AKo vs. nutcase.. call with A high?

Poker Gestalt · #1 01-02-2007, 11:47 PM

Villian who bet on the end was one of the most aggresive players i had seen in awhile. He would 3 bet preflop with 87o and similar things postflop. He was kinda weird though because he would slow down and speed up at strange times... anyway here it is.

PokerStars 0.10/0.20 Hold'em (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. MP2 posts a blind of $0.10.
UTG calls, 1 fold, MP1 calls, MP2 (poster) checks, CO raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 1 fold, UTG calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, CO calls.

Flop: (12 SB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero bets, UTG calls, CO calls.

Turn: (7.50 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks, CO checks.

River: (7.50 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks, CO bets, Hero....

Final Pot: 9.50 BB

I have done some math about the over call situation on the river.
I'm going to do this how SSHE does it… that is, if I raise the player behind me folds and if I just call then the player behind me will fold. Obviously this is not how it would be in real life but I don’t have any other way of trying to figure this out. This is actually the main reason why I am posting this hand. Can someone inform in how they go about deducing these percentages (i.e. villain X will over call my raise Y% of the time)

Here is what I know: the pot is 1.7 when it gets to me and I have to call .2 or raise to .4
If the player behind me calls (and wins) 20% of the time when I call and always folds (again, please help here) if I raise then:

If villain is bluffing 20% of the time ( I think this # would actually be giving villain to much credit).
If the player behind me has my A high beaten and calls 20% of the time then here is the math. (I also don’t get why I'm assuming he has me beaten and will call 20% of the time.)

If I call: (.08)(1.7) + (.92)(-.20) = -.048

If I raise: (.1)(1.7) + (.9)(-.40) = -.19

So obviously calling is better than raiseing and folding is better than calling so I should fold, yes?

I feel very uncomfortable about the math of this hand. I just don’t like the idea of so much assuming going on. I also don’t have a clue how to go about figuring out the #’s that I am assuming with. I need help to say the least.

Thx all!

kerowo · #2 01-03-2007, 12:09 AM

I don't think this is a math hand, I think this is a read hand. Against a maniac who can do anything I'm going to call. I expect to see 72o and lose, but I'm still calling.

Poker Gestalt · #3 01-03-2007, 12:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this is a math hand, I think this is a read hand. Against a maniac who can do anything I'm going to call. I expect to see 72o and lose, but I'm still calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

even with the player behind me?

kerowo · #4 01-03-2007, 12:16 AM

Yup. Sometimes stupidity clusters. If it is raised again you can fold.

Poker Gestalt · #5 01-03-2007, 12:30 AM

IDK i disagree, i think this is a math hand but part of the math is my read (i.e when i say 20% of time he will bluff here) and if this isnt a math situation then i cant think of anything that is. Could you give me an example?

bozlax · #6 01-03-2007, 12:39 AM

Given your read, I don't think you want to fold. It definitely looks like your Villan is bluffing at the scare-card (based on your description, I would expect him to bet a four-flush on the turn when checked to). That said, I think you want to get rid of UTG, who's apparently prepared to show down whatever's in his hand.

The pot's reasonably large.

Raise to get rid of UTG. Call if CO 3-jacks. Win the monies.

Poker Gestalt · #7 01-03-2007, 12:46 AM

Ok so is 20% too low? Given my read what % of the time does villain bluff here? 40%? 70%? 100%?

It seems like no one really cares about the math... lol. Is there not a reason for me to know any of this?

Poker Gestalt · #8 01-03-2007, 01:35 AM

Besides just the math aspect (which i still nee clairification on) what about the rest of the hand... do i c bet this? is the checked turn ok?

bozlax · #9 01-03-2007, 02:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok so is 20% too low? Given my read what % of the time does villain bluff here? 40%? 70%? 100%?

It seems like no one really cares about the math... lol. Is there not a reason for me to know any of this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, one immediate problem I see with your math: you're doing it in terms of $$ not bets ($1.70 in the pot, not 8.50BB, or whatever). This is important because, if you use $$ then when you move up you have to re-do all your math; if you use BB, then it's the same. See?

The larger problem is less concrete. Hitting this with math is hard because, as you say, you're making a lot of assumptions. I've done math based on different bluffing percentages for CO and calling/winning percentages for UTG, etc, but this is really intuition at work because you just don't have the time to say, "Ok, I think that CO is bluffing x%, UTG is ahead of me y% and will call za% if I call but only zb% if I raise...where's that damed matrix I did up?"

My intuition goes like this: "With that kind of read (your read) on CO, I'm ahead often enough on the river that I want to show down when he bets. Further, it's more likely that I'm behind UTG than CO (or at least more likely that I'm behind UTG or CO than just CO). Ergo, if I get rid of UTG, I stand a better chance of winning the pot, and the best way for me to get rid of him is to face him with 2 bets. If CO then 3-bets, I have to call it, meaning I'm possibly putting in 3 bets to win around 10, so I'd like to be ahead of CO at least 30-40% of the time, but given my read, I think I am." So, I'm sort of back-dooring around to some off-the-cuff math to justify my move, and you could certainly come at it from the other direction, as you tried to do, but then you're going trial-and-error to arrive at numbers that justify your move, which somehow feels dishonest, y'know?

Oh, and fwiw, if you raise CO and UTG 3-bets, cut and run. You just got pwned, but you took your best shot at it.

Poker Gestalt · #10 01-03-2007, 12:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Ok, one immediate problem I see with your math: you're doing it in terms of $$ not bets

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok yeah that makes sense. I remember reading about a software that (kind of like an hud) that converts $ to bets on screeen. Does anyone know what im talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
So, I'm sort of back-dooring around to some off-the-cuff math to justify my move, and you could certainly come at it from the other direction, as you tried to do, but then you're going trial-and-error to arrive at numbers that justify your move, which somehow feels dishonest, y'know?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that is the point i was trying to make in my OP. Ive learned alot from this hand. Ty bolax for explaining everything as you have.