting in money drawing dead.

On the flop to SD in HU:
-V has 57% equity

On turn:
-V has 75% equity

But he doesn't have perfect information.

I think like most, you're lost in the whole main pot/side pot mix.

We can all agree that folding before river card is -EV, because even in worst case scenario: vs KJ vs TT vs KdTd, we still have 29.9% equity.

However, after CO shoves and hero calls, there is still $200 remaining in HU between UTG 1 and hero.

Scenario seems straight forward to me: it's HU and we have less than 50% equity to win (against UTG 1). So why are we looking to shove?

I'm not lost at all. I think I've already explained myself clearly but I'll try again.

A. In any situation where, regardless of our decision on the flop, all of the money ends up in the pot before the river: It doesn't matter what we do, our EV is the same.

B. *IF* he ever checks a blank turn: Calling the flop is correct.

C. *IF* he ever correctly check-folds the turn (but would shove a blank turn): Shoving the flop is correct. Note that it doesn't matter whether he knows this play is correct, it only matters that he would sometimes make this play. Therefore it doesn't matter that he doesn't have perfect information.

D. *IF* he sometimes checks blank turns and sometimes check-folds turns that hit our draw: I'm guessing this makes calling the flop right but it depends on the respective check frequencies.

Obviously A happens most of the time. We need to think about the probabilities of B, C and D happening and about how each situation affects our EV in order to come to a decision.

Like I said, a call is probably best, but it's player dependent. If our opponent is a good thinking player who will interpret a flop call as a draw then we should definitely shove.

You did not, more like just repeating yourself rather than responding to my point about the side pot.

Before river, yes. On the river, no.

Huh? Not putting last $200 in until we are equity favorite in a HU situation SHOULD be straight forward. How hard is it not to get that?

No man, you are lost. We are talking about whether to shove flop.

Again, I'll reiterate the point about gutshot, that for whatever reason because it is a much worse draw, it seems to make more sense.

If you have a gutshot on the flop, are you more willing to shove the $200 remaining stack into the flop because V could correctly fold turn?

So because he would sometime make a play, we should give him full credit for always making such play?

I am not sure whether you took the time to really think this through.

This is a slippery slope that turn decision should somehow change the fact that we have less than 50% equity on the flop when we are evaluating whether to shove the remaining money in the pot.

TBH, it would probably help you if you step out of your own thoughts and actually consider what I wrote.

Even if we are always forced to get it in with worse equity on a later street? Note the word 'always'. Like it or not, if we're playing against a villain who plays perfectly against us then we lose money by not shoving.

Ignoring the main pot (except that it forces us to call blank turns):
- If we shove flop we win 43% of $400: EV = -$28

- If we call flop we win $0 when we hit on the turn (26.7%) and win 25% of $400 when we miss (73.3%): EV = -$126.70.

That's a pretty big difference. Note that if he never folds the turn then the EV is the same whatever we do on the flop (try it!)

I have read what you've written and I'm afraid you're the one missing the point. Last try for me. Hopefully someone else can step in and explain it better.

If there is only ONE pot (in this instance would be the side pot), then of course you want to be getting your money in when your equity is the highest.

However, this is not such scenario, because we are never folding prior to the river given that the main pot is the reason why we are here.

*I don't think I am explaining above very well, but it should be rather clear that the EV of whether to shove flop should all be directly related to side pot.

This is not true and I kind of dislike the fact that you put your conclusion ahead of your proof, making it harder to quote in order.

CORRECT!

NOT CORRECT! Again...think about the gutshot scenario.

Say we have 10% equity for the $400: EV = $-160

Do you shove flop because "just in case" you hit the turn, you don't want V to have a chance to fold, so you commit him on the flop when he's never folding?


I may be running out of steam as well. Clearly you are caught up on the whole thing about hitting your card and villain folding and ignoring the fact that on the flop, you have less than 50% equity for your money.

I'll try this for the 100th time: would you put your money in a spot where you are less than 50% equity in a HU situation?

Here, maybe this might help, which scenario is better:

Scenario A:

We shove flop with 43% equity for a -EV of -$28?

Scenario B:

Flop is checked through for an EV of $0?

Hero hits turn, V check-folds 100% of the times. What is our EV on turn? $0

$0 + $0 = $0

Which is better, $0 or -$28?

I don't think I missed anything, but if I did, I hope someone will be kind enough to point it out.

Ok, I lied. I'm going to carry on because I like arguing on the internet.

Absolutely. As long as there is a juicy enough side pot to keep me interested with my gutshot.

Say we hit on turn 5% of the time and hit on the river 5% of the time to keep it simple. Also say (in order to keep this example analogous) he folds when we hit and we're forced to go all in when we miss.

Now we win 5% of $400 95% of the time and we win $0 the other 5% of the time: ($0*0.05) + (0.05*0.95*400 - 200) = -$181

That's worse than the -$160.

You missed the part of the calculation where the turn is a blank.

Questions for you:

1. Heads-up and you have 43% equity and zero fold equity. $200 effective stack. Do you shove or check?

2. How does above scenario relate to whether later street might improve our equity and V could play perfect?

It's about as black and white as I can make it.

1. Check. But that's because I'm allowed to fold the turn unimproved.

I don't really understand question 2.

Edit: Sorry, I reread it and I understand what you're asking.

2. If I'm forced to take a worse -EV course of action on the turn then I would like to change my answer to question 1.

I don't get the addition of the caveat.

To make it even simpler...

Say we are never folding, wouldn't we prefer to not have to put it in until we absolutely have to or until our hand becomes equity favorite?

This is the part that I don't follow. How are we making a worse -EV decision on turn if we are never folding? That EV shouldn't change...

Grunch: (means haven't read any replies)
This is not typical. Is he a TAG, or typical 60s retired guy?

Pre is fine.

Flop raise is fine, but too small. Pot is $200 with your call and you just raised it $75 more. That's not going to give you any FE. Make it $200

Second time around... Why is it a shove or fold? You afraid that another diamond will kill your action in an 8million dollar pot for your last $200? You afraid that you'll somehow fold your last 200 if UTG+1 or UTG+2 re-raises?

There are likely two Ks available, one of which is likely not the Kd, but maybe, and 9ds (total, including the K). So you have 11 outs. Your chance of hitting is 41.72%, and it will always be the nuts (though potentially a chop on a non-diamond K). There is already $1281 in the pot, and a call would cost you $425. $425 < .40*(1281+425) (AKA it is 25% of $1706), so this is obviously never a fold, even if UTG and UTG+1 fold out of turn.

Frankly, the difference between call and shove are negligible, as the V's are never folding anything to your shove that they are calling CO's shove with, and are never folding for $200 more if you hit your flush (only air they could have would also have hit flush). Theoretically, if everyone checked it down, you could save $200 by checking back, so call is somewhat better than shove, but realistically it's all going in sooner of later after all, likely when UTG+1 shoves.

Because if we shove the flop we get paid when we hit the turn. If we call the flop we don't get paid when we hit the turn.

I'm not sure how to expand on that any further.

Ok, try this...

Whatever our decision, we pay him the max every time we miss our draw. Right?

However, there is only one decision which leads to him paying us the max every time we hit our draw. Which decision would that be?