AJ Squeeze, flops Ace, river?

[tufat23]

i bet this river [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[jlocdog]

Dan Bitel,

I think I am VERY aware of the concept WA/WB and also feel that it does not apply to this hand given the way it was played.

edit-The fact that there are a bunch of hands in his range that calls us that we beat makes this concept obsolete.

Regarding your post below this, I think you need to get a grasp on what WA/WB means in a practical use as well a s a theoretical one.

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]
Dan Bitel,

I think I am VERY aware of the concept WA/WB and also feel that it does not apply to this hand given the way it was played.

[/ QUOTE ]

what street ISN'T WA/WB?

And how the hell can the river NOT be WA/WB? How can he outdraw us now????

[tarheeljks]

tufat, do you think this river is an autobet?

[Unknown Soldier]

[ QUOTE ]
jlocdog,

you still don't understand what WA/WB means

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, when we say WA we mean our equity in the pot is way ahead of our opponents. eg AK vs his AQ on A48 board, he has 3 outs. He is WB.

SA would be AA vs KcQc on 9cTc2d. Here KQ has like 45% equity, so it's nearly even money. Hence AA is only SA and KQ is SB.

on the river there are no more cards to come, hence your hand mjust have either 100% or 0% equity. Hence it is obviously WA/WB.

do you understand? I'm usually terrible at explanations.

[tufat23]

[ QUOTE ]
tufat, do you think this river is an autobet?

[/ QUOTE ]


no. i understant why people wont bet.

[FishSticks]

This whole thing is all WA/WB wtf?

On the flop 8 out straight draws comprise a small portion of his range, there's some 5 outters like T9, but soooooo many 2 outers (the pocket pairs) or ~0 outers (would need runner runner to catch up). Pretty much either we have him or we don't. I guess that if he c/c flop, his calling range is weighted more towards the 8out and 5out hands, so the turn *maybe* isn't completely WA/WB, but those aren't really powerful draws and are only a portion of the range.

[jlocdog]

Dan/Soldier,

When talking about a WA/WB situation, yes soldier, your examples are fine. When applying them to whether or not to bet though you can't just say, 'oh its the river. Either I am winning or losing' and think you have done anything. It is the idea of evaluating whether or not a bet (or call in some situations) is worth any value given the range of holdings your opponent has up to the given street in question (and yes each street needs to be reevaluated) as well as your perceived range from his point of view. Once you determine this, you can gauge whether you feel you have him dominated/are dominated or whether you are ahead/behind but the person behind has enough legitimate outs to justify in continuing with the hand (and sometimes raising, ie. semibluffing). If you ever believe a river bet can be 'thin' then you go against the idea of the river always being WA/WB. I hope you see this.

Obviously there is much more to this and I'm not sure my brief explanation does justice to what I would like to say but I will leave it that for now.

Getting tired of this thread so I may slow up in posting in it for a bit. Good discussion though and I promise to check back on it.

[Unknown Soldier]

you have a different meaning of WA/WB then all of ssnl, it's that simple. (I think/hope)

I think I know what you mean. You mean we are only slightly ahead of his calling range making it marginal, yeah? Fine, but that ain't SA/SB, or not what we mean anyway.

[ilya]

I have a hard time putting him on many hands between those that fold to a shove and those that beat you. i'm actually not as sure that you're ahead as some people seem to be as i think his line is pretty consistent with the way many ppl would play 88/99/33. i guess he could have Axs and i think he probably would call a shove pretty often, but honestly, i would rather half-pot here and fold to a check-raise...from his POV there are enough draws he could have that i think he'd look you up with something like T9 for half-pot pretty often.