I think you gotta call the river. theres a ton of hands he can be bluffing with on the river bc hes gonna peel the flop light and pick up all kinds of draws on the turn. even just bluffing sometimes with JT should make it profitable to call and he should always be at the river with that.

+1

& thanks Victor! Love your posts

PS: Lineup at Commerce 200/400 looked juicy fyi for anyone going in future.

PS #2: I went during Jan 18 - 20 in 2020 during LAPC so might have been an outlier.

ya? who was in there that makes you feel that way?

one of these statements is false

Unless I'm losing my mind, I'm pretty sure it's true at least in the relative sense, meaning that the mixed strategy includes plays that are not the highest EV of the options available at some nonzero frequency. Knowing that, intuition would suggest it's likely the GTO mixed strategy includes very marginally losing plays as well, no?

Don't want to derail thread but couple 20/40 players / regs who I viewed as TAG fish when game was 6 handed and 1 player with under 10BB playing 3 handed.

On bright side, whatever Stinkypete and WilkyT osted is probably GTO and 99% correct

I almost never see 200/400 (or higher) going on Bravo, how often does it run?

thanks Bud! I dont even play poker so you may want to reassess my posts here. vote Bernie tho.

No problem hopefully you can head to WSOP for a LHE Donkament. If you do, 1st round of drinks on me with hopefully DonJuan and/or Sean Snyder (if neither too busy crushing souls).

Going back to thread, I play too bad to fold this river as played

I don't 4 bet anything here as default. Reasons for deviating include (opponents are passive postflop so there is ev to be seized preflop due to the lower average price to get to showdown) or (opponents are much too loose preflop so there is ev to be seized preflop due to opponent's preflop errors).

However since you 4 bet:

I dislike the turn bet exactly because you can't call a river bet(with the exception of trying to run over a tight opponent, which would be proper here). There's very little draw value(3 outs to value hand) so there's not much semibluff ev coming in. You're relying almost entirely on your ability to either win immediately(likely a breakeven value vs good players or a negative value vs loose players by definition) and your ability to win a river checkdown(since cards 7 and under = no straight possible = best case scenario for your Ace high, yet you still fold a hand that can beat a bluff on the river? seems inconsistent to me). The value of winning immediately is additive with the value of winning a river checkdown, the value of hitting a 3, and the value of hitting an ace(depending on how frequently these events occur).

This hand on the turn can win a showdown at decent frequency if turn and river check through(perhaps not enough to entirely recoup the previous investments, but every bit of ev helps). This showdown ev is additive with the ev gained when we river a pair after the turn checks through. In order for betting to be correct, it must have ev higher than the sum of the checking ev sources.

If this A3s(4 combos all likely all have same ev on turn) happens to be the very bottom of your fold range, the river is likely well played as a fraction of your range that can beat a bluff should be folding the river depending on the price your opponent is getting on the bluff(not considering hands that can't win a showdown as these are not bluffcatchers). So if the bottom of your range looks like this:

T9s, J9s, JTs, A3s (perhaps straight draws at frequency(.75, .75, .5 respectively imo).

this folding range is 13 combos and your opponent is getting 9:1 on river bet. This means if you have less than 130 combos in your range, the fold is likely creating a vulnerability.

If you never check the draws on the turn, then this folding range is 16 combos, and you would need 160 combos in your checking range to support such a folding range.

How to play this hand preflop depends on the dynamic of the game at that moment.

reasonable point. i've seen examples of mixing a hand that has better ev raising than calling into the calling range as a sort of 'loss leader' (value adder to the range it's mixing itself into).

I don't have data in front of me to look up but I don't recall ever seeing solvers take minus EV plays with any hands though (or maybe i have seen it very infrequently and always assumed it was going to be removed from the range on further iterations of the solver, which 'always' happened IME.)




A further interesting point I recall from looking at some sims is that under reasonable play from the btn and sb the bb can play cap or fold without losing any ev. If the btn and sb both play too loose however the bb now needs a flatting range and doesn't want to cap a range as wide as the range he wants to continue with vs the widened btn and sb ranges.

I know I’m probably wrong but I can’t really agree with this.
We can’t break even cause we aren’t all in and if it was true, why are we saying the guy IP have an edge ?

Yeah the 40% ( probably a bit high) is a number out of thin air but I don’t see anything wrong to give us a certain marge of safety taking into account it will always be more difficult in “real time” to achieve are full equity OOP .
I’m pretty sure we will always lose a little bit more and win a little less when OOP with some postflop play still in play compare to when we are IP .

-1

Confident 99.99999% chance DeathDonkey is right here from theoretical, mathematical, EV, practical, GTO, etc standpoint

Can agree to disagree for anyone that supports Montrealcorp view

Im not trying to be right , it just what my thought process at .

what i think montreal is having a hard time rationalizing is that these truths don't conflict:

checking back on the river in equilibrium will always give ev greater than zero or equal to zero.

checking out of position on the river will also give ev greater than zero or equal to zero.

however, the difference is that when out of position, your opponent has the option to bet. this causes a large portion of your out of position range to become 0ev(folding is free and calling bluffcatchers is exactly breakeven vs equilibrium opponent). this regression of hand strength comes with the sunk cost of getting to that point in the hand. so in the case of the original post vs equilibrium opponent, the river decision actually will add zero ev to the op's bottom line without known opponent deviation.

Do you agree bob if I have 35% equity pf OOP, I won’t be able to fulfill that 35% of equity because I will win less at the end of the hand due to miss value bet postflop ?
I mean it’s pretty clear in my mind that being all in pf and not being all in pf changes the value of some weak hands due to the existence of postflop bets.

I mean just hands like 22 is a clear example how so many time I might have the best hand OOP on turn but the board is so ugly I just can’t c/c twice .
So I forfeit some equity postflop while if I was all in pf, I wouldn’t care and I would always be assure i realize my full pf equity .

I don't think in terms of raw equity. Instead I think about what range the opponent is raising, the resulting correct defense range, and any adjustments that I should make on the margins(like folding more vs players that deny equity through aggression, or calling more vs players that allow equity realization through passivity.

if you look at huhu preflop play, you see the button opening around 82% and the big blind playing about 90% of hands. I believe this pattern is evident in all heads up situations, where the big blind will defend a range that is slightly wider than the opening range, with the mentioned adjustments on the margins being taken into consideration after the standard defense range has been estimated.

interestingly, this pattern is not evident in no limit holdem except at very shallow stack depths. the intersection is right around 6 big blinds if I remember correctly, which is likely not coincidental. After all what's the most you can charge a player that calls flop turn and river in a limit game? hmmm.

so instead of thinking about equity I'm asking myself what range fits these conditions.

If you don’t take raw equity% pf , what are you basing yourself than to say , a ration for BB is x% equity vs a CO open with x% range ?

Me obviously , I don’t take the raw % equity pf since I already said,
because some hands play terribad postflop OOP and are almost impossible to realize your full equity ( because you aren’t all-in) , i rather give myself a certain Marge of security and play a bit tighter than the raw equity To compensate the lack of realization.

So let’s say HJ oraise with x% range and I have 40% equity , I will play a bit tighter than 40% because I am OOP but seem I am wrong and I just don’t understand .

If it is right you can play a bit looser IP when you 3bet because of the money in the pot and you have position , it should make sense to play a bit tighter with your bottom range OOP .

But seem I am wrong when I read a lot of reply .

Does calling gain any merit if the cap is five bets? Forgive me if it’s a dumb question :-)

I'm aware of the equities as I've put in the time with equilab vs various ranges. However, as you note, we are forced to fold sometimes which means we need more than 29% equity to play full stacked poker. since there is no clear way to quantify the difference between (raw equity) and (realized equity), then we should focus on understanding the latter better.

i agree with this entirely.
let me rephrase this the way I think about it: hj raise with 25% range(i think its tag range) and i defend slightly wider than this range around 30-40% depending on how much equity this particular opponent will allow me to realize. the structure is essentially the same as the opening range(same general shape in equilab) but my kickers go a notch or two lower than the opening range.
while this is intuitive, its not a measure of profitability.
its not that youre wrong, its that your approach to using equity is incomplete. you must keep learning about equity realization to better understand where the money is coming from in a hand of poker. here's a thread that really helped me to grasp the deeper meaning of the profitability of individual hands:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...alization+yaqh

it gets really good when yaqh(2+2 author will tipton) comes in and sets the record straight.

Ok thx !

this is a graph of the fraction of the pot won by individual hands in heads up no limit holdem 25bb games. the solid line is raw equity. the dots are hands. the left axis represents the fraction of the pot won(1 = 100% equity realization) and some very strong hands have ev > pot(top left segment). the bottom axis shows hands in order of (highest fraction earned) down to (lowest fraction earned.

notice that draws earn a larger fraction than the raw equity would suggest, and bluffcatchers earn less than the raw equity would suggest.

i think that a similar graph for limit holdem would naturally feature a much less steep incline curve, as potential winnings with strong hands is worth more in no limit. the draws would run closer to the raw equity, as would bluffcatchers run closer to the raw equity. for lack of better description I think limit holdem would have a much more condensed and organized curve of points representing the fraction of the pot won.

Curious how Ninefingershuffle, Unguarded, Dr.Elo would have played hand

Curious why you resurrected a 2+ year old thread just to jerk off some players.