Rivered nut flush, action to me

[iggymcfly]

Wow, what do you know. I guess he does have playable hands other than sets some time. I guess Ribbo's range of:

70%: garbage
30%: sets

for an aggressive PF raiser C-betting into a coordinated flop must have been off a little.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what do you know. I guess he does have playable hands other than sets some time. I guess Ribbo's range of:

70%: garbage
30%: sets

for an aggressive PF raiser C-betting into a coordinated flop must have been off a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rubbish, it's actually,
90% Ahead Of You EV wise.
10% Slightly Behind You EV Wise.

But opponent has to fold over 80% for your shove to be correct. I fail to see him doing that, entirely.
You're just wrong and clutching to straws. The guy bets a weak draw like this very aggressively, he sure wont fold the TON of stronger hands like you seem to think he will.
Remember these are 80% of hands THAT OPPONENT BETS INTO YOU WITH.
This does not include all the garbage hands he will check the flop with, as it's OBVIOUS then you bet a flush draw.
I am certain you are wrong.

[CrushinFelt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what do you know. I guess he does have playable hands other than sets some time. I guess Ribbo's range of:

70%: garbage
30%: sets

for an aggressive PF raiser C-betting into a coordinated flop must have been off a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rubbish, it's actually,
90% Ahead Of You EV wise.
10% Slightly Behind You EV Wise.

But opponent has to fold over 80% for your shove to be correct. I fail to see him doing that, entirely.
You're just wrong and clutching to straws. The guy bets a weak draw like this very aggressively, he sure wont fold the TON of stronger hands like you seem to think he will.
Remember these are 80% of hands THAT THE PREFLOP RIASER BETS INTO YOU WITH. This does not include all the garbage hands he will check the flop with, as it's OBVIOUS then you bet a flush draw.
I am certain you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP, thus likely widening his range.

[vabogee]

pot the flop

[piiop]

You really don't need to raise the flop....

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]

But opponent has to fold over 80% for your shove to be correct. I fail to see him doing that, entirely.
You're just wrong and clutching to straws. The guy bets a weak draw like this very aggressively, he sure wont fold the TON of stronger hands like you seem to think he will.
Remember these are 80% of hands THAT OPPONENT BETS INTO YOU WITH.
This does not include all the garbage hands he will check the flop with, as it's OBVIOUS then you bet a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so sick of your stupid made up figures. When you calculated how much we'd need a fold to break even against your stupid made up range of villian always having a set, it was only 70% then. Now that you've seen that he'll have a wrap or a combo draw a decent amount of the time, it suddenly goes up to 80%? This is retarded.

My reasonable estimate of our equity when villain plays (probably still too high since I overweighted sets relative to two pair hands) was 45%. At 45%, we need to get a fold on the flop, 33% of the time to break even and will make a healthy profit at a realistic fold level of 65% or so.

[Ribbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But opponent has to fold over 80% for your shove to be correct. I fail to see him doing that, entirely.
You're just wrong and clutching to straws. The guy bets a weak draw like this very aggressively, he sure wont fold the TON of stronger hands like you seem to think he will.
Remember these are 80% of hands THAT OPPONENT BETS INTO YOU WITH.
This does not include all the garbage hands he will check the flop with, as it's OBVIOUS then you bet a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm so sick of your stupid made up figures. When you calculated how much we'd need a fold to break even against your stupid made up range of villian always having a set, it was only 70% then. Now that you've seen that he'll have a wrap or a combo draw a decent amount of the time, it suddenly goes up to 80%? This is retarded.

My reasonable estimate of our equity when villain plays (probably still too high since I overweighted sets relative to two pair hands) was 45%. At 45%, we need to get a fold on the flop, 33% of the time to break even and will make a healthy profit at a realistic fold level of 65% or so.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you babbling about? You're not even reading what I write, which isn't surprising since you have your own agenda.
I will explain for you nice and simply just one more time.
If opponent only ever played sets, to break even alone, he would have to fold 70% of the time.
But that wont happen, because he will also play lots of other hands back at you as well OF WHICH EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM HAS MORE THAN 50% EQUITY AGAINST YOU.
This means you lose even more money when any of those hands also play back at you.
The perfect scenario like the one that happened SHOWED YOU HAVING A MASSIVE 2% EDGE.
Every other hand he plays screws you over.
If he flops a set 10% of the time and you shove as 65/35 behind, AND he shoves back at you a further 30% of the time as a 55/45 favourite against you, you're STILL SCREWED.
There is no hand whatsoever that he shoves the flop with you being favourite.

But there are a lot of hands he wont get away from where you're behind. It's a pretty standard play to raise the preflop raiser when he is out of position and he will recognise this. Because you're advocating the simplest play in poker, shove any draw.
People just don't fold nearly as much as you think after showing this level of aggression preflop and flop.
You are just wrong about advocating shoving a flush draw here and I have shown you the math, twice.
There is no guarantee you will ever get another hand with him to win back your "metagame" decisions. He could just as easily leave next hand screwing over your -EV play for image.

[iggymcfly]

First off, in your new hypothetical (the first reasonable one), we have 42.5% equity when villain shoves, losing us $19.28 on average. The rest of the time, we steal a $23 pot on the flop. So, if we lose $19.28 40% of the time and win $23 the other 60%, that nets us a profit of $6.10 on average.

However, if as you say, villain won't shove all the wraps and combo draws, that's even better for us. We then have position on villain, are strongly repping a made hand and will be able to outplay him badly on the later streets. We can check behind and take a free card when a blank comes off or we can push him off his hand when the board pairs. We may even get him to bluff into us with a missed wrap when the flush comes. This is an ideal situation and makes our actual equity on this hand in a vacuum, much higher than $6.10, probably closer to $15 or $20.

Add in the metagame effects of establishing a loose image to get villain to call down light and the ability to have 4 buy-ins on the table and be able to play deep against a possibly tilted and definitely over-aggro villain and I think it's enough to make raising automatic.

[Ribbo]

The guy has a massive stack, the reason this is is because people are playing back at him with EXACTLY the hand you are suggesting.
You don't get that massive stack by folding when someone else raises. You get it from other players taking shots at you while they hold weak hands like the one you're recommending raising with.
Clearly this guy with the stack has been raising up plenty of hands and getting action back from people who seem to think he will fold to a raise. He wont fold, and the reason for that is that all the people taking shots at him haven't actually realised they should be doing it with good hands.

[iggymcfly]

So what percentage do you think he folds now? Less than 60%? You initially said 70%, I modified it to 65% and you re-modified it to 60%, and I showed that we still show a healthy profit at that fold level, but now apparently that's not good enough either. Just tell me what percentage you think he folds and we'll go from there. (Hint: If you want to say it's unprofitable, you better say he's folding <45% of the time.)