Playing on a limited bankroll is fine, but you have to look at it more of a tournament scenario, passing up small +EV spots for large +EV spots later, even though you're losing money now, you can't afford to take those spots because your risk of ruin is quite high.

Alright I was being a little contrarian here. Also a little goofy. But...

1) If you shove without looking it is a true coinflip.
2) It will do wonders for your image.
3) It is fun to listen to nits cry about what they folded after you win with J8(or whatever garbage you turn over).
4) What is wrong with a little gamble?

Folding is no fun.

If i'm properly rolled for the stakes im snapping this. Not only is it +EV but imagine what it does for your table image. Nobody will try to bluff you, "your the crazy guy that called $100 with Jack high!"
Also he was UTG and his friend was waiting for him so whats to say he doesnt get up after this hand win/lose/or fold

You got balls kid

You make it sound as if this is a scenario that has happened often to you. I doubt it has more than a handful of times over the years, it isn't as if people move all in blind all that frequently AND you are the player closing the action AND no one else calls between you.

Also, not sure what stakes you play, buy let's use the common 1/2 NL for an example. No matter what anyone says on this forum about maximizing their winrate by fist-pump getting it in the middle as quickly as possible anytime any +EV scenario presents itself, I doubt you or anyone here would call $250 if it were blind shoved and you looked down at K6o or Q9s. I'm sure you would if the bet were some stupid short stack amount like $31 or $44 or $52, the same with everyone here, which proves that in practical terms the money is what matters.

Also, at the actual table in the actual scenario, which occurs before all the math in this thread is performed, there's no way anyone can run the calculation that tells them that it's +EV by a couple BB's to call with J8s

A lack of ability to understand/observe that other people think and feel differently from you is a much bigger hindrance to your win rate than turning down a $5 EV spot that comes up once in a blue moon. Lots of player in poker like gambling, getting to do it with ANY edge is a dream come true for some people. So, basically, stop projecting. I can state that for absolute sure I would call with the hands you mention in this spot. There would be no fist pump until I won the pot though!

We know this! That is why I, and others, have admitted that we would have got it wrong. Now we know different and can admit we would have been WRONG. What point are you trying to force down our throats? I don't get it. WE UNDERSTAND IT IS CLOSE!!!

Are you saying because we can't use poker stove at the table it is a useless tool? We shouldn't use it away from the table to analyse spots, common ones, fun ones, interesting ones to enhance our knowledge of equity situations and allow ourselves to play better in the future. Great thinking.

Would be a great post, except I'm not projecting. I've played live for 10 years, home games, numerous different casinos, and about two dozen underground games. Thousands of hours at many different stakes, raked and unraked.

People shoving big amounts blind isnt something I've seen OFTEN, but, the absolute number of times I've seen it is high enough. I can barely remember anyone calling without a premium hand, and almost never with a borderline-but-+EV-hand like QTo.

I've also never seen an example of anyone posting a hand on these boards where any such thing happened.

With a reasonable amount of experience playing and access to many good players on a highly-visited website with a huge number of hands for review, why haven't I seen all the examples of people getting it in light with a slight edge in full-stacked-blind-shove situations? Surely I'd have seen a good number of these with all these people out there you speak of who can't wait to get it in with any edge.

You're also making my point for me by stating unequivocally here, online from the privacy of your own home and in an anonymous fashion when you'll never have to prove what you say, that you'd "call for asbolute sure" with the hands I mentioned. This is exactly what I'm saying - it's extremely easy to say here when you don't have to put the actual money in the middle. I highly doubt it'd be that easy at the table.

If I'm wrong, please begin your rebuttal by listing the hands where you have actually done this. I'd like to hear from other people too who apparently do this so often. I remember doing it for $95 in 2/5 with Q9s and for something like $62 in 1/2 with A9s (this was obviously easy) and like $40 in 1/2 with K6s. Interestingly enough I won all three and was in the lead pre. Off the top of my head no other examples jump out at me.

Point is, it's nonsense to think that in the above everyone on this forum is calling $610 in the 2/5 with that same Q9s

Funny, you claim that it's so clear to everyone that it's close and that many would have gotten it wrong at the actual table, and that I shouldn't force the point. But, there are still a boatload of posts coming in where people knew the whole way that it was a snap or clear call and were sure they'd have done it at the table. There's several of them today alone; the thread is days old.

Because the people who make the call because they understand EVcalcs don't need to make threads to ask about it? And in most games you've played the skill level was probably so low 85% of your opponents are either dumb enough not to understand/know about equity or risk averse enough (like you) to fold. Don't take the fact there are 20 people in this thread saying LOL easy call to mean that is representative of SSNL games.

And no I haven't done it often. It is an exceptionally rare spot, as we had already agreed. I do remember 1 specific time I did it and, not surprisingly it was in a short handed home game where the stakes were pretty pretty unimportant for a lot of the players, including me. What does anybody gain if post the hand history and get a few friends who were at the game to come an verify it. ZERO. What would happen is that you would say you only made that play because stakes were low etc, when in reality these calls are more likely to be made in such circumstances because the decision itself will come up more often than a 10 handed 1/2 or 2/5 casino game. I really, really don't get worried by risking a buy in or looking stupid. Both happen plenty.

Maybe some people know more than me and you? Possible?

So you wanna flip an unfair coin that's to your advantage for $86? I like to make money so I'm calling. If I could, I'd do this all day every day.

The problem is how often this happens and your bankroll. You should be comfortable getting in your entire buy in as a slight favorite many, many times.

Alright, I have a true challenge to everyone in this thread. There appears to be a lot of responses of people saying they'd snap call this in real life since it's barely +EV.

Let's assume here that the opponent is totally blind and you're last to act to call $100 dollars in the BB @ a 1/2 game. What is our exact range (suited and offsuit, PPs) that we would be +EV calling assuming a $6 dollar rake?

Do it yourself on stove. Jesus we know J8s is close. Try J7s etc until you find the cut off and the same for offsuit. It is not hard.

What if variance never has enough trials to come over you. You are equally as likely to run well as badly. Every argument you use can be used equally to advocate calling, which also has the benefit of being mathematically correct. And for all the folders attacking the callers, it really doesn't matter whether we snap call or tank call. People saying it is a clearoreasy call are not implying it is a great, hugely profitable spot or even one they knew was +EV. They are saying the've read the thread, seen the EV calcs, are neither brain dead nor risk averse and therefore feel happy to use clear/easy/snap call or whatever!

Spots that are very very likely +EV by this same amount come up ALL THE TIME in poker. And often for pots much larger than a measly $86. The only problem is it's much more difficult to tell they are +EV, and they require EV calcs to realize it. They are spots that might seem counter intuitive, but math shows they are slightly +EV.

If you can't make the right decision in this extremely simple poker problem (I say simple because there's no range to consider, no reads apply, ect), then you probably aren't making the correct decisions in other, very common close spots and you are making some SERIOUS mistakes every single hour.

Btw, a mistake can be folding when bluff raising is profitable. Contrary to what this forum seems to believe, folding at the wrong time can be a mistake...

Incorrect. for something to be +EV you need a sample size of one. For the results to even out to a total profit of the expected EV, you need a large sample size, but that is not the same.

The EV here is +5.71ish, but you will actually win a LOT more, or lose a LOT (-5.71) less in a sample of one. That is still a positive EV.

This is just false.

In this thread when you can run the math all you want and give answers that will never have to be proven? Or in an actual real life scenario? In question 1, that range will obviously include stuff like K7s, Q9o, etc. In the actual real life scenario, we all know people are unlikely to actually call with these hands.

who made who make the decision in this hand?

OP, you got outplayed.

For everyone in this thread tickled pink with the idea that running the math confirms that this is a fist-pump-I'm-a-2p2er-and-I-love-EV-over-all-else call, all that is needed to make this -EV and a fold, is sticking in a 10% chance that the guy is fake blind-shoving, and in this 10%, has a "real" hand range.

+1
unless you were watching him like a hawk, AND you waited til it was your action to look at your cards, you can't know for sure he did'nt look.

waiting until your mark looks at his hand to look at yours at the very same second, and saying you didn't look is the oldest trick in the book.

you can't be watching him and looking at your cards at the same time.

This call is mathematically +EV if 100% of the time UTG+1 has shoved without looking and we are last to act, yet in reality, I wouldn't make this call even knowing the math behind it. People have it right in saying a +EV decision is a +EV decision no matter if it only comes up rarely and is not repeated over a large enough sample size to reduce the variance on it, this is correct and indisputable. Certain circumstances warrant a sacrifice of EV for ICM factors in tournaments or perhaps if our bankroll is on the low end, and assuming OP is properly rolled for this game, neither of these are applicable so his call is correct. Yet like I said, I wouldn't make the call. I don't deal well with variance and I am prone to tilt off more $ than is worth it by a slight EV edge. I prefer more clear cut +EV spots which I think are omnipresent in LLs. I also feel like if this exact situation were to come up for anybody who has posted in this thread, they would have a hard time calling.

I do feel as though there is a crossable line where our indifference to results and absolute $ amounts becomes transcended by the minuteness of our edge. This obviously varies vastly for most, and logically/mathematically should never be crossed before our EV = <50%, but in reality, I would not be willing to risk $200 buy in on a 50.1% +EV spot once or a million times because $200 represents to much money for me to want to take such a minuscule edge. I could lose my bankroll long before ever being able to capitalize on the small edge I am offered. Obviously, this is true for any % <100 in terms of EV, but for practical purposes, I'd be a lot more willing to risk my whole bankroll once on a 99% +EV shot than risk $200 1000 times as a 50.1% +EV favourite.

Another thing that is highly beneficial of calling: It's great for your image. I always will put all my money in if I'm in a coinflip. For one thing, I like gambling and I never forget poker is gambling.

Seriously, having a good image can make you SO much money later in the session. Having a gambling image means people are going to perceive their FE lower against you. You're less likely to be bluffed. Also, people may suspect you have weaker hands and pay you off when you actually have the nuts.

Btw, jeez how big are you guys' bankroll? Sounds like you have $2000 or something...I've got 8.5k in my bankroll and wouldn't think twice about calling if I know it's profitable.