lagging it up
 

you have K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in the co and decided to 3bet a hj opener. you have a somewhat laggy or lagtaggy image but you haven't done anything outrageous. the hj has been at the table for 20 minutes or so but hasn't done anything unusual.

he caps and you call. the flop comes:

Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

he bets. 10.5 sb in the pot. do you call or fold?

Re: lagging it up
 

You have less than 3 outs on average (I guess?) and you are never or rarely winning the pot UI or getting a free card.

I'd say its a pretty easy fold.

I'd guess that the implied odds on hitting a T are negative and maybe around neutral for a K.

Give me a bdfd and I peel without thinking

Re: lagging it up
 

I fold here.

Re: lagging it up
 

that's what i expected people would say. this hand is from schneids' first video. he called the flop saying something like "i pretty much have to call".

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
that's what i expected people would say. this hand is from schneid's first video. he called the flop saying something like "i pretty much have to call".

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he say why? Maybe x-post in mid-high with "Schneids video" in the title and he will answer.

Maybe some metagame involved.

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that's what i expected people would say. this hand is from schneid's first video. he called the flop saying something like "i pretty much have to call".

[/ QUOTE ]

Did he say why? Maybe x-post in mid-high with "Schneids video" in the title and he will answer.

Maybe some metagame involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

he didn't really explain why, he just said he was getting 10:1 on the peel. i took your advise and made a post in the mid-high forum.

Re: lagging it up
 

At first I wasn't gonna post it cuz I figured it was just another one of my leaks. But now that I hear that schneids has the same one i'll admit it. i call here against most ppl at 15/30ish limits. It's pretty common for 88/JTs/AJo to cap me here.

Re: lagging it up
 

hate that

Re: lagging it up
 

Is the preflop here standard for you guys?

I think I'm too loose and I don't 3 bet here unless the raiser has been caught getting his money in light. Once he caps well you're playing hit to win for me.
I give myself 3 outs here discounting the fact that we can hit and lose or are drawing to runner runner or dead. 3 outs not enough at 10.5-1.
Fold and don't do the PF again.
Surely if you want to put pressure on light here a small pp or hands like 89s are better 3 bet hands but again I don't do it.
My minimum hand for 3 betting here is 66.

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is the preflop here standard for you guys?

I think I'm too loose and I don't 3 bet here unless the raiser has been caught getting his money in light. Once he caps well you're playing hit to win for me.
I give myself 3 outs here discounting the fact that we can hit and lose or are drawing to runner runner or dead. 3 outs not enough at 10.5-1.
Fold and don't do the PF again.
Surely if you want to put pressure on light here a small pp or hands like 89s are better 3 bet hands but again I don't do it.
My minimum hand for 3 betting here is 66.

[/ QUOTE ]

PF is marginal but certainly not bad if the HJ opener is a LAG or LAGTAG (which most TAGs are really LAGTAG at the stakes that Schneids was playing in that video). If I was playing lower stakes where rake is a big factor (2/4 or lower or even 3/6 on AP) I don't think you need to be making these plays even if the villain is somewhat loose. However at mid-high stakes the rake is less of a factor and KTo probably does pretty well against an aggressive players opening HJ range when you have position and dead money in the pot.

I don't think it is by any means standard, but I certainly don't think it is bad.

I think the flop is close, and really it probably depends on Schneid's assessment of this guys capping range. If it is wide enough that he could give himself 4-5 outs (combo of pairs and backdoor straight) then I think it is a peel especially with implied odds. But if his OOP capping range is fairly tight then you probably should muck it on the flop. If I was uncertain I would probably peel because of implied odds, and also because I don't want to give the image that I give up easy and start having people taking shots at me.

Re: lagging it up
 

Well if 88/JTs/AJo is in his range I completely agree it is a no brainer call.

Assuming neutral implied odds and no free river it should be pretty easy to figure out how wide his range need to be for a call to be correct.

Hero needs about 3.9 outs on average to make the call correct assuming neutral implied and no free card.

3.9 outs is the same as 16.8% eq.

These are Hero's eq vs various ranges

99+,AJs+,KQs,AQo+: 13.5%

88+,ATs+,KJs+,AJo+,KQo: 15%

Discounting a little bit:
88+,7c7d,7c7h,7d7h,6c6d,6c6h,6d6h,5c5d,5c5h,5d5h,A Ts+,KJs+,KcTc,KdTd,QcJc,QdJd,QcTc,QdTd,JcTc,JdTd,T c9c,Td9d,AJo+,KQo:

18%



To peel you either need to get free cards, have positive implied or be up against what I would call a non-standard capping range for small stakes.

In a LAGGY 15 game I think its fine. In a 2/4 game you need a good read IMO. Villain must be bad or a LAG. Against an ABC TAG its no good and I dont care what Schneids think.

Against me you should peel

Re: lagging it up
 

oink,
i'm not sur how you are defining "implied odds", but based on the way I define them I think it's pretty clear you have RIOs here. If you pick up a draw on the turn you have to put in money with little equity and if you catch a pair your opponent will usually either have you beat, have a hand that can't stand a ton of action, or have a decent redraw to beat you.

But it's pretty hard to make big mistakes at 10.5:1 with 2 cards to come so it's probably not worth calculating to the t what range our opponent needs to have for us to continue.

oh, and pf is bad against all but the most maniacal lags.

Re: lagging it up
 

Vic

I think I define them like you and yeah they are prolly negative. Even substantially so.

Prolly neutral for turning a K
negative for a T
And of course negaive for turning a J or an A


I disagree that preflop is a mistake.

Against weakish TAGs its fine
Against LAGs its fine as well

I mean its important that people behind you are tight. But whenever you create the dead money in the pot you end up in position and paying 3SB in a 7.5SB pot. You only need 6/15 = 40% eq to have an edge on the money going in.

Re: lagging it up
 

Preflop is not standard at all. I've grown into the 30/20 type & I think it's bad esp. w/ this read.

Re: lagging it up
 

about pf: did you see gehrig's post in the mid-high? he thinks pf is a worse mistake than flop - kind of surprising to me tbh.

also, oink, if you agree that we have serious rio here, why do you think we should peel against you given that we barely have a call assuming neutral implied odds?

Re: lagging it up
 

RIO is more of an issue against a tighter range. I.e when drawing to a 2nd best hand a lot

Against me you should peel because my range is wide enough and RIO is less of an issue. I'd say positive implied vs me

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
about pf: did you see gehrig's post in the mid-high? he thinks pf is a worse mistake than flop - kind of surprising to me tbh.

[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't surprise me at all. For the pf decision you have one extra street to lose money in RIOs. I think it also matters that the pf decision is more expensive so any mistake we are making is multiplied by 3 (in a hand-wavey way at least [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])


[ QUOTE ]

also, oink, if you agree that we have serious rio here, why do you think we should peel against you given that we barely have a call assuming neutral implied odds?

[/ QUOTE ]


how did you come to this conclusion?

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

also, oink, if you agree that we have serious rio here, why do you think we should peel against you given that we barely have a call assuming neutral implied odds?

[/ QUOTE ]


how did you come to this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just assumed the range that oink gives for which hero's equity is 18% is pretty much his range. or does he cap even lighter?

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean its important that people behind you are tight. But whenever you create the dead money in the pot you end up in position and paying 3SB in a 7.5SB pot. You only need 6/15 = 40% eq to have an edge on the money going in.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is really bad

u cant juts ignore the times that ur not paying 3 sb in a 7.5sb pot

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
These are Hero's eq vs various ranges

[/ QUOTE ]
this is not the right way to solve this problem

u should look at each turn card and see how much u profit vs each hand in his range.

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These are Hero's eq vs various ranges

[/ QUOTE ]
this is not the right way to solve this problem

u should look at each turn card and see how much u profit vs each hand in his range.

[/ QUOTE ]


you are right of course and i'm sure oink knows this. he just did the calculation assuming neutral implied odds. the interesting question is how wide the villain's range has to be for the implied odds to actually be neutral. to answer this question we pretty much have to do exactly what you say (which is a p.i.t.a.), but just intuitively: do you think they are positive, neutral, or negative if the villain's range is

[ QUOTE ]
88+,7c7d,7c7h,7d7h,6c6d,6c6h,6d6h,5c5d,5c5h,5d5h,A Ts+,KJs+,KcTc,KdTd,QcJc,QdJd,QcTc,QdTd,JcTc,JdTd,T c9c,Td9d,AJo+,KQo


[/ QUOTE ]

(vs. which we have 18% equity)

oink seems to think they are positive, unless i'm misunderstanding him, but i'd guess they are still negative.

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
this is really bad

u cant juts ignore the times that ur not paying 3 sb in a 7.5sb pot


[/ QUOTE ]

I am not

Just pointing out the most likely outcome. Sure it sucks when someone coldcaps behind us


[ QUOTE ]
this is not the right way to solve this problem

u should look at each turn card and see how much u profit vs each hand in his range.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, duh!

I couldnt be bothered doing that. My post merely pointed put that EVEN with neutral implied the the peel is bad against a "standard" range.

I thought it was pretty obvious that my post was only a partial analysis based on simplifiyng assumptions.

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
I couldnt be bothered doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]
well ur spending more time coming to worse conclusions

Re: lagging it up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

also, oink, if you agree that we have serious rio here, why do you think we should peel against you given that we barely have a call assuming neutral implied odds?

[/ QUOTE ]


how did you come to this conclusion?

[/ QUOTE ]

i just assumed the range that oink gives for which hero's equity is 18% is pretty much his range. or does he cap even lighter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to point out the obvious:
implied odds are only part of the equation. Folding the turn when we don't hit means we won't realize our full hot/cold equity from the flop. You really have to look at each different turn/river combination and assume a strategy (as you already well know).