AA - I _know_ I'm beat, where do I fold?

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, before someone trots out Ed Miller's crushing microlimits post and similar platitudes: Folding when you think you're beat heads-up but you can get to showdown for 1-2BB, and folding when you're almost always beat multiway when a raising war is still going on, are very different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I plead ignorance. What post are you referring to?

[detruncate]

If we could guarantee that we'd only have to spend 2 on the turn, I'm calling all day without thinking twice. There's a reasonably good chance that SB will 3-bet in our hand, but we're dealing with an effective 3 bet cap since UTG only has 1 more BB in his stack and BB has done nothing but call, so there's not that much risk all things considered.

Sometimes we're drawing dead to a straight, but both SB and UTG could easily have a wider range -- sets, 2-pair, an overpair, even a strong draw, all of which we're ahead of or drawing live against with close to the proper number of outs at 18+:2 (near worst case of 23:3 if BB drops and it goes 3-bets 3 way).

BB has done nothing but call. He's unlikely to wake up on the turn, and he often has a draw.

The turn is close. I don't think you'd be making a major mistake by folding, but the pot is large and I default to calling when there's any question. Bottom line is that we're occasionally ahead, often have outs when behind (sometimes more than we think), and are never going to have to spend more than 3 bets UI in what is shaping up to be a ginormous pot.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, before someone trots out Ed Miller's crushing microlimits post and similar platitudes: Folding when you think you're beat heads-up but you can get to showdown for 1-2BB, and folding when you're almost always beat multiway when a raising war is still going on, are very different things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I plead ignorance. What post are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

See the FAQ, Ed's "crushing microlimits post". Basically it's Ed telling people not to be weak-tight and it's eventually turned into the blanket justification for microers to be showdown monkeys and not try to read hands.

[Marquoz]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically it's Ed telling people not to be weak-tight and it's eventually turned into the blanket justification for microers to be showdown monkeys and not try to read hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know, Xhad, you keep accusing everyone who disagrees with you in this thread of not handreading and being a "showdown monkey". Well, my postflop aggression is 2.5 over more than 30,000 hands. I'm anything but a calling station. I consistently fold when it makes sense--you don't get a 2.5 by failing to read hands and calling all the time. And I still think calling the turn and river here is the correct play.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
You know, Xhad, you keep accusing everyone who disagrees with you in this thread of not handreading and being a "showdown monkey".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but really, I'm more talking about people who go nuts about folds that are even more obvious than this one (stuff like bet/calling AJ UI on the river, or folding QQ against a pf capper when an A flops).

About the actual hand though, if you guys think your club outs are good and that you might have the best hand, give me your ranges. Not the one or two hands you hope they have that make this a breakeven call, but actual ranges of hands that make a call profitable, even taking into account the times you get 3bet drawing dead.

[Marquoz]

[ QUOTE ]
About the actual hand though, if you guys think your club outs are good and that you might have the best hand, give me your ranges.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, the flop and turn action has always looked like sets/two pair/overpairs weaker than ours/a flush draw/an unlikely made straight/a straight draw. I feel that we're either ahead of or have the outs to draw against the following hands:

Pocket pairs: 44 55 77 (sets, we're behind) 88 99 TT (overpairs, we're ahead already). JJ - AA is unlikely given PF action but not impossible--I've seen all kinds of odd plays with these hands from time to time, especially from blinds. Against the pocket pairs that we trail, any ace or our gutshot wins if we're behind. If someone's getting super frisky with 66 (middle pair + OESD), we win unimproved or if an ace falls, but the gutshot loses and an 8 also kills us.

Two pair, probably suited but perhaps not (and no club flush draw possible with them either way): 75 74 45. We're behind but we win if the board pairs without giving them a boat, if an ace comes, or if the gutshot hits.

Flush/straight draws: obviously, we're ahead of most draws on the turn, though if they hit we're toast. We're drawing dead against made straights and 86c and 63c (since they also have a made straight on top of the flush draw), and any two clubs containing a 6 is a bad hand to be up against since it kills our gutshot. So is any straight draw with a 6.

I think our chances of either being ahead or drawing out are sufficient to call the turn. On the river, when it's just one more bet to us and flush and straight draws didn't come in, it's also a call. We probably lose to a set but beat overplayed overpairs or missed draws often enough to justify it (IMO, anyway).

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
If we could guarantee that we'd only have to spend 2 on the turn, I'm calling all day without thinking twice. There's a reasonably good chance that SB will 3-bet in our hand, but we're dealing with an effective 3 bet cap since UTG only has 1 more BB in his stack and BB has done nothing but call, so there's not that much risk all things considered.

Sometimes we're drawing dead to a straight, but both SB and UTG could easily have a wider range

[/ QUOTE ]

You are gambling that they do. Our read (based on only a few hands admittedly) is that all the villains are loose passive, but you have them pushing draws. You have UTG *raising a flop capper* with a draw. Okay, he's close to all in, so maybe. And BB is probably on a draw.

But the problem is, we are awarding ourselves a full set of outs if we're behind. We can't do that. They have to be actually drawing to something and some of that something includes some of our outs. It seems to me we're having our cake and eating it, saying that at the same time we're maybe ahead (so all have draws) but also maybe behind (but we have a full set of outs).

[Xhad]

Marquoz: I agree with a lot of the specific hands you give people, but I don't agree with your conclusion that it's worth showing down UI, or that we can give ourself more than 3ish outs.

Taking the second statement first, BB has 6x or 2 clubs or both. Nothing else makes sense. Part of the problem is that both of those draws taint our outs, but we don't know which one he has. This is something I haven't seen mentioned yet BTW; every one of our "outs" completes a 1card straight that beats us, and some of them also complete the flush, so we really stand to lose money on the river whether we're showing down UI or not, whereas there is no card that makes us want to go to war on the river.

UTG's range is a little wider than SB's because he's almost all-in. But this probably isn't "ZOMG LET'S STACK OFF WITH 33!!!!"; his stack on the flop was still such that he couldn't get all-in without help (if he called the flop, then you raised and SB 3bet and he capped, then it would make a little more sense). And if he would go this nuts with TT/99 UI postflop, why didn't he 3bet it preflop, or raise it preflop the first time? Not saying it's impossible but it's especially inconsistent to say that he's passive enough to limp preflop when he should raise, but aggro enough to overplay a pair this badly. Really UTG's range is something like flopped set/flopped straight, flush, or combo draw, possibly with the 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

SB, again we have the problem of why does he go this nuts with a pair postflop but doesn't 3bet preflop? And why would he donk a draw on the turn into the flop capper? This is a set/2pair a huge majority of the time, and if you want to talk about your hidden outs against 2pair, again we're getting into reverse implied odds territory because we don't know which 2pair he has.

Now, it is true that there is an "idiot factor" at these limits where you have to assign a certain amount of uncertainty to any read, but against 3 players that effect diminishes by a ton. Ultimately, that's my issue with calling here; you have 2 opponents who are repping hands better than yours, and while against one aggressor you often can (have to) suck it up and call down "just in case" he has a draw or is doing something stupid. But against 2 or more opponents the "just in case" factor gets cancelled out tremendously, and is exacerbated by the fact that BB almost always has a draw, and is both tainting some/all of your outs and decreasing the likelihood that your two opponents are both on a draw.

EDIT: I had some maths for the last point but the conclusion seemed weird and counterintuitive and I just woke up not too long ago. I want to recheck it and post it later if it still looks right.

[btspider]

i'd cold-call the flop and see a turn. on the turn, UTG could be stacking off with an 8+ outer. its a tough spot. i probably fold figuring SB could 3-bet (and UTG could partial cap) in addition to concerns that the A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], and 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] may not be outs.

[Aaron W.]

I wonder what the responses would be if this thread were titled "Overpair on a ragged flush draw board" and hero gave his read as "I've only been at the table for a couple orbits, and I have no specific reads yet."

Suppose you're ahead at the moment and that you've got about 70% equity in this 17 BB pot because you're against a pair and flush draw (BB). Since UTG looks like he's stacking off, you can reasonably expect you, UTG, and SB to be putting in 3 bets each by the showdown (SB has two more to put in, UTG has one more to put in). I don't know what to make of BB's hand, so we'll just say he's putting in 2 more bets instead of the 3. So 70% of the time, you win a 17+2+1+2 = 22 BB pot. 30% of the time, you lose 3 BB.

What if you're behind? If you're behind, we'll say you win about 5% of the time (you have 2-3 outs when behind). So you lose 3 BB 95% of the time and win 22 BB 5% of the time when you're behind.

How often do you need to be ahead to call this down?

EV = (Ahead)*(.70*22 + .30*(-3)) + (1 - Ahead)*(.05*22 - .95*(-3))
= 14.5*(Ahead) + (1 - Ahead)*(-1.75)
= 16.25*(Ahead) - 1.75

For EV neutral, you need (Ahead) = 11.7%. Are you ahead 10% of the time here? Probably not. Maybe it's about 5-7%, depending on the quality of hero's read.

That said, I still think I end up calling down.

The point is that you don't need to be ahead very often to make a call correct, even if you sink 3 BB into this hand when you lose.