Standard Hypothetical Situation.

[blankoblanco]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey craig, this won't be about strat, don't worry. a fight with me and you about strat would be really one sided.

to address the thing about "feel" players. it's because i've played so many more haNDS than you i understand tendencies much better, and therefore i know and comprehend what i should be doing better than you do on board textures.

feel that, bitch

[/ QUOTE ]

haha i almost typed that exact thing, but without being an [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Ship Ship McGipp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey craig, this won't be about strat, don't worry. a fight with me and you about strat would be really one sided.

to address the thing about "feel" players. it's because i've played so many more haNDS than you i understand tendencies much better, and therefore i know and comprehend what i should be doing better than you do on board textures.

feel that, bitch

[/ QUOTE ]

haha i almost typed that exact thing, but without awesome style

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[huhwhatyousay?]

[ QUOTE ]
i use pot control because i think his range is {Qx, worse pairs, draws}. i figure he folds worse pairs (especially on a J turn) and calls with Qx and draws. i think the bet is, in itself, unprofitable because his calling range is so "strong" - and when you bet, you are mostly donating money to Qx.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. The answer to this question pretty much depends on the hands that comprise villain's range and their weightings, and how he plays these hands (whether he'll call a turn bet, bluff the river...etc). All of the numbers I'll provide are arbitrary. Imagine villain's range here as a continuum {a,b,c} (or something), where a are draws (around 25%), b are worse pairs (around 45%), and c is Qx (around 30%). For simplification, assume his draws have 20% pot equity and no implied odds (He'll check and hope you bet again or something). Assume his worse pairs have around 10% pot equity and no implied odds. Against Qx we have around 10% pot equity, but with the added benefit that we get 3 streets of value if we improve on the river. It gets complicated when villain will call down with pairs worse than Qx and/or bluff the river w/ missed draws, so I'll temporarily exclude those cases from my discussion.

- <font color="blue">If he folds pairs worse than Qx and calls with Qx and draws on the turn and never bluffs w/ missed draws on the river.</font>

His range on the river is 45% draws w/ 20% equity and 55% Qx. The draws in his range have a 20% share of 2 streets of value. We'll define 2 streets of value as the pfr, flop bet and a turn bet of 160 ($525 pot). EV of +156 overall. EV of +96 relative to our turn action.

Against 90% of his Qx's we lose -160 in EV 100% of the time, and against 10% of his Qx's where we improve to two-pair+ on the river we gain an additional bet of 350ish. (He's a station and will not fold). Our EV relative to our turn action is around -110 vs. his Qx.

Our EV in this arbitrary case is -$17.5. In order for our bet to be noticeably +EV here, villain must call the turn w/ around 1.25-1.5 more combos of draws than Qx.

Imo, the problem in this semi-vacuum pretty much boils down to:

-<font color="blue">What proportion of {Qx}:{draws} does he call on the turn with.</font>

AQ-Q9 represents around 46 combos (Bayes weighting and whatever makes Q9 less likely than KQ-QT, and the combos of AQ are cut down for obv reasons.)

Fish usually call preflop w/ a lot of suited stuff, so you can't exclude hands such as 96cc from his range. Villain might easily have 50-56 combos of fds in his range.

What swings this towards a turn check for me are factors such as:

- If he bets the river w/ a "slowplayed" Qx when the club draw misses we're likely to pay him off thinking he's bluffing his missed draw. I don't think it's wise to apply vacuum logic here and say that he'll "never" bluff the river w/ a missed draw. In a game-time situation, how could we possibly ever verify this.

- Fish do weird things, and we can't exclude strangely played {QQ+,77,22}ish hands from his range. These hands are probably &lt; 7.5% of his range, but if the decision was marginal before this, this should make a turn check clearly &gt;EV than a bet.

I think this is a case of where G-bucks say we should bet vs. his current range, but checking makes our river decision much easier and profitable.

Also, there is no way he can have TT here because bad fish always min3bet TT pre. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Jay Riall]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey craig, this won't be about strat, don't worry. a fight with me and you about strat would be really one sided.

to address the thing about "feel" players. it's because i've played so many more haNDS than you i understand tendencies much better, and therefore i know and comprehend what i should be doing better than you do on board textures.

feel that, bitch

[/ QUOTE ]

haha i almost typed that exact thing, but without being an [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol I normally feel this way about his posts, but this time I feel it was definitely called for. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[Jamougha]

[censored] me someone actually made a semi-decent post in this thread.

[huhwhatyousay?]

Craig, interesting to see that we got practically the same numbers ($-16 and $-17.5) w/ a different approach w/out me even aware that you were making your post.

Beat: Makes me realize just how long I was typing.
Variance: You have more combos of Qx than I do.

[raptor517]

ummmm.. if hes passive calling station that wont bluff raise and will call with clubs and a 7.. i dont see why this would be anything but a bet.. i used to check it a lot, i dont generally anymore though because in general, everyone is a fish, and ppl dont bluff raise these turns.