STTF SNG->cash thread

[Inyaface]

[ QUOTE ]


cha59 KK hand: Bet the flop you big girl.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to accomplish with this?

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


cha59 KK hand: Bet the flop you big girl.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to accomplish with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

ya i think betting that flop would be pretty bad

[K䲰䮥n]

[ QUOTE ]
lol...I'm in the process of busting everyone at a 6max 2c/4c limit game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

it was you!

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


cha59 KK hand: Bet the flop you big girl.

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you trying to accomplish with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

ya i think betting that flop would be pretty bad

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "pretty bad" is too strong, but I agree with you guys that I check more often than not. Betting can extract some value from a Q when the field sucks (at least one villain is loose passive, it seems), and provides some protection if we have the best hand.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect. You still need him to fold 40% of his range that beats you. If he folds 30% of his range that beats you, then the EV of betting will be:

0.1 * $300 (for when he folds the hands that we beat)
+ 0.9 * 0.3 * $300 (the other 90%, he folds 30%, we win pot)
- 0.9 * 0.7 * $200 (the other 90%, he calls 70%, we lose bet)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we are just a little mixed up in wording.

When I say he needs to fold 30% of his range that beats you, I actually meant he needs to fold 30% of his range.

So, not 30% of the 90% range. 30% of the 100% range.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I found interesting is that when the hero's hand is best 38% of the time, the villain needs to fold 24% of his better hands for betting to have the same cEV as checking behind. This is interesting, because the neutral EV of betting is 40% folds. Because you have the better hand 38%, you are close to that neutral EV %, but pay a huge price in actual cEV compared to checking behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol this is madness. I have no idea what equation you're using for that chart, but it's wrong. How about if our hand is good 50% of the time, and if we bet he folds that 50% and calls the other 50%? Then we win heaps right, because we only needed him to fold 40% of his hands? That's awesome because normally when my opponent calls my bets with everything I lose to and folds everything I beat, I lose money. What am I doing wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so our hand is good 50% of the time the cEV of checking is:

cEV = 0.50*300 = 150.

If we bet and he folds 50% and calls 50% and wins the cEV is:

cEV = 300(0.50)-200(0.50) = 150 - 100 = 50 cEV.

Which is higher?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I found interesting is that when the hero's hand is best 38% of the time, the villain needs to fold 24% of his better hands for betting to have the same cEV as checking behind. This is interesting, because the neutral EV of betting is 40% folds. Because you have the better hand 38%, you are close to that neutral EV %, but pay a huge price in actual cEV compared to checking behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol this is madness. I have no idea what equation you're using for that chart, but it's wrong. How about if our hand is good 50% of the time, and if we bet he folds that 50% and calls the other 50%? Then we win heaps right, because we only needed him to fold 40% of his hands? That's awesome because normally when my opponent calls my bets with everything I lose to and folds everything I beat, I lose money. What am I doing wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so our hand is good 50% of the time the cEV of checking is:

cEV = 0.50*300 = 150.

If we bet and he folds 50% and calls 50% and wins the cEV is:

cEV = 300(0.50)-200(0.50) = 150 - 100 = 50 cEV.

Which is higher?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're stuck on the math just IM me so you don't look so bad. 150 > 50 man.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I found interesting is that when the hero's hand is best 38% of the time, the villain needs to fold 24% of his better hands for betting to have the same cEV as checking behind. This is interesting, because the neutral EV of betting is 40% folds. Because you have the better hand 38%, you are close to that neutral EV %, but pay a huge price in actual cEV compared to checking behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol this is madness. I have no idea what equation you're using for that chart, but it's wrong. How about if our hand is good 50% of the time, and if we bet he folds that 50% and calls the other 50%? Then we win heaps right, because we only needed him to fold 40% of his hands? That's awesome because normally when my opponent calls my bets with everything I lose to and folds everything I beat, I lose money. What am I doing wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so our hand is good 50% of the time the cEV of checking is:

cEV = 0.50*300 = 150.

If we bet and he folds 50% and calls 50% and wins the cEV is:

cEV = 300(0.50)-200(0.50) = 150 - 100 = 50 cEV.

Which is higher?

[/ QUOTE ]

When you're stuck on the math just IM me so you don't look so bad. 150 > 50 man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can point out how those equations are wrong though? ChrisV said they are.

[microbet]

We're talking about the 88 hand, right?

I think Chris is saying that villian folds 50% of the time when he's ahead. Not 50% total. So his total folding percentage would be 75% unless he calls with some of the hands that are behind as well.

300(.75) - 200(.25) = 175

Or maybe Chris was being sarcastic and saying "of course we lose when he folds everything we beat and calls with everything that beats us, ldo."

Your chart seems to suggest that the percentage of times villian's hand is worse than 88 has some bearing on what percentage of better hands he needs to fold. This doesn't seem correct to me.

Assume he never calls with a worse hand.

If his range is:

23o, JT, QT, AA, KK, 77

He is going to need to fold X percent of his hands that are > 88 for it to be profitable. He will have Y percent of his range being < 88.

If instead his range is:

23o, 24o, JT, QT, AA, KK, 77

He is going to need to fold that same X percent of his hands that are > 88 for it to be profitable. He will have Z percent of his range being < 88.

Z != Y.

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
23o, JT, QT, AA, KK, 77

[/ QUOTE ]

He needs to fold 28.8% of his range on top of folding 23o to have the equivalent cEV of checking behind. This is 12.4 hands. Or JT plus 0.4 of a hand.

[ QUOTE ]
23o, 24o, JT, QT, AA, KK, 77

[/ QUOTE ]

He needs to fold 22.6% of his range on top of folding 23o and 24o to have the equivalent cEV of checking behind. This is 12.4 hands. Or JT plus 0.4 of a hand.