STTF SNG->cash thread

[DevinLake]

[ QUOTE ]
What??? This isn't good thinking. Your thinking should not revolve entirely around when your hand isn't good. So, the only reason to bet or not is if as a bluff, and whether you think that bluff will work?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was in reponse to what I thought was a general though process about whether to bet or not in any situation, not specific to this hand.

edit: but again, you simply cannot disregard the frequency your hand is good when betting here. It's very important.

If you make a 200 bet into a 300 pot, you need to get a fold 40% of the time. The amount your hand is good, plays a large part in getting that fold. If you hand is good only 10% against his range, you need him to fold 30% of his range that beats u.

[Josem]

then, everyone agrees with the hand.

[DevinLake]

lol...I'm in the process of busting everyone at a 6max 2c/4c limit game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DevinLake]

This conversation has brought up a discussion that I thought interesting, and forced me to think more about how to determine when to bet or check behind with a hand you think is good a lot.

It's kind of the same situation as calling a river bet (blocking bet) or raising with hands with show down value, which I've been meaning to study more.

So, I did some quick math just to see the correlation between betting or checking behind with what's often the best hand.

The chart below plots the % of better hands in a villans range that he needs to be folding to obtain the same cEV has checking behind.

I did this calculation assuming a 200 bet into a 300 pot and assuming worst hands never call.



So, obviously when the villain has the better hand 100% of the time our cEV for checking behind is 0. So, it follows that he needs to fold 40% of the time (200 into a 300 pot) for the bet to be neutral EV.

What I found interesting is that when the hero's hand is best 38% of the time, the villain needs to fold 24% of his better hands for betting to have the same cEV as checking behind. This is interesting, because the neutral EV of betting is 40% folds. Because you have the better hand 38%, you are close to that neutral EV %, but pay a huge price in actual cEV compared to checking behind.

So, right now I'm trying to wrap my head around a way to calculate an equilibrium. IOW, the ratio of better hands folding to worst hands, that maximizes cEV.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
This was in reponse to what I thought was a general though process about whether to bet or not in any situation, not specific to this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's specific to this hand, or rather to this situation. If you are in a situation where you are considering betting last to act on the river and will never get called by hands that you beat, you should disregard the cases where your hand is good.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: but again, you simply cannot disregard the frequency your hand is good when betting here. It's very important.

If you make a 200 bet into a 300 pot, you need to get a fold 40% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you don't. You need to get a fold 40% of the time when your hand is no good. In the specific hand we're talking about, imagine the guy has any two cards. He's going to fold way more than 40% of the time, but it doesn't matter because out of the times our hand is no good (when he has an A, K or T for instance) he's going to call a huge amount and those are the times that matter. Making him fold when your hand is good is worth nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
The amount your hand is good, plays a large part in getting that fold. If you hand is good only 10% against his range, you need him to fold 30% of his range that beats u.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. You still need him to fold 40% of his range that beats you. If he folds 30% of his range that beats you, then the EV of betting will be:

0.1 * $300 (for when he folds the hands that we beat)
+ 0.9 * 0.3 * $300 (the other 90%, he folds 30%, we win pot)
- 0.9 * 0.7 * $200 (the other 90%, he calls 70%, we lose bet)

= -$15, compared to $EV[check] which is +$30.

The basic problem here is that you're phrasing the original problem in terms of "how often you need a fold", while the question is always and only "how often you need a fold when your hand is no good". This is a similar mistake to betting the river when there is a high probability that your hand is good, but low probability that your hand is good when called.

Edit: If you want to know what percentage of his range as a whole you need him to fold, it's 10% + (40% * 90%), or 46%. But that's a totally backwards way of looking at things.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This was in reponse to what I thought was a general though process about whether to bet or not in any situation, not specific to this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's specific to this hand, or rather to this situation. If you are in a situation where you are considering betting last to act on the river and will never get called by hands that you beat, you should disregard the cases where your hand is good.


[/ QUOTE ]
FYP (seriously)

[ChrisV]

Ah, thanks. Edited the post.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
What I found interesting is that when the hero's hand is best 38% of the time, the villain needs to fold 24% of his better hands for betting to have the same cEV as checking behind. This is interesting, because the neutral EV of betting is 40% folds. Because you have the better hand 38%, you are close to that neutral EV %, but pay a huge price in actual cEV compared to checking behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol this is madness. I have no idea what equation you're using for that chart, but it's wrong. How about if our hand is good 50% of the time, and if we bet he folds that 50% and calls the other 50%? Then we win heaps right, because we only needed him to fold 40% of his hands? That's awesome because normally when my opponent calls my bets with everything I lose to and folds everything I beat, I lose money. What am I doing wrong?

[Scuba Chuck]

[ QUOTE ]


cha59 2nd AK hand: I'd flat call AK in the BB vs an 8 PFR UTG raiser. As played it's very close, this is guaranteed to be at least QQ+, AK and you're just about breakeven vs that, but whether it's a call depends on whether you think he takes a trickier line with AA sometimes, or flats AK or QQ sometimes, or etc. It's probably a slim fold but could go either way.



[/ QUOTE ]

I don't 100% agree here with your hand range. I think his hand range for sure includes JJ and maybe TT <u>due to his raise size</u>. In addition if cha is antogonizing utg (who is cha's immediate left) enough on prior hands, the range might include AQs/AQo.

As to calling, well it kinda sucks although I probably do it too much here, mainly because I expect most villains to play AA different (as you said).

ChrisV, thanks for posting in these threads, I enjoy reading your posts.

[ChrisV]

This guy is 8 PFR, I have a hard time believing he stacks off pf with JJ or AQ vs a BB reraise. Also cha being to the immediate right of him won't have messed with his raises much before, not to mention that he is 8 PFR so cha should stay the hell away from his raises. If you think JJ or AQ is in his range though then it's a snap call.