simple stuf, beyond me.

[milesdyson]

Bastard raised and I folded A8. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Bastard raised and I folded A8. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
noisy+good 2+2er

[/ QUOTE ]

Who knew?

Guy.

[jstill]

see Im surprised to hear u didnt check-raise the flop with whatever ace u called with in this spot preflop(i actually just assumed he was talkin about u :P ). u dont call with any A rag off here correct? why no cr after this flop action, would u with AT?

becuz u didnt i thought ur range was much more hands we actually had beat so if we felt compelled to play (which vs the donk I dont here) there wasnt as much value in a raise trying to make u fold a better hand (when with a different BB description I mite decide to freeshowdown raise to move BB off a weak ace if i felt like I needed to showdown here vs the donker).

did hero have the unknown beat or did he have like A7 A6 or something?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Bastard raised and I folded A8. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Not why I posted [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

you seem to genuinely think the raise is terrible and I can't get it.

I can't put myself as any more than a small dog to an unknown limper who doesn't 3-bet and then donks. If I raise I mostly get it HU and can get a cheap showdown a lot. Attempting to put in 2 big bets to win 5 seems worth the risk.

Calling down is likely to cost me 2.5 big bets when I'm behind and I'm not keen on giving you 8:1 closing the action with some big blind junk (are you ever calling 1 with a hand I want you to?).

and I'm not overkeen on folding here. Are we really behind that often? or is just we remember those times more?

but I'm told its wrong by people I think know better. Something is wrong with my thinking but its still beyond me [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

chez

[sethypooh21]

Yeah, I'd be more worried about BB's hand than UTG's anyway as A) he doesn't suck, and B) this is such on odd line to take with an ace that unless villain routinely donks TP, there's no way I give credit.

So calling is pretty bad because it lets BB come along in with anything. Raising at least defines Miles' hand to some degree - if he calls 2 cold, I think you're putting in 0 more chips unless you catch, right? Folding is certainly an option as well due to your ugly relative position between donk-better and skilled LAGTAG, but given that I'm really, really reticent to credit UTG with an ace, that seems really weak/tight given that you have no reason to suspect that Miles has an ace, and some reason to suspect that even if he does, he can't be wild about his kicker because he didn't 3-ball preflop.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bastard raised and I folded A8. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Not why I posted [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

you seem to genuinely think the raise is terrible and I can't get it.

I can't put myself as any more than a small dog to an unknown limper who doesn't 3-bet and then donks. If I raise I mostly get it HU and can get a cheap showdown a lot. Attempting to put in 2 big bets to win 5 seems worth the risk.

Calling down is likely to cost me 2.5 big bets when I'm behind and I'm not keen on giving you 8:1 closing the action with some big blind junk (are you ever calling 1 with a hand I want you to?).

and I'm not overkeen on folding here. Are we really behind that often? or is just we remember those times more?

but I'm told its wrong by people I think know better. Something is wrong with my thinking but its still beyond me [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no concrete reasons honestly. I just don't think you should raise. It's not like I can call with two overs to your JJ (KQ), and it's not like I'm going to have a gutshot or a pair very often on this board. I think you should just fold or call and hope for the best.

[Heisenb3rg]

Ahhhhhhhhhh I hate fire fox, I was just editing a really long response using game theory that got deleted.. I gotta get off these forums, but there's a very important idea here that too many people neglect.

GAME THEORY TIME WOOHOO

Optimally, this is a clear call flop and fold turn.

Assume our range on the flop is our PF button isolating range.
Assume QQ+, Ax+ ,55 and FD's was our optimal flop calling/raising distribution.
Assume BB's is the same but include 22,33,44 and 45
Question:
If our strategies were fixed, can limper improve his EV by betting the flop 100% of the time with all of his air?

Answer:
It's a very very clear yes.

Proof:
In order for it to be 0EV you guys have to be not folding together 6.5/7.5 or 87% of the time.
Indvidually this works out to (6.5/7.5)^2 75% of the time.
There's no way 75% of your range is composed of a pair of aces or better or a flush draw. It is also unlikely optimal to raise bluff a donk here very often with other than a flush draw.

Now, let's imagine you add JJ to your 100% flop calling distribution, can an opponent profit off this?
Well he can now make more money off specifically JJ by donking the flop with his A or better hands than he could before.
BUT, he would have made much more money check-raising you for value instead, because YOU have a clear optimal c-bet with any two of your cards. Thus, changing his strategy to donking his strong hands to exploit your JJ has actually lost him money.

Thereore, there is no possible way your opponent can profit off it and thus adding JJ to your calling flop distribution is clealy +EV against the nemesis, and is therefore optimal.

On the turn I think you would now have a fold, beacuse your range will be composed of 60-80% aces/FD and the pot/bet ratio is smaller. So, if he tries to bluff then, you're benefiting a ton every time you have a pair of aces.
Also, since by just adding JJ to your range it is incorrect to bluff a flush draw on the turn, because you will be raising it so often with 80% equity and never folding your Ax's. If he checks the turn, you now have a chance to see a showdown.


Exploitivly, based on the average tendencies of a 5/10 player, i'd call down and fold turn/river if a diamond fell or BB called. Mostly because I expect to see a flush draw 80% of the time. So few players donk flops with a strong hand on a board like this.

Raising flop is close in expectation and it really depends on the players.

I'd rather wait and see what BB does and what the turn brings before I decided I wanted to showdown tho.

If there were no flush draw, id be in a bind and probabily fold, because this is so rarely a place to donk.

I think folding this without a read here is not much of a of a mistake either.

People who say this is an insta muck.... Shame shame shame.
...

Edit:
Also , allowing a small pair or a gutshot to call is basically negligable EV. They're not getting immediate odds to call anything, and the original bettor likely has a flush draw, so their implied odds suck too.
The only hands that we will be folding out to a raise here that should call the flop are 22 and 44

[TheWunderkind]

i raise and if BB calls i give up, if Bb folds i see a freeshowdown and give up until if i got raised. I dunno if this is bad but...i dont see how he can have an ace but it depends on the site you play on the state of the game and of the palyer of course, this is a tough spot and i dont want to give advice, i like the idea of calling down too but what Turn Rivers are we folding?I didnt even think about folding, might be the safest option but to be honest i dont like it.

[chezlaw]

Much appreciate the effort - bad news about the original response. I've read it slept on it and read it again but ...

any chance of a transalation into stupid.

chez

[Heisenb3rg]

An optimal play in any zero sum game is the play that maximizes your EV against a perfect clairvoyant opponent known as the "nemesis". A perfect clairvoyant opponent is one that will know your exact range in any given situation, how you'd play it and can alter his strategy to perfectly exploit the weakness in it as to maximize his EV.

A strategy in poker would be your fold/call/raise probabilities for every posible situation, for any given hand.

By playing optimally, you are in a sense, minimizing the nemesis's EV. If you are not playing an optimal strategy, the nemesis will be able to alter their stragey which will gain him higher EV against your range than if you were playing optimally (since he knows your strategy). Most (all?) zero-sum games have only one optimal solution (proof exists in game theory text books). If you stray from it, you leave yourself open to exploitation from someone who knows it , and knows how to exploit it.

For example, imagine you were against the ultimate calling station who never folds. Imagine they also never raised/bet anything but the nuts. Clearly , you would exploit this by never bluffing, value betting light and always folding to their raises if you didn't have a draw to the new nuts relative to the pot odds.
If all of a sudden they realized this, they could maximally exploit you by raise bluffing frequently and folding their bluff catching hands. This "dance" of exploitation could go back and forth switching from one strategy to the next. Or you can choose an equilbrium point where your opponent can't gain more than a certain value Vo, no matter what they did. If you played any differently, there exists a strategy your opponent could play that gains more off you than this value Vo.
They could however, still play poorly and gain you a profit.



For your situation (the hand), I've made a few assumptions.

a) A continuation bet from you 100% of the time on this board is optimal
b) everyone expected pre-flop distributions are optimal.
c) assumed folding JJ- was optimal

Then I assumed the nemesis knew yours/oppnents strategy, and showed how he could make a profit by donk bluffing all his weak hands.
I also showed there was no action he could take that would gain him profit if you added JJ to your flop donk calling range, because check-raising/check-calling his good hands would gain him just as much if not more than donking because of assumption a).
The only effect is his flop donk bluffs would be less +EV because he would not win the pot when you had JJ, and instead lose a bet. Thus we have a contradiction in assumption C that folding JJ is optimal, since we can improve our EV against the nemesis by preventing flop bluffs that fold out our winning hands.

Another thing that could be confusing you, is you have to think of optimal play in terms of your distribution (the likely hood of having a certain card in this situation) vs their distribution. Not, I have JJ , what does my opponent have etc..

Hope I cleared it up a bit :/

now that you read this, read my post again .... If you care... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]