#1) Did you see I said about his demeanor? People dont 4 bet QQ / AK very often and they are at least going to think about it first. This guy looked like he was about to explode. Forget about math, that's a lock down read.

#2) He led $10 into a $50 pot. There's a FD and str8 draw on the board. That's how people play draws. Not made hands. I wouldnt say I overplayed weak TP. I probably shouldve bet more on the turn.

#3) Clearly I can raise this preflop and do lots of times. Sometimes I mix in a limp for deception.

#5) This one is questionable. Probably shouldve 3 bet preflop.

#6) Im not going to argue with your math. I just know that I have a lot of success raising hands like J9s in position and I attribute a lot of the success to my willingness to take the free card on the turn. Ive won a lot of big pots when guys had big hands and were obviously going to check raise the turn , probably all in, but I stacked him when I hit the river and he led out. See post #115. You could easily make the case to barrel that turn as well. Strangely enough, I had J9s there also. Its one of my favorite hands. This is a low variance way to play a high variance hand.

I gave up on barrelling the turn to set up a river shove just hoping for a fold a long time ago. If you're going to do it, this was the prefect spot for it. It just goes against my general strategy.

I thought people generally bet made hands "for protection" on drawish flops. Anyway I'm pretty sure what he's doing is making a "probe bet" which also suggests a made hand. And the guy did have a made hand, which is worth something. I'm just saying there's more made hands that beat you than draws even if he is playing literally every flush and straight draw.

I wonder if running good makes you less aggressive when playing for large amounts of money?

That's not a fair comparison as in post #115 you had decent showdown equity and significantly fewer outs, making it a much poorer barreling candidate. If your chances of winning a big pot are better when playing more passively, then do that. But that's clearly not the case with this hand.

Let's look at hand 6 again and assume you check behind, and villain checks the river. When you hit you bet about 2/3 pot or $120, and the station calls 60%.

You have no showdown equity so

EV(check) = P(hit)*P(call)*Bet = (15/46)*.6*120 = 23.48

What if we bet 180? Well he's not calling as much, let's say 40% now.

EV(check) = (15/46)*.4*180 = 23.48

Checking is better than folding I guess. But barreling is significantly better than checking.

I dont know what this means. How can I have no showdown equity if I hit the river?

Also, you need to account for the times when he has a hand that he was going to check raise me with on the turn if I bet, but now I stack him when I hit the river and lose nothing else when I miss the river.

What I meant was when you miss you have no showdown equity (poor choice of words in retrospect), as villain usually beats Jack high, thus your equity when you miss is basically zero when the pot is checked behind, so that factor in the equation is zeroed out. Technically this isn't true if we consider Js and 9s outs (usually they aren't in this kind of spot), but I'll cover that calculation as well.

There are admittedly simplifying assumptions built into most mathematical models. For instance I might suppose villain will bet X when he in fact bets in some range {X-Y,X+Z} with different weightings for each discrete value. And here I ignored the chance he bets or check-raises you because I ignored those chances when calculating barreling EV, and they're unlikely to greatly affect the result one way or the other.

There's always a tradeoff with mathematical models. If I get too granular, it takes forever to figure out, and nobody will read the results. And the more variables added the more assumptions I have to make, like how often is villain check-raising you, to what size, what is your 3-bet size, how often does he shove/fold, etc., and the more we might argue about these not particularly important minor parameters.

But here's an example attempting to add the parameters you mentioned. If we figure villain check/calls a 120 bet 50% of the time, check-raises you all-in 3% of the time (stacks are $500), and leads 10% of the time for 120, to which you jam if you have the straight or the flush (and he folds half the time and calls half the time), then it's

EV(this line) = P(hit)(P(call)*BetAmt + P(lead)(P(calls jam)*JamAmt + (1-P(calls jam)*LeadAmt + P(CRAI)*JamAmt)

EV(this line) = (15/46)(.5*120 + .1(.5*425 + .5*120) + .03*425) = 32.61, which should be compared most directly to the first barreling calculation.

If we add the chance we win the pot with a J or 9, which is atypical but applies in this case, the value goes up quite a bit:

EV(this line) = P(hit)(P(call)*BetAmt + P(lead)(P(calls jam)*JamAmt + (1-P(calls jam)*LeadAmt + P(CRAI)*JamAmt) + P(hit J or 9)*180 = 56.08

EV(this line) = (15/46)(.5*120 + .1(.5*425 + .5*120) + .03*425) + 6/46*180 = 56.08

So these extra factors do add some value (the most significant is accounting for when we win with a J or 9), but keep in mind they also add a ton of value to the barreling result. And the question is not "is it profitable to check here?" but "what is the most profitable action here?" It's barreling. Unless you think villain is check-raising ridiculously often, or we don't have a ton of outs, barreling is better.

Adding all these factors for a multi-street calculation is more complicated than I care to account at the moment (and I expect the resulting difference is small), but just adding the value of hitting the J or 9 (and we change P(call) to .5 for consistency) changes the triple barreling result to

EV(triple barrel) = .2 * 180 + (1 - .2) * .5 * 305 + (1 - .4) * (21/46 * 655 - 25/46 * 475) = 182.52

Basically the more outs we have, the more barreling is better than checking, which should make sense intuitively, and is why the EV is much higher when have additional outs beyond the flush and straight.

And FYI, I solved for the number of outs where barreling becomes better than the checking line, and got 10.1. Barreling was profitable as low as 8.6 outs, but not more profitable than this checking line. And if you expect villain is check-raising a lot, it of course changes the result somewhat. For instance if we change his check-raise percentage from 3% to 15%, we need 11.1 outs, and from 3% to 40%, then barreling is better if we have 13.88 or more outs. Notice these factors don't hugely affect the resulting decision unless they are unusually large (e.g., villain is a maniac).

And I'll add one more thing to avoid nitpicking over parameters. If you don't like particular parameters because you think the values picked were not realistic, or you want to add additional ones, just plug them into Wolfram Alpha, or let me know and I'll do it. I'm always interested in challenging my assumptions. Here I didn't think accounting for leading and check-raising would make a big difference, and... it doesn't. So. Yay. Barrel. BANG BANG BANG. Ahhh why isn't there a gun emoticon?

There are several problems with your assumptions. I dont understand 1 iota of that wall of math formulas, so I will stipulate that it is all correct. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Problem #1) This is the same guy who led $10 into a $50 pot with 55 on a 988 flop and then called my raise to $45. Then he called another $60 on the 3 turn. What do you think he puts me on? 44? He cant beat anything. He doesnt put me on anything. He sees he has a pair and wont fold. I can value bet this guy into oblivion, but barrelling him wont work. Your assumption percentages of how often he will fold or call are way off. They are unmeasurable against people like this. If I bet the turn I have to shove the river unimproved. That's throwing good money after bad. Its high variance and unnecessary.

Problem #2) This guy is a rec player so we have to assume that he has a limited amount of money. We dont know how many times he will rebuy and we dont know how long he will stay if he builds up his stack. If I bluff off my stack to him, he could easily hit and run me like so many rec players do. Even if your barrelling line is slightly better vs a calling station over 1000 iterations, that doesnt mean its best for this particular hand with all factors considered. If I miss he could take my money and leave. If I check behind on the turn and hit the river I still get paid. If I check behind and miss the river I dont lose much. That smaller amount that I lose (like happened this time) I have a very good chance of getting back not too long from now because I will be in many hands with him.

Its going to be a lot harder to get my money back from him before he leaves if I bluff off $300+ to him, than if I lose $75 to him. In other words, there are more factors at work than just the overall EV of this one particular hand.

I would barrel away on that A turn against lots of people, but not against a massive calling station that's in 75% of hands. I'm fine with losing a couple small pots to him and then taking it all back in one hand later. When I take it back later, any possible lost EV from earlier goes up in smoke and is recovered.

Are these games you play really that soft, or are you just that good, or do you just run hot continually?
I would love to take a beach vacation and visit the poker room.

Are the beaches nice, family oriented?

Thanks, keep crushing, nice thread

Hmmmm.

I can tell you 100% that I dont run this hot continually. I'm running hot right now, but certainly not continually.

Just about all of the regs who play this area will tell you that the 2/5 games at the specific room that I play in are the toughest in S. Florida. The other rooms are significantly softer, but there are other things I dont like about them and I live much closer to this room.

The beaches around here are very nice and very family friendly.

I give up. If you don't understand the math or believe the results this is pointless.

For the record I was just trying to be helpful, point out something you might have missed, but I'm starting to wonder if it's too much a blow to your ego to admit you may have played a hand suboptimally. Some of these reasons for checking the turn are getting ridiculous. He might leave if you stack him? Seriously? I have no answer to this.

Adding endless variables with minor effects is basically an argument against mathematical models, one I clearly can't win since you can just add minor variables ad infinitum, and if that fails, claim you can't follow the algebra.

Your most valid counter here is your reads of the player as a total calling station, which is rather ironic since I based my assumptions on the player's folding frequency on your own statement: "He probably folds if I triple barrel but there much easier way to get this guys money. He can have this one." If he probably folds on the river, then P(fold river) >=.5 by definition. I think I was actually rather conservative setting it at .5 (even set it at .4 in the first calculation), given .5 was your lower bound. His folding frequency needs to be extremely low to justify a check, so now he's in "75% of hands" and "he sees a pair and won't fold," even for his whole stack apparently. Neat how he went from "probably folding" to flat "won't fold" just like that.

^^ He never said V would leave if he (H) stacked him.

Also, he might have said "probably" very loosely and maybe he wanted to say "possibly" instead.

OK, lets start this over and Ill attempt some simpler math.

The guy started with $350. The board shows Th8s4hAc. The pot is $180. I bet $120

1) He check raises all in 10% of the time making it $155 to me. I have to call. I win 30% of the time vs a hand he would crai with like AT or 44. EV is about -$132

2) He calls $120 about 75% of the time. The pot is $420. I shove every river. He calls 50% of the time. I have the winner 40% of the time. EV is about $12.

3) He folds 15%. EV $180

So 10% of the time my EV is -$132
75% of the time my EV is $12
15% of the time my EV is +$180

My total EV is +$22.80

If I check behind on the turn

1) If he had a hand he would crai on the turn with, hes probably betting $125 on the river and hes not folding to a shove. I shove and win 30% of the time. The other 70% I fold. I lose $75 in this hand 70% of the time and win $375 30% of the time. My EV is +$60

Now based on my extensive live poker experience these assumptions are pretty close for a massive calling station like this guy. Its possible my math is off so feel free to correct it if it is. But if its correct, I win $22.80 by betting the turn and win $60 by checking the turn. Add in the other factors that I talked about and this is an easy turn check behind vs this guy. I fully expect someone to correct my math as it probably is off somewhere, but Id be shocked if its off far enough to make betting the turn better vs this station.

People ask me all the time....how is it possible that I win 74% of my sessions (its 83% at 1/2) when most good players win about 55-60%? People ask me how can I win at a high win rate and still win at that high a frequency. People ask me how is my variance so low. My StdDev is about 53BB/hr. Most good players are around 100BB+/hr.

Im giving a blue print to anyone who is interested. If you think I am arrogant and you want to keep playing the same way you've always played, that's your prerogative.

If your way produces 55% session win percentage
If your way produces a 4BB/hr win rate
If your way produces 100BB/hr StdDev

Maybe you should stop being so hard headed and actually try something new? Im not talking to anyone in particular. Just the countless people who ridicule my unorthodox lines that they think cant possibly work....and yet they do.

I have a good friend who I play with at the same table a fair amount. Hes a seemingly good player but he doesn't listen to me either. I keep limping small pairs in EP. I keep checking behind on the turn with 15 outs. I almost never double barrel. I keep raising with almost zero equity when I get donked into as the preflop raiser and I keep cranking out 8+BB/hr at 2/5 with very little variance.

He keeps raising small pairs. He sticks with his "I dont limp" policy. He keeps trying to double barrel people. Hes been breaking even for 5-6 months now and goes on 10+ buy in downswings with some regularity.

SMH

What happens if you plug in a value for betting turn and checking back all rivers unimproved? and/or shoving x percent of rivers, where x is not 100%.

MikeStar - Thank you for your posts and honesty.

Great discussion(s) also.

Subscribed and looking forward to following your posts.

Obviously if he's short stacked it makes triple barreling less effective. I said in my original post I was comparing with 100BB stacks since you didn't mention the stack sizes. Villain's folding frequency is also way less than led to believe. And knowing he is short I would decrease the turn bet and increase the river bet but I'll work with your assumptions.

Sounds good. I'll examine each scenario.

I can't figure out how you came up with $-132.

P(win) = .3116 against two pair and sets
WinAmt = 180 + 120 + 155 = 455
P(lose) = .6884 (you never tie against these hands)
LossAmt = 120 + 155 = 275

EV(CRAI) = P(win)*WinAmt - P(lose)*LossAmt

EV(CRAI) = .3116 * 455 - .6884*275 = -47.53

$12? What?

P(fold) = .5
P(call) = .5
WinAmtVRiverFold = 180 + 120 = 300
P(win) = 21/46 (I'll do the calculation with .4 also but you're actually .457)
P(lose) = 25/46 (.6 with your assumption, which I'll calculate second)
WinAmt = 180 + 120 + 155 = 455
LossAmt = 120 + 155 = 275

For the purposes of these calculations, TB = triple barrel, i.e., this is the specific scenario we get to the river and fire a third barrel (not the EV of the entire triple barreling strategy)

EV(TB) = P(fold)*WinAmtVRiverFold + P(call)*(P(win)*WinAmt - P(lose)*LoseAmt)

EV(TB) = .5 * 300 + .5 * (21/46 * 455 - 25/46 * 275)

EV(TB) = 179.13

Note using P(win) = .4 changes the result to 158.50. No idea how you came up with 12. It's possible I messed up somewhere but I've been pretty careful so I don't think so, but please check the calculations by all means.

This is correct. EV(FT) = 180

Note FT means "folds turn"

10% of the time your EV is -47.53
75% of the time your EV is 179.13
15% of the time your EV is 180

The total EV is a weighted sum, as follows (note "CRAI" means "check-raise all-in", "TB" means "triple barrel", i.e., we get to the river and fire a third bet, "FT" means "folds turn", and the | symbol means "given" and is used for conditional probabilities):

Total EV = P(CRAI)*EV(CRAI) + P(TB)*EV(TB) + P(FT)*EV(FT)

Total EV = P(CRAI)*(P(win|CRAI)*WinAmt|CRAI - P(lose|CRAI)*LossAmt|CRAI) + P(TB)*(P(fold|TB)*WinAmtVRiverFold|TB + P(call|TB)*(P(win|TB)*WinAmt|TB - P(lose|TB)*LoseAmt|TB)) + P(FT)*WinAmt|FT

Total EV = .1*(.3116 * 455 - .6884*275) + .75*(.5 * 300 + .5 * (21/46 * 455 - 25/46 * 275)) + .15*(180)

Total EV = 156.59

Note using your value P(win)=.4 from 2) changes the Total EV to 141.12 (still not too shabby!)

I don't think this is far off, but we have incomplete information. How much do we bet when we hit and villain checks? How often does villain call? What about when the board pairs? How often does villain check-raise?

I'll do my best to fill this out. Let's keep the probabilities similar to the barreling assumptions. We bet 125 if he checks and we hit, and he calls 45% of the time. He check-raise shoves 5% of the time (he hits a boat about 6.5% of the time, some of which he leads but most of which he checks, and add some random check-raises with his 2-pairs and sets) and we always call and win 3/10 the time. We flat call his lead when the board pairs a heart, and win about 65%. Feel free to give me more accurate information (though it makes less difference than you'd think), like if we're folding to a check-raise, but I'm doing the best I can with limited information. And keep in mind it's much easier to alter variables and plug the formula into Wolfram Alpha than to construct a new model.

To be clear, we're assuming the following (H=hero, V=villain):

P(Vlead) = .1 (since this is how often he would have check-raised the turn)
P(HAI|Vlead) = .3116*(44/46) = .291346 (we go all in on unpaired straight or flush boards--we fear only the A and the 8, but always win on our other hits)
P(Hflat|Vlead) = .3116*(2/46)
P(Hlose|Hflat) = .35 (we run into a boat half the time on paired heart boards, but villain check-raises sometimes)
P(Hwin|Hflat) = .65
P(Hfold|Vlead) = 1-.3116 = .6884
P(Vcheck) = .9
P(Hbet|Vcheck) = .3116
P(Vshove|Hbet) = .05 (the boats he didn't lead + random checkraises)
P(HWin|Vshove) = .3
P(HLose|Vshove) = .7
P(Vcall|Hbet) = .45
P(Vfold|Hbet) = .5
VLeadAmt = 125
HLeadAmt = 125
AIWinAmt = 180 + 275 = 455
AILoseAmt = 275
Pot = 180

Then we have

EV(this line) = P(Vlead)*(P(HAI|Vlead)*AIWinAmt + P(HFlat|Vlead)*(P(Hwin|Hflat)*(VLeadAmt+Pot) - P(HLose|Hflat)*VLeadAmt)) + P(Vchecks)*P(Hbet|Vchecks)*(P(Vcall|Hbet)*(HLeadAm t+Pot) + P(VFold|Hbet)*Pot + P(Vshove|Hbet)*(P(Hwin|VShove)*(AIWinAmt) - P(HLose|VShove)*(AILoseAmt)))

EV(this line) =.1 * ((.3116 * 44/46) * 455 + (.3116 * 2/46) * (.65 *
(125 + 80) - .35 * 125)) + .9 * .3116 * (.45 * (125 + 180) + .5 * 180 + .1 * (.3 * 455-.7 * 275))

EV(this line) = 75.84

If you plug this formula into wolfram alpha, you'll notice that most of the variables make very little difference in the result. Accounting for check-raising makes virtually no difference. Same with when villain hits a boat. Pennies. Even fairly substantial differences in leading percentages amounts to at most a few dollars. But play around with it as you will.

Also given the sheer number of variables it is possible I've made one or more mistakes, particularly in the second calculation, though I did proceed deliberately and double-checked. It happens though.

So barreling is roughly twice as good as checking using your assumptions.

How long have you been playing? I thought you had like 2500 hours. Hmmm... maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

I very much doubt the other factors you mentioned amount to more than a few dollars, but they're borderline impossible to quantify, so make of that what you will.

Zap. Aha, see what I did there?

I don't know if your below post was directed at me. I don't know if you're arrogant. Most good poker players are. I am, and I'm not even that good. Regardless, you're clearly an excellent player and I enjoy reading this thread and your responses. Don't think because I ask you about hands occasionally or one time think you misplayed a hand that I'm stuck in my ways or something. Quite the opposite. I don't have enough live hours to be stuck in anything. I'm basically a sponge. The math here just doesn't work.

What is your IQ?

Seriously could you explain in English?

Does everyone understand this math or am I just this dumb? Serious question btw?
When I play poker it is nowhere near this complex. How could you possibly think of all this in game?
There has got to be easier ways to come to a conclusion on a poker hand, right?
Could you teach me math please? Also a serious question.

Btw I'm not mocking you in anyway I'm seriously impressed, but only if you're right with all those numbers.

What happened to using simpler math? I have no idea if your math is right or not because its too complicated.

You're welcome and thank you.

I am between a feel and math based player and I can reads tells better than most. I see both sides of the equation. What the math doesn't calculate is all the intangibles of the game. And at times these intangibles are more valuable than the math.

There are pros who will kick my ass and don't know as much math as I do. MikeStarr is a feel player and some of his plays are unorthodox. They work but why?

Maybe he has a presence at his casino and people react a certain way.
Maybe he looks a certain way where people pay him off.
Maybe people can't figure him out so they play more frustrated and fold more.
Maybe people can't figure him out so they play more frustrated and call more.

There are so many intangibles in a hand: how "lucky" you are, the style of the player, their age, their gender, how they view you, your age, is your personality nice or grating, possible frustration level, timing tells, betting patterns, sizing tells, physical tells, verbal tells, comfort tells, how each of us dress, nationality. All these things come into play. Including who sits where and your relative position to them.

Just as an example if a player from India or a middle aged white woman sits down most of the time the player is LAGGY from all my years of experience. I can generalize this on them even though they are an unknown player and be more right than wrong most of the time.

So Mike has an incredible feel for the Isles. He can make plays that don't make mathematical sense. I know more poker math than he does and he is doing better than I am. I come from an online background where I did incredibly well. I work out all sorts of mathematical plays that aren't in the books or videos. Mike still kicks my ass on winrate.

Look at Bart Hansen. He admits he isn't a math player. He would destroy me at the table. But I would bet money I know more poker math and theory than he does.

FYI

Winky51 is the only 2+2er who is a reg in my games and knows who I am. We've played at the same table a number of times and he was actually at my table during several of the last hands I posted included the J9s hand being broken down math wise by Shai Hulud.

@Shai - BTW I don't disagree with your findings in a vacuum. But there is more to poker than just the math. Now somethings are clearly wrong like calling Td9d OOP vs many limpers and a short stack raiser. That's a bad spot.

But mike has a constant flow of golden horse shoes popping out of his ass he imports from Poland. I pick them up and try to shove them up my ass but all that comes out are lumps of coal.

So the boom switch has been turned back off. Nothing drastic but Ive had long stretches of unplayable hands and missing every flop the last 2 days.

1) Total nit opens to $20 UTG. His range is JJ+. Hes probably not even raising AK most times. 3 calls. I have AhKh in the BB. I dont feel good about 3 betting this guy and honestly if it wasnt suited I would fold OOP. I call.

Flop ($100) Kd3h2h. The SB open shoves $120. I reshove my $600 or so stack. After I didnt I realized I probably shouldve just called. Everyone folds.

I lost to 22.

2) Couple limps I limp 9c7c in MP. The button who is a total nutjob fish ($140) raises to $20. There are several callers so I call. 5 to the flop
Flop ($100) 9d5c2s. Checked to the button who shoves $120. It folds back to me and I call. He has AT and rivers an A.

3) EP limps. I raise to $25 Js7s. Limper calls
Flop ($55) AsJd4h. Check/check
Turn ($55) 8c. He checks. I bet $25. He calls
River ($105) Jh. He checks. I bet $60. He folds.

4) I open to $20 UTG T9s. Weak tight TAG ABC guy in BB calls
Flop ($40) JJ4. He check/calls $25
Turn ($90) 9. He check folds to $50.

Nothing all that interesting to report. I raised quite a few AK , KQs and AJs type hands and missed them all.

LOL

I knew he had to either be on a super heater or this was a really soft room.

Can you confirm this is the toughest room in S.Florida?

I was on a self described heater for 4-5 days but Ive been crushing this room almost daily for 18 months. I doubt a heater lasts that long.

Isles is the hardest in a vacuum. But there are many ways to shear a sheep.

PBKC is much softer. But you might get mugged outside and the food sucks with no comps. It also plays deeper because more money goes into the pot. When you hit a hand you get paid.

HR is softer. But what I notice at night is all the young players come in with their backpacks. Mine is invisible. You get all sorts of crazy mixes there.

Miami casinos? It's a zoo! They are really bad down there, really bad. If it wasn't so far away I'd play there. But I also think the game selection is not as good. Longer wait times, slower games. So while you make more per hand you make less per hour or the same.

COCO has bad players but it takes time to get used to their crazy ass play. The smoke is just not worth it. The money I make there I will need to use for a lung transplant so that's 0EV in my book.

But even though Isles is tougher you need to understand the players and how they play. Something I am working on. You exploit their weaknesses and the amount of money is the same. You make money from value or bluffing. In a station-ee drooler game the equation is 95% value 5% bluffing. At the isles it might be more like 65% value and 35% bluffing.... at the PBKC 75/25 and so on.

But when you are at a game you can frequently bluff it drops your variance because often most bluffs are in small to medium pots vs a very specific set of passive players.

The more aggressive the table the higher the variance. Isles at night on the weekends is a zoo.