I'm paranoid that I'm folding too much

[n0ctu2ne]

I'm trying to get away from the mentality that I shrink into, which is "Don't get yourself into any trouble, get away from it and wait for the next one."

Lately I've been feeling like I don't continue in the hands that I should, so I'm studying hands where I quit and see if it really was a good choice.

[Fadook]

I'd bet the turn against many people, and give up if he calls.

[Fadook]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like to add:

My last point could be wrong. The fact that this pot will always be quite small could infact indicate that check-calling this river will at worst be a small mistake. However, I do feel that this situation comes up frequently, so I could be right.

Wow, I ramble a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because this is a really marginal, heavily read-dependent situation. In 6max, stuff like this comes up all the time, and you really have to know if your opponent is the type of guy to call the flop and turn with A-hi or not to be sure of your play.

[kaby]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a semi-bluff.

Such a player will frequently peel most flops with almost anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, but that's a reason not to semibluff imho, this flop connects with 'almost anything' so it's not likely he's going to fold.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a semi-bluff.

Such a player will frequently peel most flops with almost anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, but that's a reason not to semibluff imho, this flop connects with 'almost anything' so it's not likely he's going to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bozlax wins.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a semi-bluff.

Such a player will frequently peel most flops with almost anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, but that's a reason not to semibluff imho, this flop connects with 'almost anything' so it's not likely he's going to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bozlax wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, thanks, Frito.

Kaby, this flop doesn't connect with "almost anything." It's always 2:1 that a flop didn't hit any given hand.

More to the point, not everything that connected with it is going to call down (for instance, wouldn't you like to get a fold out of 53o, here?); it's not likely you'll get a fold out of a made hand from this guy, but you've got to try, and betting a big turn card can't hurt that.

[kaby]

[ QUOTE ]
It's always 2:1 that a flop didn't hit any given hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the vast majority of those hands have at least 10 outs, that's what I meant with connect, sorry if that wasn't clear enough.


[ QUOTE ]

More to the point, not everything that connected with it is going to call down

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree that the a bad to average .25/.50 player does not call down with any pair here, that's what they do and that's why we value bet them to death.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not likely you'll get a fold out of a made hand from this guy, but you've got to try

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? (I mean, we only try if we think it's +ev right, and the pot is so tiny... I'm gonna try and pokerstove this, brb)

[bozlax]

Kaby, the point is that you have no reason to think you're behind, but plenty of reason to think that you can take it down with a bet. Checking is just asking your opponent to bet, and you fold.

Also, saying the vast majority of hands have 10 outs is just wrong. A very small number has 14, a small number has 10, a larger number has 6, and another small number has 3. You also have no reason to think that your opponent will put you on UI overcards and call correctly (if my range is 99+/AJ+, should you call with KJ? 75?).

[kaby]

Mmm I can't edit anymore


Ok I tried to give the limper a big range like your average villain so let's assume he calls the flop with every ace, a lot of kings and queens and a lot of gutshots, stuff like that... also some random suited crap just because he's clueless. I don't know how accurate this range is but I think this is too loose (it's 53% of all hands). I removed AK and AA-KK, so this assumes he is like a 60/4 villain I guess. Bit too loose for a .25/.50 unknown?

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

23,056 games 0.005 secs 4,611,200 games/sec

Board: 8h 3h 9c Qc
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 36.541% 36.54% 00.00% 8425 0.00 { AsKd }
Hand 1: 63.459% 63.46% 00.00% 14631 0.00 { QQ-22, AQs-A2s, K2s+, Q5s+, J5s+, T5s+, 95s+, 85s+, 75s+, 65s, 53s+, 42s+, 32s, AQo-A2o, K7o+, Q7o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o, 53o, 43o, 32o }

If villain does not fold any of these hands (and I think it's very optimistic of you to think he'll fold even 32o) a bet is not for value. And that's assuming he calls stuff like every J5s or K2s.

So no, I still don't get it. There is no value in a bet.

We loose .36BB on a turn b/f if he never folds that we have to make up on the river to make a b/f +ev. If he bets all his hands when we check to him on the river and a blank falls (let's assume it's the 2 of spades), he still has 65% equity so a call would be -ev. And that's assuming he bets all hands...

When an ace falls and we bet river we win .77BB if it's the Ah if he once again calls all his hands (So also random T high hands - this is obviously a huge oversimplification in our advantage), .83BB if it's the Ad and .78 if it's the Ac.

For the kings it's .78BB, .79BB and .84BB

So when 6 cards fall we make .80BB on average. With every other card a call is -ev even when he bets all his missed draws so we c/f river UI.

So river expected value is (6/46)*(.80)= .10BB. Not enough to compensate for the lost .36BB on the turn.

A turn bet is not correct. How about c/c'ing?

Let's say villain bets every hand when we check to him, and will do the same on the river. Then we are risking 2 BB by calling to win 5BB and this is the best case scenario where villain bets all his draws. So in this case a calldown is +EV, but that's assuming villain bets every draw twice and that's just not going to happen, so that's not a good option imho.


So b/f turn is negative ev* and c/c c/c is positive ev but only under very unlikely circumstances where we need a read that villain is very agressive. We don't have a read so why not go for the neutral EV of c/f'ing?

*Unless you can make him fold a lot of made hands. But do you really think that is going to happen?


This is one of the first times I do a big pokerstove post like this so I'd also like to get comments on my methods and thinking process, thx!

[kaby]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaby, the point is that you have no reason to think you're behind, but plenty of reason to think that you can take it down with a bet. Checking is just asking your opponent to bet, and you fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

See my previous post (or please critique it when you think it's incorrect). We are behind to a very loose range on the turn. I know that checking invites our opponent to bet but a calldown is not +ev unless we have a read opponent bets every hand when checked to.

[ QUOTE ]
You also have no reason to think that your opponent will put you on UI overcards and call correctly (if my range is 99+/AJ+, should you call with KJ? 75?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think my opponent puts me on a range. I think he goes 'oh bottom pair call' - or 'oh gutshot call'. Unless my pokerstove post is incorrect he has to fold pairs for betting to be correct and I just don't think he's doing that.

Everyone here is generally saying not to bluff at .25/.50, just value bet. Precisely because they'll call down with bottom pair.

So when b/f'ing is no good and c/c'ing is only good if he is very agressive why not go for the neutral ev play?