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

It seems as though their is some confusion on this board as to what WA/WB means in a conceptual matter. Please offer your wisdom on what is meant when this is used as well as how it applies to playing a given hand. Examples are fine but I would like to hear some discussion on why this concept is important, when is it most prevelant, and if the river is always WA/WB regardless of action preluding it.

Mods, I do realize this is more of a poker theory question but I feel a good discussion can be generated here in its application towards many of the hands posted in this forum. Not to mention making sure the masses here are on the same page when using it in their posts and no confusion ensues.

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

it may help to post the point of contention

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

I think technically speaking the river is indeed always WA/WB. You beat a portion of his range, and you lose to a portion of his range. So, on the river, you are either WAY ahead or WAY behind. It's not really a river concept though.

A WA/WB example would be you raise AT preflop and get called. The flop is A52 rainbow. You probably have the best hand right now, and it's very unlikely that he's going to outdraw you with a 2 outter to a set, 3 outter to two pair on a worse ace, etc. - and there are no real straight or flush draws here to worry about. If you don't have the best hand you're behind AJ/AQ or a set, you stand very little chance of catching up yourself. So, this spot is a typical WA/WB situation.

In a WA/WB situation, I generally want to practice some pot control. If all the money goes in, I'm generally on the way behind side of the spectrum with this hand. If I give away free cards, there is little risk since he's probably drawing to only a couple outs, if any. Depending on position/stats/reads and whatever I'm generally looking to get like 1 or 2 streets of value somehow, and if I get raised anywhere I really don't like it.

Does anyone know it to mean something else?

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

Actually the point of this thread is for people to supply examples of WA/WB situations as well as explain why they are so. Also I would like to know if all rivers are WA/WB because no more action can take place. And is the purpose of the concept to view hands in such a way. Do we apply this concept to equity we already have in a given pot or to the possible bet that may or may not ensue...

Please feel free to add anything else in regards to this subject that I may be missing or overlooking.

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

Bump for the morning crowd. Please help me clear up my misunderstanding here.....

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

Applying this concept to the river is silly and will only serve to confuse the issue more as it is directly related to your or your opponents odds to improve to a better hand.

In other words, on the river you're either ahead or behind, applying a degree to which you're ahead or behind makes no sense and serves no value.

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

did you not think my explanation was clear? i promise you it's what we mean by it. I'll bet on it.

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

WA/WB most definitely does not apply to the river. You are either behind or ahead of his exact hand or you have a specific pot equity vs his range of hands.

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

Fishstick's post really should have ended this thread.

Hero raises AA on the button. Gets called by big blind. Flop comes QQ2. check/bet/call. Turn is a 7 completing the rainbow. BB checks.

This is a way ahead or way behind spot. You have best two pair and there are no draws. Either villain has a Q or a boat, in which case you have two outs, or villain is drawing to at most 2 outs himself. One of you has enormous equity in the pot, but you're not sure who. As such, against a lot of villains it is prudent to check behind on the turn. There's little to fear by giving a free card, and if you bet and are called/raised you're likely in bad shape. So instead of hammering the pot to price out draws or extract value, it's often best to check and wait for the river to decide whether to/how to extract value.

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

An example of WA/WB:

We raise KK preflop, 1 caller. Flop comes A72r. We are now way ahead of hands we beat and way behind hands that beat us. NOTE: even if we have exactly 50% equity vs his range of hands, this is still a classic WA/WB spot

Lets say we now raise KdKx preflop and again 1 caller. Flop is Td 6d 2d. This is NOT WA/WB (even though we might have 70% equity vs his range):

If he has AdXd, we're WB
If he has 66, we're SB
If he has Ad3c, we're SA
If he has QdQx, we're WA

So this hand is NOT WA/WB

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.