Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

We either have very high pot equity or very low pot equity vs each of he hands his range. Also, hands we have high equity vs will fold if we bet/raise and hands we have low pot equity vs will not fold.

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, hands we have high equity vs will fold if we bet/raise and hands we have low pot equity vs will not fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this last bit is more of an upshoot of most WA/WB situations, rather than being part of the rule of what WA/WB is

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, hands we have high equity vs will fold if we bet/raise and hands we have low pot equity vs will not fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this last bit is more of an upshoot of most WA/WB situations, rather than being part of the rule of what WA/WB is

[/ QUOTE ]

People thinking that is what lead to the craze for checking behind AA on the turn on a K722r board. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

Ignoring the river and with the standard 'IMHO' qualification. (Meaning I may be FOS)

WA/WB to me means you have a hand that is either winning and your opponent is likely to have very few outs to beat you, or is losing and you have very few outs to redraw to a winner.

The only real area of contention is what constitutes 'few' outs.

Example: I have KQ in a raised pot vs a solid TAG on a flop of Q 9 3.

If I'm up against TJ villain has 8 outs (plus outs to runner runner two pair trips etc.)

If I'm up against A9 villan has 5 outs

If I'm up against QJ villain has 3 outs

If I'm up against TT villain has 2 outs (not counting his backdoor straight draw)

Although villain could hold TT here and our situation IS WA/WB the presence of the draw possibility means the 'situation' is not one we can call WA/WB. Even when villain has AQ and it turns out we were WB we should not be thinking and playing this as a WA/WB situation.

If we change the flop to Q 7 3

If I'm up against A7 villain has 5 outs

If I'm up against QJ villain has 3 outs

If I'm up against TT villain has 2 outs (not counting his backdoor straight draw)

and our situation is much more easily considered WA/WB. Whether you consider 5 outs against you qualifies as WA/WB is possibly contentious.

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, hands we have high equity vs will fold if we bet/raise and hands we have low pot equity vs will not fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this last bit is more of an upshoot of most WA/WB situations, rather than being part of the rule of what WA/WB is

[/ QUOTE ]

People thinking that is what lead to the craze for checking behind AA on the turn on a K722r board. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

But it's such a great way to get paid on the River.

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

I've noticed a lot of people seem to think a WA/WB situation automatically equates to "I have no idea where I'm at, so I'll try to see a showdown as cheaply as possible." (This is probably valid as a limit concept, but I think it is far less advisable in NL). This might be what people refer to when they talk about being WA/WB on the River.

In an extreme example, say you have AA on an AKK board and have faced resistance. Now, in the strictest technical sense, this is a WA/WB situation, since you are either way ahead (of any holding but KK) or drawing to 1 out (against KK specifically). This is obviously not a reason to apply the typical WA/WB logic of seeing a showdown as cheaply as possible - we should be value betting. The river is the same as this, only we're even more WA/WB, since whoever is ahead will obviously still be ahead at showdown. The logic for choosing to bet or check in this situation is the same as any other - evaluate your holding against your opponent's range and act accordingly.

I tend to think of a WA/WB situation to mean "Because I don't fear my opponent drawing from behind to beat me, I'm more inclined to explore giving free cards as a means of maximizing my profitability." Often this is the case, in that you can get lesser hands to induce bluffs, or wrongly believe themselves to be ahead, and maximize your value.

If I have AA on the button with a caller from the BB, on a KK7 flop, I might be inclined to bet, when checked to, despite being WA/WB, for a variety of reasons (expecting to gain more value from underpairs and fade-bluffs than I lose to a K). The turn comes a 2, and when checked to again, I might check back - not specifically because I'm WA/WB, but because this is a profitable action here (induce bets from lesser hands on the river), and is helped along by the fact that I'm WA/WB and the river is almost certain to be meaningless.

Does that distinction make sense?

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

I can't believe there are multi-paragraph explanations of this. You're either "way ahead" or you're "way behind."

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

This post was brought about because I think many felt I was confused as how to apply the concept when in discussion in the gimetheloot thread 'AJ squeeze....'.

For the record, all I was truing to say was if a bet doesn't have any value since you will fold worse and get called/raised by better then you have essentially a WA/WB spot. This can occur on any street. Many in that thread were saying they liked a check because they felt this exact sentiment. All I was trying to say was that I believed our opponents calling range was larger then just hands we beat, thus the non WA/WB spot many may view here.

Often I see people using this concept as an excuse as to why they don't make VB (especially on the river where anything remotely thin and they are anemic towards it). My point I guess was that the larger you view his calling range the more value you can gain from a bet (obviously) and viewing hands in a WA/WB spot frequently is probably not correct. More likely, you are playing a weak tight game and may see more monsters then you need to.

I think I have the same view on this as everybody else but often it is hard for me to say in a clear and concise way. My problem I guess. Anyways I just wanted to say that those who contributed in that discussion hopefully can see what I meant with that tangent.

Re: WA/WB.....lets get to the bottom of this
 

I see the key part of WA/WB as the proportion of ranges. You're either well ahead or well behind - with a reasonable frequency for each. What I mean is that if you have KK on an AAKK board then you're either way ahead or way behind, but nobody would call that a WA/WB situation since no villain's range is going to have AA a significant amount of the time. On an A72 board with AJ, if you're called by a reasonable villain then you're likely in a WA/WB situation as his range is going to include plenty of hands that you're way behind pretty often, but it's also going to have plenty of hands you're way ahead of. The same hand against a stationy fish could not be called WA/WB since AJ just kills his calling range.