From the 2+2 table - Page 10

Aaron W. · #91 03-27-2006, 01:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
{ 55+, A4s+, K7s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A7o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

Would you really consider this an accurate representation of your 3betting range OOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

Against Wookie's raise after a CO poster checked? Yeah. I know he's raising a ton of hands, so I'm raising a ton of hands as well. With many of these hands, I'm hoping to take it down on the flop because he misses most of the time. Consider how he would respond in this hand if he had K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] instead. Can he really play on for another 3 steets of betting holding that hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should play any two then.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There will be times when I catch a piece of something, but so does he. There will also be flops where he has reasons to peel and I have to figure out what to do on the turn and river. In these cases, we're playing postflop poker, and I need to have a little something to work with.

martinimagic · #92 03-27-2006, 02:12 PM

I hope they have a good laugh and when finished they tell us how to play this right or try to give some insight.

They will probably have had a great laugh if they see all of my posts where I think I had the answer. Wookie was probably hurting with laughter watching me trip over myself, but he really made me work at. I totally appreciate that. I am just beginning to understand the level of thought needed to become a succesful player...

briddle · #93 03-27-2006, 02:31 PM

Bro, here's something I found a few months ago buried in one of the threads which has helped me a lot with the hand equity stuff. It was referred to as the "rule of four," and it has been tremendous with the pot equity calcs at the table. I think it also might have been in a 2+2 magazine article recently. Maybe.

First, count the outs you have on the flop. In this instance, MrWookie has 9 outs for the nut flush draw, plus 1.5 for his bdsd, for a total of 10.5 outs. On the flop, multiply the number of outs by 4 to get your equity. This gives 42% (not quite the number wook used b/c this is the simple version. There is a more complex and accurate one, but I don't have it in front of me. I sat down a few months ago and checked the results from this formula against a chart and found it to be accurate enough for most situations).

On the turn, multiply your outs by 2 and then add 2 (or [outs X 2] + 2). So, if the turn had been, say, 2d, then we would have had solely the 9 outs for the flush, and our equity would have been (9 * 2) + 2 = 20%, and we're putting 50% of the money in the pot. Thus, we have outs to call but not enough equity to raise.

One more example, let's say that you have the nut flush draw on the flop. As you are probably aware, if there are 2 or more people committed to the hand with you, you can raise for value. That's because your pot equity (9 outs * 4) = ~36% (it's actually 35; I believe the more complex formula says that for 9-12 outs you subtract one, but I could be wrong) and you're only putting in 33% of the money, making your raises +EV as long as you don't knock anyone out of the pot. On the turn, your equity drops to 20%, so on the turn with 4 other people, I believe it would be neutral EV to raise, and with 5 other people it's +EV again.

Essentially, the %age is a measure of the liklihood that your outs will come in by the river. So, if you are putting less of the money in the pot than you expect to get back, you can raise for value. Or, in the hand in the thread, you are expecting to get back only slightly less than you put in, meaning that the play only has to result in a favorable outcome a small %age of the time in order for it to be +EV.

For the record, this only accounts for when YOU are drawing. If you want to figure out your EV when you're ahead, you need to know villain's # of outs and do the calculations from his side, then subtract from 100.

I'm still a noob, so take this FWIW, but I hope it helps. I would also recommend finding a chart that shows what percentage of the time your outs will come in on the turn, river, etc, as it helps show where the equity comes from and definitely helped ease my mind as to the accuracy of the rule of four. Now I just need to get better at correctly discounting my outs...

SirBobSaget · #94 03-27-2006, 02:49 PM

:Grunch:

Initially I thought flop raise was a mistake. But this can serve as a free turn card play. So a good move. Villain might also have figure you on a better ace as well.

Im guessing that Villain made 2 pair on turn, and bet it thinking he was ahead.

Sykes · #95 03-27-2006, 03:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In bizarro world, where we play much better than we actually do, I think this is how the hand would go:

PokerStars 0.02/0.04 Hold'em (10 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

Preflop: Hero is Button with K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. CO posts a blind of $0.02.
6 folds, CO (poster) checks, Wookie raises, 1 fold, BB (Aaron W.) 3-bets, CO folds, Wookie calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Aaron W. bets, Wookie raises, Aaron W. 3-bets, Wookie calls.

Turn: (6.75 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
Aaron W. bets, Wookie raises, Aaron W. calls.

River: (10.75 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Aaron W. checks, Wookie bets, Aaron W. raises, Wookie calls.

Final Pot: 14.75 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this line. But the problem with it only works against good players. There is nothing wrong with 3-betting this turn with AJ/66/88/JJ/AA (and against good players, I'm 3 betting JJ/AA 100% of the time.) against donks. Sure, sometimes they have the flush but other times, they show over a weak two pair, AxKc, and any random like hand.

Also, question, let's say that in a regular game that the board was As 6c 8c Jc, would you 3-bet a random with AcJx?

bodnotbod · #96 03-27-2006, 03:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Bro, here's something I found a few months ago buried in one of the threads which has helped me a lot with the hand equity stuff. It was referred to as the "rule of four,"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes. I've heard of that before.

That was all very useful; I did know a little more than I thought, but was having trouble putting the pieces together.

I still haven't put the pieces together, but at least now I feel like I've found them, and I know where to find the glue.

Thanks very much.

Aaron W. · #97 03-27-2006, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, question, let's say that in a regular game that the board was As 6c 8c Jc, would you 3-bet a random with AcJx?

[/ QUOTE ]

Given how the bizarro hand played out, I think I would 3-bet it with the nut flush redraw. The donk factor comes into play because I hold top two, which will beat up on A8/A6/J8/J6/AK/Ax/Jx, plus I have a redraw which will certainly get paid off on the river if I happen to be capped.

Aaron W. · #98 03-27-2006, 09:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone can point me towards some reading that would be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Buy and read "Theory of Poker" a bunch of times. Make sure to read the preface where it talks about asking the right questions.

wax42 · #99 03-27-2006, 11:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. Your mistake was in raising the flop, representing the ace. Aaron's preflop 3-bet plus bet out on the flop says he has an ace, prolly two-pair (A8s/A6s), or a set. By representing the ace, you didn't give him a chance to recognize you for the flush on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't disguising your hand a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell, since you're HU there's no inherent "value" in your raise, and Aaron is going to fold 0% of the time making a semi-bluff worthless, and actually backfire on you when you both improve on the turn, but he thinks he improved more than you did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you consider the play to be backfiring when it gets the opponent to put in extra bets when he is way behind?