Your raise on the flop is awful. Especially against a maniac who you are sure won't fold. Plus, you're no flipping if he has KK.

If he has 2 red kings, I can count 12 outs (9 clubs, 3 aces) for roughly 48%. Against his set of nines I have 8 outs, (all clubs but the one that pairs the board) which is about 32% and I need to be getting 2-1 there, which I was.

It's true I could have folded to his 3- bet, but (and this is why I only bought in for $120) I had decided that I was in that game to try and hit a big score. Plus if I am sure he has KK, it's a bad fold. If I know he has a set, I can either fold or call. Since I was shot taking, I called.

There's also of course the chance he has a lesser flush draw, and I am way ahead.

Also, I've very interested to see the math that suggests you were getting 2-1

It sounds like you just want to gamble and have no interest in playing in a strategically correct way.

The math I can do in my head suggests 8 solid outs. Of course some of those can go away and I can pick up a straight draw on the turn. So, if I figured it using the standard 2x and 4x outs with the backdoor straight vs. boated turn or river being a wash, 4 times 8 is 32. Was that accurate? I was surprised later to find out how off it was. If you can explain a better way to do the math in my head, I am interested in learning.

However, my point was, and the example I used to illustrate it was "listen to logic, not compulsion." In that hand I was listening to compulsion.

Also, I am interested in what strategy you use to know exactly what your opponent has. Makes the math a lot easier.

Also it was not a 2. Not that it makes much differnce but I think it was the 7h so the actual number is 27.37%.

Sound like a proximate cause and a root cause.

The proximate cause is, you're forgetting a set can redraw to a full house. Hint: if the dealer burns and turns a non-pairing card to make your flush, she doesn't call a halt to the hand and award you the pot. On the other hand, if the turn pairs the board, your flush draw no longer has 7 outs.

The root cause is, instead of thinking of weighted ranges, you're picking the hand you want your opponent to have and "putting him on" that hand. I agree that it sounded like a tell for KK or AA but guess what? We got fooled. Since there's a non zero chance he has a set, you should weight sets more than zero percent of his range.

The fact that you apparently do not understand what a range is, is cause for concern. I suggest you get out of this sub-forum and got to Live Low-Stakes NL instead. You'll learn a lot there.

I know what ranges are and have been discussing exactly that in this thread. As a matter of fact, that's my point with the part you bolded.

If you want to make snarky comments with no basis in fact, I suggest you go to BBV.

Well put. But, I did take a set into account. My math was off by a good 5% though. Still I figured my chances likely ranged from 30% to 50%. I am, later with the help of an odds calculator, and knowing what he had, able to see I was only 27%. Do I fold if I know that? Maybe. Logic says fold, if I know that. Compulsion still tells me to shove.

Now does everyone get my point or do you want to keep telling me how bad I am?

I'm not interested in telling anyone how bad they are. We're all here to learn. We learn best (or at least I do) when we can separate criticisms of our thinking from personal attacks on our skill.

I think we're getting bogged down with you defending your reasoning, but I'll summarize what I think were the errors of logic:

• You're not 2:1 vs. a set; you're closer to 3:1.
• You're not even money against exactly kings. If you literally had 12 outs twice to a sure win, you'd be around 47%. One reason you're a little less than that is redraws: If you spike an ace and he spikes a king, you lose.

No one can do detailed math at the table, so you've correctly chosen to calculate a quick heuristic. However, you've overestimated both your best-case and worst case scenarios.

• To want to put "fresh" money in the pot with a bet or call, with virtually no fold equity, you need to be better than 50% in a heads-up hand.

This is another point I don't think you're getting. Suppose that you had odds to call his 3-bet. That still doesn't mean that shove-4-betting because "all the money is going to go in anyway" is a good play.* If you're an underdog in the hand, and have no fold equity, you'd generally like to pay as little as possible to try to hit.

Suppose the turn is the 8. Your opponent gets scared you might have JT and lets the turn check through. That's great for you!

That's not the calculation you should care about, unless you knew he had exactly a set.


What does this mean? We're here to help each other make better decisions, generally defined as those that increase money expectation.

If you just think it's fun to gamble, and can afford to do so, gamble! Heaven knows you don't need our permission.

If it's literally "compulsion," and you want to overcome it but can't, then you have a gambling addiction and need to seek help.



*Sometimes it can be (in particular, if you have odds to see two cards but wouldn't have odds to see the river if you call and miss the turn; implied odds also figure in here).

Yes, it was a missed opportunity, as the turn was the Ks and he might have checked letting me see the river for free. Thanks for the tip. I was looking at it in black and white too much that it was either a shove or fold situation.

Sorry, I forgot to elaborate on this. Here's a sample range you might use to think about this hand away from the table:

ProPokerTools Hold'em Simulation

20,790 trials (Exhaustive)

board: Q92

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
AcTc	40.49%	8,408	18
KK,AA,QQ,99,22,JxTx	59.51%	12,364	18

The JxTx means what we would call JTs. I limited it to jack-ten suited because, based on the tell you reported, I don't think he's on a draw here. But I could be wrong, so I wanted to include at least the remote possibility that he has a draw.

What about at the table? You can't memorize probabilities for every situation. You should be able to get as far as, "His tells and betting tell me he's strong, so I think he has a set or overpair. There are nine combinations of sets and nine combinations of overpairs, and he plays like a maniac preflop so maybe all of those are equally likely. I'm a 3:1 dog against a set, 2:1 against aces, around 45% against kings. Average it together and let's say around 2:1. There's also a chance he's on a draw and I just misread him, so let's say I'm a little better than 2:1 with two cards to come."

I think you're trying to do that, but some of your fundamental assumptions were off.

Now, I don't think your flop raise is bad because even maniacs are generally going to check-fold if they have almost nothing here, and inducing bluffs by calling down unimproved isn't very appealing here. You might also get 33-88 or something like a hand with a deuce to fold.

But now you get reraised. As I understand it you're faced with calling 200 to win 450 immediate with another 175 behind. If you could call 200 and be all-in, seeing two more cards with no more action, you'd have an easy call.

Can you call purely to see the turn card and then reevaluate? You probably have about 10 to 11 equivalent-outs, but you're only getting 2.25:1, so no.

If you had to shove in the entire 375 (as you did) to win 625, would you be OK with that? By my calc you need 37.5% equity to be OK with that. In our simulation you probably should stay in. It depends on how sure you are of the read that he doesn't have a draw, whether you downplay the possibility of a set given his behavior, etc.

If you call the reraise on the flop, now you have 175 left on the turn with 650 in the pot, plus the 175 bet you'd be getting, so you're getting about 4.7:1. Hence you're pot committed on any non-pairing turn. (I don't know how to account for the added complexity that you might not be getting sufficient odds on a pairing turn, or that you might pick up outs on a king or jack turn, so let's suppose those possibilities cancel out.)

Since the turn action isn't going to get you to fold a hand that was worth it to see both turn and river, and since your fold equity is virtually zero, there's no real advantage to shoving. But if there's a small chance he might have something he'd fold (say, bottom two pair), then shoving could be OK.

tl;dr

All told, I don't think getting all-in here was hugely -EV given the reads we've discussed. It's pretty close one way or the other. However, I think some of the holes in your reasoning discussed ITT are a leak and need attention.

Those two sentences are possibly contradictory. (If he has numerous leaks, he might not be a favorite at this table. If he's not a favorite, he might not be willing to pay top dollar to learn by playing as deep as possible.)

I wasn't playing it to learn. When I sat down there were probably 4 stacks that had me covered, two of them over $1k. I wasn't really planning on playing a bigger game, and of course, by hand 5, if I want I can chip up to $300. I think hand five was when I got AA and they held and by then I was over the max bi anyway.

afwoods, enough with the postwhoring in this thread. If you want to discuss 1/2 and 2/5 NLHE live strategy, head on over to the LLNLHE forum.

Hey, just finished reading Beat The Donks, must read for 1/2 nl live players imo, thank you Zippy for the recommendation.

Currently looking for another read that could improve my 1/2 nl live game, is there another book I should read that is specifically good for this game? I haven't played enough to determine how good I do btw, although I've been doing good so far, there's definitely more theoretical stuff that I can still learn from reading.

Unless you tell me I've read enough for 1/2 live (this thread, PMTM, and Beat The Donks), then I'll just play more sessions weekly and improve from there!

Any response is greatly appreciated!

One great way to beat 1/2 is to come away happy with any win. I find myself being greedy and wanting 300+ all the time but it isnt realistic.
Tonight I won 50 in 6 hours, It aint pretty but its realistic for 1/2.

Another thing that can help you beat these games is tells. Once you clue in on what each tell means you can take down pots with bluffs and make hero calls that would be uncomfortable without these solid tells.

Lol, by the same token you can't put someone exactly on a set. This play is better with a shallower stack but you do need to have some sort of semi - bluff range on the flop. I think it's an ok play.