THREE, yes THREE ACES!!, but barf 2/4NLCASH

[creedofhubris]

[ QUOTE ]

and when you say there are "so many" other hands he could be value betting, you realise that our equity vs any set, any aces up, JT, any straight or any flush (giving him the range you suggested, excluding air) is only 30%, making it an clear fold for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

We only need .33 equity vs. his range to call that pot-sized river bet. Alter that range even a little and it's a call.

[tmcdmck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and when you say there are "so many" other hands he could be value betting, you realise that our equity vs any set, any aces up, JT, any straight or any flush (giving him the range you suggested, excluding air) is only 30%, making it an clear fold for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

We only need .33 equity vs. his range to call that pot-sized river bet. Alter that range even a little and it's a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know, but i think if its going to be altered, it is to weight it towards a flush, remove the sets and some of the 2 pair hands, lowering our equity. i suppose we would add some air too, but i have no idea how much.

[brandysbich]

ok tmc i think we done bud, cos you starting to twist my words and now i'm starting to get annoyed.

First, I didnt say using math in 'poker' is problematic. I said using it in a hand like this HU is just going to give you headeaches when every single time you going to call anyway...I'm gonna go as far as saying a fold here is a leak.

Second, as shown above by somebody else your pokerstove calculations arent even accurate with the %'s being 46.48 equity without even putting air into villains range...so getting 3 to 1 on this call makes it a massively EV call.

Third, you are nothing close to a calling station if you fold top set here or any set for that matter on a 3 to flush board with 1 possible straight as well

I still stand by my statement that not one HUCASH player (maybe I should change this to regular or winning HUCASH player) will c/f this river.

[tmcdmck]

[ QUOTE ]
ok tmc i think we done bud, cos you starting to twist my words and now i'm starting to get annoyed.

First, I didnt say using math in 'poker' is problematic. I said using it in a hand like this HU is just going to give you headeaches when every single time you going to call anyway...I'm gonna go as far as saying a fold here is a leak.

Second, as shown above by somebody else your pokerstove calculations arent even accurate with the %'s being 46.48 equity without even putting air into villains range...so getting 3 to 1 on this call makes it a massively EV call.

Third, you are nothing close to a calling station if you fold top set here or any set for that matter on a 3 to flush board with 1 possible straight as well

I still stand by my statement that not one HUCASH player (maybe I should change this to regular or winning HUCASH player) will c/f this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

well were not done because you clearly understood dick all of what i said.

1) diferent ranges will give different hand equity values. i disagree with the range that gave 47% equity. that simple. i also disagree with the range i used myself to get 30% equity (i was infact just using the range you suggested - air to make a point). if anything i feel the range that gave 24% equity is closest to correct. i feel their range is basically that plus air.

2) i dont use maths when every time i am going to call anyway. i use maths when it is not clear what to do, such as in this situation (and calling the fold a leak is preposterous, the situation is too rare for it to be a leak, and if it is a mistake at all, it is a small one.) also you are getting 2:1, not 3:1. also when i call myself a station, obviously it is situation dependent. the point i was making was that this is a situation where i really think hard rather than autocall like i usually would. ALSO also, maths does not give me a headache. i enjoy it.

3)your comment about what winning players do is
a) wild speculation
b) almost certainly inaccurate (nit is a profitable style of play in most games)
c) a horrid argument device designed to bypass reason and appeal to ego. it is referred to in philosophy as the informal fallacy of "poisoning the well".

you know what, after all this, im not 100% it is a fold, and i never was nor claimed to be. i was just trying to analyse the hand thoroughly, and i seem to have painted myself into a corner explaining to you why it might well be a fold. yes i think it is a fold on the balance of probabilities, but not beyond all reasonable doubt.