Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)
-   Small Stakes Shorthanded (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   lagging it up (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=548785)

Oink 11-18-2007 12:04 PM

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

vmacosta 11-18-2007 07:45 PM

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.

Oink 11-18-2007 07:55 PM

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.

MacGuyV 11-18-2007 08:52 PM

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.

rzk 11-18-2007 10:08 PM

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?

Oink 11-18-2007 10:42 PM

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

vmacosta 11-18-2007 10:53 PM

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?

rzk 11-18-2007 11:26 PM

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?

gehrig 11-18-2007 11:45 PM

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

gehrig 11-18-2007 11:49 PM

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.