standard calldown vs LAG?

[gehrig]

that is some fantastic hand reading

[DCWildcat]

[ QUOTE ]
that is some fantastic hand reading

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
53.6/21.8/7.53 HU blind battle

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bullitos]

Since he raises any flop there is really no value in bet/folding the flop. I would rather check/fold and pick another spot to go to showdown with this guy. There are too many broadway cards on this board to make your pair of 77's a winner.

As DCWildcat pointed out you have 53% equity vs a random hand. But he has a 50% VPIP so his hand isn't random, he also 3-bet preflop, so his hand is probably even less random because he raises it up 20% preflop, and that's not a 3-bet statistic. Yes, his 3-betting range is wide, but we can discount a lot of 63,86,T2,Q3 hands etc. So if you have 53% equity vs any two on the flop, you have much less than 53% vs. for example top 50% of hands (and I still think this is generous). I just think you are not often enough ahead here to call this down, so pick another spot.

[Heisenb3rg]

-------- PRE FLOP-----------------

I cap this PF. I cap partially for value, but also because I dont want to only cap premium hands , giving away too much info. It's not worth it to take a clear -EV cap to do this (IE KJo) but 77 is probaibly borderline +EV anyway.

----------POST FLOP--------------

The tighter his range the more this is a check-fold.
The looser his range the more this is a call down.

In this situation he wouldn't need an extremly loose range in order for a call down to be correct. Given his stats and the fact that it's a blind vs blind battle it's unlikely his range here is that tight.

I ran poker stove against Any Pair, A6o+, A6s+, Any broadway
This is 22.8% of hands. This is probabily on the loose side of his range.
Your equity is 35.0%. I also toyed around with some other preflop combinations that are a little tighter and your equity is around 28%-35% given most semi-loose ranges.

Your effective odds are around 1:2.6 which makes it a definite call down against this range.

I disagree with the person saying that if he checks behind marginal hands it hurts your odds.
The fact that he checks rivers pretty liberally with marginal hands is actually a GOOD thing.

Let's say the read where he checked behind 2nd pair or worse applies here.
Your 77 is a borderline marginal hand on this board, which means it loses to a bunch of other marginal hands. If he bet a J/9/8 you would have payed them off , but he'll probabily check it behind.
Now since he is a lag he'll possibly still bluff hands that don't show down well.
Now it gets even better if he assumes A high here doesnt have much showdown value and tries to bluff with it. Given the preflop action, and action up to this point it's a somewhat decent assumption. (although he should also reason that you're in check/call mode and wont fold to a river bet).

Therefore, I think this is a call down.

There are also some side benefits. You get to find out a little more information about the guys playing style by calling down. This has some value. It also looks pretty weak folding, which may get the rest of the table a little more tricky with you.

Conclusion:
PF - cap
Post flop - call down unless an Ace hits on turn/river

[detruncate]

I don't think Villain was a flat out maniac, so the calldown was probably bad.

I prefer check/folding to bet/folding vs this guy if I'm not planning to show down. It's possible he folds sometimes when we bet, but this board connected with a huge part of his range. He's probably raising any pair (including pocket underpairs), gutshots or better, quite possibly any Ace, maybe even hands that only have a couple backdoor draws... which is effectively most of his range.

Speaking of range, I always have a tough time narrowing it down pf in situations like this, but I tentatively came up with the following: 22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q8s+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,A2o+,K 2o+,Q8o+,JTo. It means he's 3-betting 41.5% of the time.

It might be a bit broad (Q8o could be pushing it, and he might call rather than raise with some of the suited connectors), but it seems as though many of the more aggressive LAGs take it as a personal affront when you raise their bind and 3-bet out of spite. In any case, 77 has 58% vs this fairly optimistic range, but we're going to have a tough time realizing that equity since we have to fold scary flops sometimes when we're ahead, and being OOP means we're going to miss out on bets when Villain checks behind when we're too weak to donk. As mentioned, Villain also plays more correctly in a larger pot.

I'm leaning toward just calling his 3-bet pf.

Thanks for the comments.

[Mossberg]

Heisenb3rg (or anyone else for that matter),

I have a question about this math...

[ QUOTE ]
I ran poker stove against Any Pair, A6o+, A6s+, Any broadway
This is 22.8% of hands. This is probabily on the loose side of his range.
Your equity is 35.0%. I also toyed around with some other preflop combinations that are a little tighter and your equity is around 28%-35% given most semi-loose ranges.

Your effective odds are around 1:2.6 which makes it a definite call down against this range.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been wondering lately how to calculate the EV of our hand based on estimated equity. It looks like you're comparing pokerstove equity to effective odds? So in this case, we're planning on putting 2.5BBs (flop/turn/river) into a pot that looks like it will end up being 7bb..

so, 7/2.5 = 2.8 (now putting this result into odds, wouldn't it be 1.8-1 rather than the 2.6-1 you suggested?

I assume that if his range gives him ~23% equity that means we need better than ~4-1 effective odds to breakeven? Also, do we take our own equity into account anywhere in the calcs? I'm probably way, way off, but I need to start somewhere..

Plz feel free to correct me anywhere and everywhere - I suck at math and am just trying desperately to grasp this stuff.

Thanks in advance.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
In any case, 77 has 58% vs this fairly optimistic range...

... I'm leaning toward just calling his 3-bet pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements seem to contaradict each other

[ QUOTE ]
but we're going to have a tough time realizing that equity since we have to fold scary flops sometimes when we're ahead, and being OOP means we're going to miss out on bets when Villain checks behind when we're too weak to donk. As mentioned, Villain also plays more correctly in a larger pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero also plays more correctly if he calls down.

[DCWildcat]

I still don't see why we wouldn't cap this. We're definately ahead of his range.

[detruncate]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any case, 77 has 58% vs this fairly optimistic range...

... I'm leaning toward just calling his 3-bet pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

These two statements seem to contaradict each other

[/ QUOTE ]

They do, indeed, if we can realize that equity + the range is mostly correct. But I'm not sure about either.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but we're going to have a tough time realizing that equity since we have to fold scary flops sometimes when we're ahead, and being OOP means we're going to miss out on bets when Villain checks behind when we're too weak to donk. As mentioned, Villain also plays more correctly in a larger pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero also plays more correctly if he calls down.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Tis true. I guess the idea is that Hero will make fewer mistakes post flop, but given issues related to being out of position vs a LAG (and knowing Hero) I'm not sure this is the case.

Meh. I go back and forth with this. I guess the question is whether the combined benefit of a presumed equity edge + mostly unterrible post flop play is large enough to make us excited about getting money in the pot pf. At some point it certainly is. With 77, however, I think we're at best close to the line. I'll have to think some more about this in the context of my overall blind strategy, but I think reasonable arguments can be made either way.

[Unguarded]

It looks to me like you're using anti-maniac strategy when it's not really justified. I wouldn't handle this situation much differently than I would against a TAG who understands blind play.

Pre-flop: I don't like the cap. This guy's raises seem to be meaningful (22% PFR), and an auto-raise is a strong tell. It's not a situation where I want to commit myself to a showdown.

Flop: That is an awful flop. He's going to value bet the hell out of you if he hit, and he's going to suck out on you all over the place. You need to feel like you're going to win about 30% of the time here to show it down, which is absurd. This is a situation where his habits (constantly betting, showing down all the time) turn him into a superstar for a hand.