Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

why did u raise so much on the flop, u have alot working for ya here and killed it all... with no reads this is almost always the nuts in live games.. call if u wanna gamble , fold if u dont have any more money in your pockets..

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?

[/ QUOTE ]
try putting 86o and 63s into pokerstove and see what happens.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if 77 is viable so is 44 and two pair and it becomes a pretty obvious call.

[/ QUOTE ]
not many ppl stick in 450bb's on the flop with 2pr. particularly not with this specific sequence of action: weak lead into a field of players, gets called in one spot, raised strong by another, yet still 3bets all-in for NEARLY 3 TIMES THE POT. this is a set or a straight 95%+ of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pokerstove just clarified a lot for me:
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

9,900 games 0.005 secs 1,980,000 games/sec

Board: 4d 5h 7c
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 43.929% 42.78% 01.15% 4235 114.00 { 5c5s }
Hand 1: 56.071% 54.92% 01.15% 5437 114.00 { 77, 44, 86s }

Even if we restrict his range to a set or a straight, my equity is 43.9% of 9480 = $4,162

My price to see the showdown was $4,000, so unless I'm not thinking clearly, I gained $162 in equity with that call.

Again, this assumes that he would do this with bottom set, an assumption that I am comfortable with.

It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?

[/ QUOTE ]

edit

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that he would be more likely to play the very strongest hands in that range in this manner with a much higher frequency

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
villain unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you can make that assumption, its a live play, not exactly known for its nits

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to make some sort of assumption to be able to make a decision. I would assume that someone sitting with $4k in a 5/10 game would be more likely to play 77 or a straight like this then he would bottom 2.

My experience tells me that this is a reasonable assumption.

btw, how much live experience do you have?

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, you're wrong. i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is why it would be cool to have a deepstacked live poker forum, because the ppl who i feel lack in live poker experience seem to be the ones most advocating a call.

ofc i could be wrong in my assessments.

[/ QUOTE ]
no, aside from mikech, i have more live deep experience then the other posters here. people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a 'wash' in terms of making your equity move closer to 50%. if you had 1 hand that you had 10% equity against, 100 you had 0%, and 100 you had 100%, the result would be ~50%. If you had 1 hand you had 10% against, 1 you had 0%, and 1 you had 100%, you have ~36% equity. see the difference?

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a 'wash' in terms of making your equity move closer to 50%. if you had 1 hand that you had 10% equity against, 100 you had 0%, and 100 you had 100%, the result would be ~50%. If you had 1 hand you had 10% against, 1 you had 0%, and 1 you had 100%, you have ~36% equity. see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm confused here. so Why would having sets in his range dilute your equity?

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
why did u raise so much on the flop, u have alot working for ya here and killed it all... with no reads this is almost always the nuts in live games.. call if u wanna gamble , fold if u dont have any more money in your pockets..

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a pot-sized raise.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's strange: you would think that adding top and bottom set to his range would be a wash. Instead, my equity against the straight is 34.8%, but if the sets are included it is 43.9%. Any ideas why that might be?


[/ QUOTE ]

it's a 'wash' in terms of making your equity move closer to 50%. if you had 1 hand that you had 10% equity against, 100 you had 0%, and 100 you had 100%, the result would be ~50%. If you had 1 hand you had 10% against, 1 you had 0%, and 1 you had 100%, you have ~36% equity. see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah. I get it. Against the two sets by themselves my equity is 50%, which raises my previous equity.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would assume that he would be more likely to play the very strongest hands in that range in this manner with a much higher frequency

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
villain unknown

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you can make that assumption, its a live play, not exactly known for its nits

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to make some sort of assumption to be able to make a decision. I would assume that someone sitting with $4k in a 5/10 game would be more likely to play 77 or a straight like this then he would bottom 2.

My experience tells me that this is a reasonable assumption.

btw, how much live experience do you have?

[/ QUOTE ]
actually, you're wrong. i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would be shocked in the slightest. As in, WOW, I can't BELIEVE he had aces!

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

So, no other deep-stack players think I should have just smooth-called his initial bet, on the theory that it's a marginal situation, so I should keep the pot small?

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

i would also raise, but prob woulda raised a little less under the assumption that it would allow me to get action from a wider range

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh c'mon. op said he had no particular reads on villain, he didn't say he had a specific read that villain was braindead.

[ QUOTE ]
people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]
tbh, i usually call here anyway, simply because i have pretty much never folded a set on the flop, but i think that's a leak. sure, occasionally he turns over some retarded crap, but i'm convinced that this is NOT a profitable call.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh c'mon. op said he had no particular reads on villain, he didn't say he had a specific read that villain was braindead.

[ QUOTE ]
people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]
tbh, i usually call here anyway, simply because i have pretty much never folded a set on the flop, but i think that's a leak. sure, occasionally he turns over some retarded crap, but i'm convinced that this is NOT a profitable call.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't think he would do this with a set? Because if his range is 86s,44,77 then it is profitable. And if he does occassionally turn over something retarded, then it is even more profitable.

Edit:
As you say, if we add 86o or 63s to his range, then it is slightly unprofitable. I'm just not sure that these are more reasonable holdings than, say, 75s.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

results?

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
results?

[/ QUOTE ]

He had 86s.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

yea but sometimes he has AA so whatever.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

I would fistpump before I call.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

bobbo what is your cut off point for folding here given only the info we have in OP -- $10k, $20k, $50k?

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would fistpump before I call.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, you wouldn't.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
bobbo what is your cut off point for folding here given only the info we have in OP -- $10k, $20k, $50k?

[/ QUOTE ]
sklansky has this writtne somewhere about how many BBs we can lose with this hand, refer to that.

but in all honesty, I'd probably fold when our needed equity approaches 44%. Two factors... Mainly, the more money they put in the less likely they're making a retardo play, and also I think we're on average a dog to their range anyway, so the mroe total money the closer our needed equity approaches 50%. In the current post I'd estimate we have roughly 46%+ equity needing 41%, making it a clear call.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

Hey Britt,

First, I ask the guy a lot of questions to see if he will give anything away. He might even show you a card or something. If I can't get anything out of him, I call. Really, I'm calling unless he makes it super blatantly obvious he has a straight.

Bobbo has it correct with these two statements:

"people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here. "

"i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here."

I'm not saying he has AA, but people do dumb stuff all the time. He could have 66. He could have two pair. He could have any overpair. Villian is an unknown, meaning there is some non-zero chance he has something retarded. You can't fold here.

Sucks he had 68 tho. Did you suckout like a champion?

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Britt,

First, I ask the guy a lot of questions to see if he will give anything away. He might even show you a card or something. If I can't get anything out of him, I call. Really, I'm calling unless he makes it super blatantly obvious he has a straight.

Bobbo has it correct with these two statements:

"people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here. "

"i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here."

I'm not saying he has AA, but people do dumb stuff all the time. He could have 66. He could have two pair. He could have any overpair. Villian is an unknown, meaning there is some non-zero chance he has something retarded. You can't fold here.

Sucks he had 68 tho. Did you suckout like a champion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...not so much. Biggest loss ever.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would not be shocked - in the slightest - to see villain flip over AA here.

[/ QUOTE ]
oh c'mon. op said he had no particular reads on villain, he didn't say he had a specific read that villain was braindead.

[ QUOTE ]
people do [censored] stupid stuff, it's why deep is awesome, and it's why you cant ever fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]
tbh, i usually call here anyway, simply because i have pretty much never folded a set on the flop, but i think that's a leak. sure, occasionally he turns over some retarded crap, but i'm convinced that this is NOT a profitable call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure this is at least fairly close to 0ev so it doesn't really matter what we do. I'd lean towards thinking it's +EV to call due to the random donkey factor that Bobbo mentions but I think Mike is right that this is the nuts a very hight percentage of the time. If you're not extremely well bankrolled for this game it becomes an easy fold.

Re: Venetian 5-10 Deep Set
 

[ QUOTE ]
also does anyone raise to like 375'ish? heros flop line seems weird.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah I don't understand the massive reraise...