NLHE 8max 1/3
Eff. stack 150

3x limper (3), Hero (SB) isoraise 22 w/ AQc, BB call 22, limpers fold

Pot 2x22+3x3=53
Eff. stack 150-22=128
Flop Qx76cc

Hero cbet 26, BB raise 70, Hero snapjam 128 total, BB has to call 128-70 = 58

Does it make sense to snapjam to represent something strong and make villain fold his equity?
Villain holds 98dd, which has 35% equity vs my hand on Qd76cc

Equity need to call: 58 / (2x 150 + 9) = 0.19

EV(he calls) = eq * (128+53=181) - (1-eq) * (128-26=102)
= 0.65 * 181 - 0.35 * 102 = 81.95

EV(he folds) = 53+26+70 = 149

When it's better to make him call?
EV(he calls) > EV(he folds)
eq * 181 - (1-eq) * 102 > 149
eq * 181 - 102 + eq * 102 > 149
eq * (181+102) > 149 + 102
eq > (149 + 102) / (181+102) = 0.89

What hand does have only 11% equity vs my hand?
- 22 has 8%
- A6ss has 8%
- K6ss has 18%
- K2dd has 15%
- QJss has 12%

It's hard to find any hands that are below the equity threshold. It's way better to make him fold.

- What do you think of my thoughts?
- Do you see any mistakes in my calculation?
- Would it make sense to not only snapjam, but also to immediately table your hand to make villain more uncomfortable? Would this be bad poker etiquette?

P.S.: In this hand it is of course difficult to make the opponent fold. I only chose it as an example to get a feeling for upcoming situations.

TBH, any hand that the villain has that is better than ours is never folding. I'm jamming to get a call, not a fold.

He already committed himself so he’s not folding. You’re in great shape so sure, snap gii

There has to be a mistake in the calculations. You want opponent to make a mistake, so, when he is offered 19% pot odds then that is the equity threshold where if opponent’s hand has more than 19% equity vs your hand you want the fold, and if his hand has less than 19% equity vs yours you want the call. So you want the call from K2dd, etc.

If V has a worse flush draw or KQ you want him to call, so, tabling your hand would be a mistake because it may allow him to correctly fold his hand,

no offense but with stacks this short, unless villain folds to your cbet if you're not all in with TPTK by the river you screwed up.

Your thinking is too advanced for me. I see tptk hu, spr 2.5 i ram it in.

Great, not a single post that does understand my point x-D. Let's say villain holds 98dd. Then he has a clear call vs my jam, because he only needs 19% equity and he has 35%.

My expected value (after I jamed) can have two outcomes:

1) EV(villain calls) = eq * (128+53=181) - (1-eq) * (128-26=102) = 0.65 * 181 - 0.35 * 102 = 81.95 (edit: I am not completly sure if this is right, maybe it's just the first term: EV(villain calls) = eq * (128+53=181) = 117.65)

2) EV(villain folds) = 53+26+70 = 149

We clearly see that it's better for us if villain folds his hand and therefore is equity share of the pot. We rather take 149 every time (w/o any variance) than 81.95 in expectation (w/ variance). So our goal should be to make villain fold his hand after we've jamed. How can we accomplish that? We have to show strength in order to make villain questioning his call. My ideas for that are 1) snapjam and 2) probably table our hand immediately before he could decide on his action. This way villain might under-estimate his true equity and fold.

Again: In this hand it is of course difficult to make the opponent fold. I only chose it as an example to get a feeling for upcoming situations, which are closer.

Why is he underestimating his equity as opposed to overestimating? Tabling your hand allows him to play perfectly if he can do math.

Snap jamming after he commits himself doesn’t help much either but in spots where he’s not priced in you might be able to get folds you otherwise wouldn’t.

BB can never fold after raising the flop unless he has a zero equity bluff, so your worked example makes no sense.

You seem to be saying that when we have a giant pot in comparison to remaining effective stacks, we would rather villain fold out hands that have any equity against us, because it's better to take 100% of say 100bb rather than say 75% of 110bb. This is true. The problem with achieving this result is that in fact villains have to call with any equity in such a scenario so 'snap jamming to show strength' doesn't really help us.

By hitting him on the head with a heavy object?

You're not presenting him with a difficult decision anyway. If you order a coffee you already know if you want to have sugar/cream. If you've invested >60% of your stack on the flop, you know if you're going to call off or not.

So you want for him to see that he's supposed to call because that's going to make him fold???

FWIW, snap decisions are among the more common strong = weak reverse tells.

You’ve got some math/logic errors to sort out…98dd has 20% equity versus your exact hand…not 35%. So eq=.80. Also you win $207 not $181 when you win at showdown.

Vil is always calling two pair+ no matter what. There are a few hands where you really want Vil to call (worse Qx, worse FDs, etc). But if you show him your cards he will fold. So showing is never a good idea with your exact hand.

You forgot to add your $26 flop cbet to the size of the pot when computing EV Vil calls

Your post is kinda confusing…What does AQc mean? Is that AcQc? Or do you have AQo with the Ac?

Thx, then we have EV(he calls) = 0.65 * 207 - 0.35 * 102 = 98.85 < EV(he folds) = 149.

Used a confusing hand nomenclature here, AQc means offsuited with Q in c, e.g. AhQc.

Board: Qd7c6c
Equity Win Tie
MP2 64.75% 64.75% 0.00% { AhQc }
MP3 35.25% 35.25% 0.00% { 9d8d }

Again, I am fully aware of the fact that in this particular hand, it will be hard to get villain to fold his hand. I just used this exact hand as an example. Also you guys assumed that villain is able to do the math right - I actually don't think so at this stake, e.g. I have seen people fold JJ on Txx in 3BP with SPR<1. Also, in this hand, villains raise size shouldn't exist theoretically. He should've jamed by himself.

Okay, so then if you rerun the calculation you’ll see that the equity threshold is 19%. So then this part you wrote is wrong…

Realistically, most of those hands are not likely anyway. Why is he raising 22/K2s on this board?

His most likely hand is a worse Qx like QJ/KQ (suited or offsuit). Or he has a draw.

If you show your hand, you’ll get him to fold all his worse Qx, and he should call his draws once he knows you don’t have a dominating draw.,.which is a disaster. You don’t want him to fold Qx!

Generally, showing your cards allows V to play perfectly vs you, by allowing him to fold when he’s dominated and call when he isn’t.

Snap moving all in is whatever, I don’t think he’s folding after putting in 60% his stack!

Preflop for me really depends on stack sizes. If there are some medium sized stack limpers who can be difficult, I actually don't mind just seeing a cheap flop here (I'll be massively outvoted). But if everyone is short at like $150, I'm much more for raising. But at $150 stacks, I think I would actually be going much larger to setup a PSB shove for any flop (so I'd go a stoopid $45ish). Anything much smaller than that sets us up for very awkward spots where we'll often have put in a huge chunk of our stack by the turn with nothing and kinda be left in no mans land.

Flop we have TPTK on a drawy board with an SPR < 3, so trivially committed. I'd either make a large bet to get the rest in on the turn, or check/shove (preferring the latter against aggro/bluffy opponents). I'm not a fan of small bets when committed (I leave this for when not committed) as it simply gives far too good of odds for our opponent to continue in a spot where we won't be able to fold. (I'm a little confused as to whether we have AcQc and have flopped a flush draw as well, so if that is the case then I actually don't mind the smaller sizing as our hand is so invulernable)

I also jam as played. Never necessarily in love facing a flop raise (especially with a nit image like I have), but we just have to follow thru with our commitment plan.

Assuming we don't have the flush draw, off the top of my head our calcs look fine and, yes, we definitely want him to fold his OESD. But I highly doubt whatever we do that he'll do that. It is highly unlikely he'll fold the OESD regardless of whether we slow jam versus fast jam, especially at this remaining very small $ depth for a 1/3 NL game (i.e. give the exact same equity for like $700, ok, then he might cuz that is a lotta $$$ for a 1/3 NL game).

To be honest, I'm not 100% sure what the rules are in my room for showing your hand at this point. I'm guessing it would be frowned upon.

ETA: Now knowing the your post is mostly about how to trick him into incorrectly folding, I think you're just overthinking. Snap jam versus slow jam versus hollywooding versus whatever (including showing) just isn't going to make any difference here at this $ depth to this action.

GcluelessNLnoobG

Why would you say AQc for AQo? Most of the discussion in this thread is probably tainted by this misinformation.

Yes, that was stupid. I usually use AQcc for suited combos, so I adapted that to AQc for saying that one card was a c.