Both villains seem decent over a small sample.

(1) Not sure if capping 3rd is the right play or not. I can rep a much rougher hand by flatting, but am



(2) Main question: Did villain pair the 6 often enough to make raising 5th correct?

$3/$6 Limit Razz $0.25 Ante - 8 players


3rd Street: (0.667 SB)
Seat 1: xx xx 3____Seat 1 folds
Seat 2: xx xx J____Seat 2 folds
Seat 3: xx xx K____Seat 3 brings in for $1____Seat 3 folds
Seat 4: xx xx A____Seat 4 calls____Seat 4 folds
Hero: 3 4 5___Hero raises___Hero calls
Seat 6: xx xx 4____Seat 6 3-bets____Seat 6 calls
Seat 7: xx xx A____Seat 7 caps!
Seat 8: xx xx T____Seat 8 folds

4th Street: (10.333 SB) (3 players)
Hero: 3 4 5 K___Hero calls
Seat 6: xx xx 4 T____Seat 6 bets
Seat 7: xx xx A Q____Seat 7 calls

5th Street: (6.667 BB) (3 players)
Hero: 3 4 5 K 7___Hero ???
Seat 6: xx xx 4 T 6____Seat 6 bets
Seat 7: xx xx A Q A____Seat 7 folds

The six will have paired him something like 30%-50% depending on his range on third street.

To skip the math you can use propokertools to check his pair frequency by giving your opponent TT for 6th and 7th and yourself KK. That way your win percentage will exactly match those times that the 6 paired him. Simply change his hole card range to adjust for different 3betting ranges.

Like so:

ProPokerTools Razz Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

dead cards: 3JKATAQA

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
345K7KK	40.79%	244,736	0
(7-6-4)T6TT	59.21%	355,264	0

I'm not sure what your question was on third. This is fine because you have a bike draw with two dead cards and two outs paired.

I wouldn't raise. When he hasn't paired the 6 then we're far ahead, but when he hasn't the we're behind and it's likely we'll have to put three-bets in with the worst draw.

This is a good point imo, but the pot is pretty bloated already so we have to be prepared to call villain down with a lot of very suspect hands on 7th unless we can accurately put him on a hand that we can't beat. Vs. a random villain at this limit, getting 3-bet on 5th will tell you quite accurately that villain has at worst a T76 atm and all for the price of < 0.1 BB.

SG, I'd weigh that against actually bringing yourself to click fold for one more bet in a pot that's 15.5BB as well as his bluffing necessarily being shut down by the raise if he fits the profile you describe. So it's a lot less clear than paying .1BB in equity now to be able to save an entire bet later.

Sure, if you're feeling in shape and can pitch something like J7 or T7 with a smile the info's valuable, but if the poker gods will goad you into taking a look anyway it won't matter so much.

Also, considering his betting we're already pretty sure about his hole cards (three babies), so having raised won't make a difference in a lot of cases anyway. Ie, if he improves we can be pretty damn confident that he has a minimum T regardless if we repop or not and we will still be unsure if he's paired or not in both cases.

OTOH him if raising can get him to split his range so entirely that his *calling* range necessarily is worse than K7 I think there might be a lot of sweet exploiting to be done.

This is a clever way to tell us how often he has paired and I'll definitely use it in the future!

(btw, how did you put the ProPokerTools sim right into the thread like that?)

That being said, it's not a complete analysis for two reasons. First, even if he paired only 41% of the time, we're way ahead and we're not crushed if he didn't.

0.61*0.41+0.42*59 = 50% equity.

And that's when we give him bike cards in the hole that he didn't want to cap with. This calculation ignores the very real possibility that villain could have a 7 or 8 ITH.

Of course, I will typically be putting in more bets when I'm behind than when I'm ahead.

My question was is capping standard there or not?

It appeared to me that villain was better than random, but the point still stands.

Raising may also get me more fold equity, especially for the times when villain has an 8 ITH or has paired. If I make a split pair or on 6th (or any hand he could beat on the river!), he's more likely to fold. And he'll be more likely to fold the river.

Lastly, raising will be great for my metagame and getting me free cards in the future.

Overall, I think a raise is thin, but +EV when you throw in the value of information, fold equity, and metagame.

Check out beta.propokertools.com/simulations - after you perform a simulation, you can click the "2+2" link to generate the code to paste here.

- bachfan, ProPokerTools guy

Thank you! I hope this catches on.

Credit goes to Bryce, who did it first to see if villain had the best hand right now in hold'em.

Ah, I read the HH as it being capped before it got back to him. That widens his range. But I still wouldn't pin too much hope on somebody decent raising a rough eigth in a low ante game facing four wheel cards.

The fact that you play on at all tells him the seven didn't pair you, that your worst hand is K8765 and your best hand is K752A. From the POV of hands that both are hands you want him to fold and hands he can be expected to fold it doesn't matter so much whether he thinks you have a rough eigth or a smooth seven since he'd call any hands that are not beat by both.

In general acting like you draw and then hit is a more effective way to get people to fold than to just act like you're pushing a thin edge from the start. Both because on average it's less common that the pattern call-call-raise is a bluff than the pattern raise-bet-bet and because the emotional process is pretty different in either pattern. Switching from passive to aggressive gives sort of a cognitive jolt that gets the other guy to slow down and think whereas aggression all the way doesn't give any stimulus to change his first idea.

Since this spot means he'll have to call even T6674 that's the idea he'll be starting out with.

[QUOTE=kablooey;17430539]

$3/$6 Limit Razz $0.25 Ante - 8 players

3rd Street: (0.667 SB)
Seat 1: xx xx 3____Seat 1 folds
Seat 2: xx xx J____Seat 2 folds
Seat 3: xx xx K____Seat 3 brings in for $1____Seat 3 folds
Seat 4: xx xx A____Seat 4 calls____Seat 4 folds
Hero: 3 4 5___Hero raises___Hero calls
Seat 6: xx xx 4____Seat 6 3-bets____Seat 6 calls - NO, HE DID NOT 3-BET, HE 2-BET - MODS, CAN WE FIX THIS?
Seat 7: xx xx A____Seat 7 caps! NO, HE DID NOT CAP - MODS, CAN WE FIX THIS?
Seat 8: xx xx T____Seat 8 folds


The wording is obviously incorrect and pointlessly confusing... can we please fix the HH converter? Notice that it would have said that hero capped a second time if I had actually capped...

I clicked on the link. Couldn't put in dead cards.

The "dead" in green is clickable and gives you the field for entering dead cards.

How do you get a pot of 15.5 BB? Also, you don't really want to induce bluffs in spots you're not calling almost 100% of the time in a limit game.
In a big pot, anything you can do to gain even a tiny amount of FE is a good thing.

The BI = first bet
raise = 2nd bet
3bet = 3rd bet
cap = 4th bet

How is this incorrect?

That's how!

I prefer:

Bring-in = Just a bring in.
Completion = First Bet (1 small bet to go)
Raise = 2-bet (2 bets to go)
Reraise = 3-bet (3 bets to go)
Cap = 4-bet (4 bets - the cap - to go)

But even if you don't like that reasoning, surely we can agree that the converter should not say that two different people cap, separately, in a single round?

I just realized all OP says is that villain "looks decent", meaning we do not know if he's a reg at all. So we're up against the average 3-betting range of the entire range of players that OP could perceive as decent over whatever interval he's observed, rather than the 3-betting range of somebody that's been observed enough to be confirmed a reg.

Basically that makes it a lot less easy to be sure that villain doesn't have T66xx if he three-bets. Or that he does't have made T if he calls.

Imo that should bias us towards trying to exploit getting laydowns rather than exploit by making extra folds. I think we can get those extra folds by raise/betting 6th/7th when the boards changes the distribution in our favor on 6th.

That's what the pot will be at the river, which really is the only time to save a bet in response to knowing the other guy has at least a T7. Barring some low frequent cases on sixth.

It's if you're calling less than the indifference threshold for the bluff, and it's nothing unique to limit. Of course we don't have to call as often to screw over bluffs if we just call fifth.

I don't see any reason why 3-betting would give us more fold equity than calling and bluff-raising some turns or rivers. Our hand is pretty face up in both lines and raising fifth does very much give the impression that we're capable of making moves or pressing thin edges, which isn't really helpful for getting folds.

Does nobody else think that we should fix the 2p2 hand converter for stud hands?

Meh, the issue you bring up only manifests itself on 3rd street. You'll find a fair discrepancy on how players title their betting actions in live play as well, I just ignore it anymore.

Perhaps you ignore it, but the converter did convince you that the guy putting in the third small bet was capping.

If it confused you, how many other 2p2ers do you think it confuses?

Also, I understand that there is a range of lingo, but I can't imagine anybody purposefully referring to the third small bet as a cap.

This is a UI fail on my part. I will make the clickability more obvious in a future upgrade or just clean it up. (A bit of background - I implemented it this way because I discovered that most of the time when people entered dead cards it was actually a mistake and they meant to be typing in board cards for one of the other games! Of course for razz there is no board so I shouldn't need this bit of trickery.)

- bachfan, ProPokerTools guy

Ty sir. While you're here, will you please explain one of the more common fails of using your razz simulator, which is when people use syntax like "(6-5-)7" to represent a 3-card 7.

Could you give me a hint? I'm not yet sure which fail you had in mind.

These two hands should have the same equity percentages. They don't:

http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...678&h2=6543A78

http://www.propokertools.com/simulat...678&h2=6543A78