I used all combos, and screwed up a mental shortcut for the money we put in and lose that was completely incorrect due to low coffee levels.


It is worth noting that in these types of spots we do need to be 100% sure that the shove was blind. Especially if the guy is *saying* that he *shoved* blind. I've seen that angle a few times. Works best after 1 or 2 real blind shoves.

I dont know how I screwed the math up. I do All in EV calculations all the time (and get made fun of for keeping track of it). What I didn't know what the percentages of those hands vs a random hand. The percentages are slightly higher than I would guessed.

Psychologically, sure, it might not be worth the risk. Mathematically there's no basis for this type of thinking. Just because we won't get this specific type of wager many times doesn't mean it doesn't help us reach the "long run." We need to look at each bet in isolation, and it's actually completely irrelevant whether or not we get to continue to make these bets in the future. A7 vs. random for $1600 is a very, very good bet to make and almost certainly a better bet considering both EV and risk than a normal $25/h 2|5 game.

This is the range that is ahead of a random hand. You'll be shocked at a few of the hands in it. 33+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J4s+,T6s+,96s+,86s+,76s,65s,A2o +,K5o+,Q7o+,J8o+,T8o+,98o

not sure where you got that range but this is a bit off.

Angrist posted the range a few pages back that is correct

I dunno how you got that but it's not correct. 65s has only 43.13% equity. The following is correct assuming Equilab's accuracy.

22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q2s+,J6s+,T7s+,98s,A2o+,K2o+,Q5o+,J8 o+,T9o

Yeah, mine was a total range that is ahead of a random hand, with the stuff at the bottom balancing out the things that are well ahead. The bottom end is, as you correctly note, not ahead.

Even the corrected one will surprise most people, though.

That's true as a range, but not all of those hands are actually >50% against a random hand. 65s is only 43% and we should *not* be calling a blind shove with it and we don't need to include it for balance.

I actually sat and worked this out once (because of the frequency with which a particular V would pull the "blind straddle all my money" move). And all the hands that are >50% equity against a random are:

22+, T9o+, J8o+, Q5o+, K2o+, A2o+, 98s+, T7s+, J6s+, Q2s+, K2s+, A2s+

That total range is about 58% against a random hand.
There's still some surprising stuff in there. Like any K or almost any Q.

So if we really wanted to amp up the meta EV and we can close the action HU, we can roll one card and call if it's a Q or better without looking at the other.

It's pretty easy to remember "any A, K, Q, J7+, pair, or 9+connector" and get close to a 'correct' range.

It would be more helpful to me (and I'm sure others) if you could set this to like a rhyming tune, preferably something folksy.

Gk,thx!G

pro-tip: call blind yourself and you will always have 50% equity!

expert tip: always shove your stack minus $1 preflop, which will make your ensuing $1 call always extremely profitable.

GcluelessexpertnoobG

He for sure did it blind. 100%. The first one he was in the BB with his arms crossed and sitting back in his chair. Tells the table he will blind raise. Get a few limpers and he calls them idiots because he’s blind raising. V is in 6 seat. I’m in 2 seat. I limp with all intentions to call. He blind shoves. Folds to me and I close the action.

I think the last one he shoves UTG before the cards are even out since he’s first to act.

As far as frequency goes, the first two were in a row or at least in the same orbit. He ‘looked/played’ maybe 1/2 the time and blind shoves the other half. I was done by his second orbit.

He’s a maniac so no pattern. I think one other person called one with a shorter stack because he had AKs blind and I would’ve won with my 34o. So no, he doesn’t actually play poker that I can tell. And I do remember folding a few times to other blind shoves by him.

So on the 2nd shove does it change anyone's thoughts on a call with 3,4,5 still behind you? This was the A7 call?


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using 2+2 Forums

OK, we're getting out of the bankroll and finances portion of this discussion and way too deep into strat. If y'all want to discuss the strat of calling blind shoves, please start a new thread.

The only casino in my city (the closest other casino is at least 2 hours away) offers just one type of poker, 1/3 nlh. They VERY RARELY open up higher tables like 2/5 nlh or 2/5 plo but most of the time, anyone who wants to play live poker in the city only has one option.

Now, this 1/3 game has a pretty weird buy in structure, min buy in is 100€ and max buy in is 750€, with a 5% rake and 15€ cap.
I've played there for fun a couple of times (taking shots/testing the waters) and I figured that there's a reasonable amount of fishes but also a lot of regs, semi-pros and pros (people who make a living just playing poker). Most people (even semi-pros) buy-in for 200€-300€ and only a small percentage (the best players) buy-in max.

What should my buy-in be in this game and how big should my bankroll be before considering playing there seriously?

What kind of player are you? Do you track your sessions? Do you win? It's kinda hard to answer this question without knowing these things. If you are just a noob fish, min-buying and short-stacking is probably best. If you are a crusher close to the max is better. I'd probably save at least $2k before playing.

Well, I'm actually a fish atm but I don't intend on playing live again for a very long time, I want to be sure I can crush the micros online before risking any serious amount of money, so my question is kinda theoretical.

What I'm essentially asking is "when I get better at poker by studying and grinding the microstakes online and become confident enough that I can beat my local live game, what kind of bankroll should I have and how much should I buy-in, given the kinda weird deep buy-in structure but also given that only the very best at the game buy max?"

You'll be coming from online, which usually has a 100BB cap, so buy in for that unless/until you see a reason to change. Rake cap is brutal, and at 5%, it won't cap out often.

Bankroll just hugely depends.

I frequently tilt, and if I'm tilted enough it's probably not hard to tell that I'm tilted.

However, my play is largely indistinguishable when I'm tilted, from when I'm not. That's my key.

Then are you really tilted or just pissed off?

How many more years do you think poker will be profitable at the 1/3-2/5 levels?

Define "profitable".

A net cash positive hobby? Absolutely it'll remain that way.

Sufficient to live off of? .... I would expect $1/2 is already impractical, and $2/5 is marginal unless your expenses are really low.

I can only speak for my 1/3 NL game I play in, but if the maximum rake continues to grow at $1 per year (which it has over the last 3 years, and with no real reason for it to stop increasing especially with minimum wage going up over the next few years), then it will definitely get harder and harder. Whether it ever crosses the "non-profitable" line will be hard to tell (kinda/sorta doubtful in an optimistic sense?), but a more appropriate question might be "will it ever reach a point of not really being worth our time"?

But I'm certainly guilty of being a the-sky-is-falling sorta guy, and yet the game still seems to be here (although not remotely in the same thriving sense it was in years past) and I'm still able to make money as a pure lame-o nit rec. But my guess would be that 5 years from now it might not be as pretty. Here's to hoping I'm wrong!

Ghaswon$1.96/hourat1354hoursof2/4Limit,whichistechnically"profitable",but...G

Pretty hard to predict the future. But I think if you study and put in the volume you will be able to make good money for the foreseeable future, especially at 2/5.

What was the rake before then and how long was it constant? Because I haven't seen that kind of steady increase around here.