Generally I would agree, but in this spot, I wanted either all folds or all calls. If I can't buy the pot preflop (which I absolutely could not) I wanted as many people committed to the hand as possible, to give my potential set better pay odds. I had a little FE against the players immediately to my left, but that would have left me playing 88 against maybe an OP and two overcards. Much worse odds to win there, and I win less when I do:

Hand 0: 44.914% 44.98% 00.22% 291042974 1393217.67 { 99+ }
Hand 1: 37.432% 37.45% 00.22% 242328464 1393217.67 { AJs-A9s, K9s+, QTs-Q9s, J9s+, T9s, AJo-A9o, K9o+, Q9o+, J9o+, T9o }
Hand 2: 17.655% 17.65% 00.12% 114173787 776489.67 { 88 }

I thought about this when I was running the stoves. I was reasonably certain that no one had an overpair to 88, but reasonably certain =/= certain. Which means I need to allow for the possibility of it, which brings my equity down a tad.

When there was only a tad of positive equity to begin with, I am beginning to see where I was analyzing odds against an exact range, and not allowing for more variables to enter into the equation. I happened to be correct about where I was in the hand in this case, but my analysis should have included slightly wider ranges against the other villains.

This now leads me to agree that this was a slightly -EV play.

This. Don't be greedy OP. In a game this juicy, pursuing ultra-high variance, razor-thin margins affects your ability to exploit those large-edge situations.

Not a fair comparison. The edge of a casino game is deterministic and static. As hard as we try, in poker the ranges we assign to villains are nothing more than rough approximations based on experience and guesswork. Also, casinos rely on massive volume to turn a profit; spots like this occur once in a blue moon.

I would agree, except that in this spot, it was the last hand of the night.

That said, I agree now, after analysis, that this play was -EV.

Yes!!! and no. In an uncapped game, I 100% agree. Isn't this game capped at a $50 BI, though? In that case, your stack size is also a very important EV creator, and risking having to play a smaller stack does affect how thin an edge we want to push.

In this specific hand, though, that is not an issue since it is the last of the night.

In a game as described with stacks given, I am OK with the redic overpricing of our set mine, as call/4-bet is a very rare move and the implied odds are ginourmous. Once the overshoves start, the call becomes slightly -EV, but I suspect (haven't done the math) that it is -EV of much less than $20, which is the neg EV of folding, so the call is actually "right" in this case.

LOL @ calling $20 of a $78 stack preflop to "setmine" because you know you'll have "multiple" people stack off against you when you flop an 8.

At the end of the day, all you really did was get all your money in the middle like a lunatic with a hand you didn't feel like folding, and pray to hit the board hard. Same exact thing the "ultra loose, ATC, Cadillac-driving, you're-not-gonnna-bluff-me-kid players" did.

I've played in this game many times. Once this much money goes in preflop on the lights out hand, no one in this hand is folding so much as an overcard on the flop. Ever. They'll all go down to the felt just for kicks - the question is, do I have the correct hand mathematically to participate?

Did you notice how the hand played out? 5 people were all in preflop - and look at the quality of the hands. Do you doubt, after seeing that action, that multiple people would stack off to the flop? So then, if I'm investing $20 to setmine, what's the likelihood of succeeding, and what would I expect to earn if I did?

Clearly, my read on how the action would go down was dead nuts correct, with the only exception being that the least likely person in the hand decided to spew barely enough to make a complete raise, allowing the original raise to shove. I also correctly deduced how many callers I would get in the hand. Then, it simply becomes a matter of mathematical odds to determine whether it makes good long-run sense to make the call. This was not an easy question, as multiple stack sizes were in play.

It's very easy to take the obvious answer "fold pf". But my objective is not protecting my stack at this last hand of the night - it's determining the most profitable way to play my hand in this spot, against these opponents, with this action.

As it happened, I had a very slight -EV situation, and only because I was up against the top of my opponent's range. Taking his entire range into account and the likely action of the table behind me, including seeing him make a similar move with KQ earlier in the night, calling the 3b was absolutely mathematically correct.

I firmly believe that to really become great at this game, one has to look beyond the obvious answers and think on a deeper plane.

Given the description of villains and this hand being last of the night, it is fair to assume that villains are likely to shove with ATC:

I used Pkrcruncher and the random hands function to determine the following stats:

Vs # of villains - equity of random 1 - equity of random 2 - equity of random 3

2 - 48.5% - 48% - 47.8%
3 - 39.9% - 17% - 39.5%
4 - 38.7% - 31.1% - 26.3%
5 - 22.2% - 29.5% - 17.1%

As you can see in this little sample, if there are more than 3 villains, you could be as big of favorite at 40% or as low as 17%, which is probably only slightly below the average of 4+ villains given a larger sample size.

So I think the idea here is that you will probably hover around the same equity once the number of villains is above 3, and therefore it is to your benefit to increase the size of the pot by allowing as many villains in as possible.

In another words, if I am committed to the idea of shoving 88 in this hand, I should encourage as many players to call as possible by not shoving or raising, unless I am certain of their commitment to the hand.

Let me start off by saying that I think all the players in your game are not as bad as you think. You have to start identifying the good players. Rationalizing a play because you think the table is bad and there will be 5-6 allins on the last hand is not enough. We need to see something like player 1 is allin on the last hand no matter what. Player 2 is allin with SC or better. Player 3 is allin with any pair or broadway... ect.

You gave some indication with the fact that the short stack surprised you with his allin. My guess is that the big stack was also surprised and went over the top anyway. So for at least those two, we must give some sort of reasonable range. I did that and then gave a range for the other hands of any suited and any broadway. Here are the results.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

62,547,916,704 games 168.282 secs 371,685,127 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 15.520% 15.40% 00.12% 9635167564 71985189.50 { 8d8h }
Hand 1: 26.799% 25.96% 00.84% 16235580750 526789245.50 { 99+, AQs+, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 25.995% 25.90% 00.09% 16201495559 57608915.50 { 88+, ATs+, ATo+ }
Hand 3: 15.255% 14.62% 00.64% 9141525828 399888451.50 { 99+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 4: 16.432% 15.67% 00.76% 9804072497 473802704.00 { TT+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

So you see that you are wayyyy -ev to call using these ranges. But lets lood further. you started the thread saying that if you were slightly +EV, you should call. This is true if you know you are slightly +EV. you do not know that, so you cant use that rationale to call. Then later it is pointed out that you are slightly -EV and your rationale is that you should call because you are gambling on the last hand and at the worst you are slightly -EV. The exact opposite logic you used in the beginning - a sign that you are rationalizing.

Stop trying to rationalize bad play with calculations you cannot possibly make at the poker table. Listen to the people giving you proven rules of thumb to setmine with. You need the stacks to be 10 times the bet, or if there are more players, that can come down. Calling allin while setmining is a disaster unless there are at least 7.5 other players in the hand.

I know you were not thinking rationally. Your first call was 19.75.... not 16.50. You need the pot to get to at least $220 to make that call. If you hit and get 2 callers, you cant get there. Your final call was pathetic. you are looking at a 4 bet from a tight player and a 5 bet from the original 3 bettor who knows the 4 bet came from a tight player. The 5 better is probably good and is not playing a speculative hand for the same reasons you and most of the table did not raise with your speculative hands.

You know nothing of the sort. My rationale may not have been perfect, and I posted this hand here to debate it, and get some insight into what others think. But my approach to the situation was calculative and unemotional. Facing the $20, looking down to see 88, I looked around the table, counted stacks, looked to see who was in the hand, and took maybe half a minute to decide to make the call. My first $20 call was based specifically on the idea that I would get 5-6 callers into the pot, several of which would likely stack off if I hit my set. If the short stack didn't move in for a barely complete raise, which as I said, was unlikely considering his image, I would have been seeing a flop with implied odds of much higher than 10-1 on my $20.

Once the action came back around, it became a question over whether abandoning the $20 in the pot was the best decision, or whether I would likely have favorable odds to proceed if I called.

As it turns out, my reads on where I stood were pretty accurate. I was only a very slight money dog in the pot at that point, and I also contributed to a loose imagine in that game.

Many of you are inclined to believe that taking a marginal edge = reckless gambling. I simply don't agree. If I am willing to take small edges, and you going to fold unless you have medium or better edges, please, play in my game. I'll enjoy the pot equity you abandon.

And what do you mean, I am looking at a 4bet from a tight player? The 4bet is the most passive donkey in our game, and he passed up on his chance to 3bet when he already had 3 players in a raised pot. The 5bet came from a player who would easily overplay KQ, AQ, AK in that spot and make the same move.

There was to be, at minimum, $120 in the pot preflop. You are saying, in that spot, I can't get that pot to $220? You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A half pot bet with two callers gets there, and I was in a pot with 6 people who were all more than happy to call away all their money.

Before you start calling other people pathetic, pull your head out.

This thread is a disaster. The point of posting in this forum is not to fight everyone who replies into agreeing with the way you played the hand. The point is to hear everyone's opinions and learn from them.

I thought the point was to debate the hand, and learn from the debate.

I will admit however that I get annoyed when people dismiss anyone trying to take a small edge as being a reckless gambling moron. It's condescending, rude, and totally unproductive. Using words like "pathetic" and "degenerate" are not likely to induce a friendly, positive response from me. Should it?

Add: Don't we all get enough of the "it's just gambling" crap from the non-poker players in our lives? This should be one place where we don't throw that stuff at each other, at least in my opinion. Obviously, anyone posting topics in here is working to improve their game, so it's safe to assume we're slightly above the level of your average Keno player.

It is just gambling in this spot.

Facts:

1. Small stake.
2. Very loose players.
3. Last hand of the night.

All three combined, it's nearly impossible to determine range and therefore the equity could vary greatly from one spectrum to another.

I think most of us are simply trying to tell you that there's nothing more to this.

The only thing I have to go on is your post. This implies a very small range from that player My point on that guy is that he might have a smaller range than normal after having seen the "uncharacteristic" play ahead of him. This assumes everyone will call. At the time of your call, there is $35 in the pot. I am sorry if I don't take for face value a person reading the entire table as calling stations because it helps you rationalize a bad play. You did not recognize that a 5 bet after an uncharacteristic 4 bet is often aces. Then you called that bet with no implied odds. Players behind you might have recognized the 5 bet for what it was and folded - then making it impossible for you to get paid. I didn't call you pathetic. I called a specific play pathetic based on the pokerstove that I posted and you ignored. If you want to talk about the hand rather than calling names, I am all for it. In fact that is what I was attempting. Sorry if I was too blunt, but you didnt seem to be listening to earlier posts and in fact still are ignoring the poker arguments.

The reason I said you were not thinking rational is because you didnt have the correct calling size in your OP and that you went from an argument that +slight EV is good to one of -slight EV is OK.

Just admit that your play was somewhere between - slight EV if you read the table perfectly to ---- EV if you didn't read the table well (which we cannot tell from OP) and people will stop describing your play with negative adjectives.

I do not think that slight -EV is ok...slight -EV is bad. + good, - bad, lol. If I somehow implied otherwise, I didn't mean to. I figured that my range of probable EV in this hand, when I made the last call, was somewhere between slightly +EV and slightly -EV, and if slightly -EV is where I end up, at least the call isn't terrible.

I was confident in my read here on how the action would go down - I have played with these guys a few nights a month for over a year. Let me correct some probable assumptions:

1. Not in 1,000 years would I play this hand this way at a casino. 88 hits the muck faster than you can imagine in any other game besides this one.

2. I am trying to figure out how to increase my win rate to maximum in this particular game. It's a decent game I can play in any time I like, it's a few minutes from my house (as opposed to the 2.5 round trip drive to the nearest casino), and it's very consistent.

3. I'm OK with experimenting with creative stuff and making mistakes as I work on increasing my win rate in this game.

4. Overall, I think critically thinking in these weird scenarios, practicing tough reads, and analyzing the hands afterwards will help my game a lot more than automatically looking at this spot and saying "fold pre".

i dont care how many dudes are in or how bad they play CALLING A $20 3bet on a $78 stack with 88 is spewing and burning money... regardless of anything else..... GARBAGE

Salesman, your mind is obviously made up that calling the $20 and subsequently getting it all in preflop were fine given the game structure, and your points about liking maximizing a small edge are clear, so there's really not much more this thread can offer.

I never said only you were to blame for the direction of this thread.

FPSaments

Well, thanks to all for the good debate. It was educational for me, hope y'all got something from the discussion too. I definitely picked up a few points I hadn't considered.

This is simply not true. Winning players play all sorts of different styles. Tag is not the only way to win at $1/2. The *most* effective winning players play the style that is optimum for conditions. At $1/2, where implied odds are often huge, many winning players play speculative hands loose/passively pre and aggressively post when they make big hands or when they think their FE is good.

Not saying that this hand is an example of this, just saying that winning players must *adapt*, not just say "TAG is the correct style."

This is where we disagree. There is no 'somewhere between +EV and -EV.' you put your opponents on a range and it is either/or. Then when you put in the actual hand after the fact, it is either or. The way you got a +EV result is by putting the opponent that had an overpair on a range that included many hands with two high cards then left the actual hands in with undercards. You were mixing actual results with ranges in a way that had you slightly +EV. This manipulation allowed you to rationalize a bad play.

You never responded to my pokerstove analysis where I gave reasonable ranges to all players and you were ---EV. This is what the true situation was when you made the decision and if you get into the exact situation later, you should fold because the decision to call is clearly -EV.

add: Also this is a bad hand to be playing on an EV basis because much of the equity you have will be folded out. You know that the hand will end up allin. You also know that if you miss your set on the flop, you will be out of the hand because with 5 players in the hand, you have to assume someone hit when they bet and you are folding out your equity. The only odds you need here are the odds of flopping a set because that is the only way you are winning. your reads on the table confirm this.

Once the action becomes allin preflop, you have to assume at least one person has an overpair and you only have to calculate the odds of flopping a set. You were not getting 7 to one on that call.

I am trying to push this discussion forward by showing you that you cannot just assume 4 callers at the table will call allin bets because this is the last hand. It looks like 2 will call with any two cards, some will call with any suited cards some will call with suited connectors and broadways and some will call only with premium hands. Which one is which? It could be possible that it is a good call, but when I see rationalization and defense without merit, I am calling it out. I can see many opponents wanting to see a flop on the last hand in this game, but I cannot see them calling allin bets when they completely miss the flop. Since the vast majority of people will miss this flop, you cannot assume large implied odds just because it is the last hand.

I see all your points, save this one.

Anyone who has so much as an running draw to the flop in this game is going down to the felt to see how it turns out during the last hand of the night. It's almost a tradition. They call it "last hand madness" They announce it before the hand is dealt.

We played last night, again, and 4 players got all in on the last hand of the night. No one had a pair bigger than 88. It is more common than not, and literally, the range on this hand for most of the players in the game is anything they would limp pre flop with.

I didn't respond to your range evaluations because they are inaccurate, and I didn't want to get into a "yuh huh" "uh uh" deal with ya.

But you bring up many salient points.

I should have started this thread with a better explanation of this game, and what the last hand of this game means, and maybe even some examples. That might have saved some false assumptions.