1/2 halp, all streets

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent analysis, Eric.
"The range calculator" = software programme?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Nietzsche.

Yes, the "range calculator" is a piece of software I wrote to help myself and a few others analyze ranges on particular boards. It breaks down a range into "this % is 2-pair, this % is straigth-flush draw" etc.

If you want access, PM me.

FYI, the same thing can be done by hand, albeit a bit monotonous. The trickiest part is simply learning to pay attention to how the board / dead cards effect the number of combinations (ie AK = 16 combos normally, but with an Ace on the board there are only 12, and with AK on board, there are 9). It takes a little practice, but it's very doable, and really helpful to your game IMO (as you see from this post!).

good luck.
Eric

[joker122]

regarding a turn cr:

"8.5% of the time we get 3-bet by 2-pair or better and lose 2 * .6 big bets = 1.2 big bets"

why is it .6? when he 3bets the turn we have at most 9 outs (if he's 3betting with top pair and doesn't have a heart) but probably more like 7-8 on average. so i'd say our equity once he 3bets is closer to 15% and thus the correct calculation is "8.5% of the time we lose 2*.85bb = -1.7bb"

"15% of the time he folds, we gain 80% of the pot ~= 4 big bets"

when he bets the turn there are 4.25bb in the pot so 80% is 3.4bb right?

"76.5% of the time he calls, and we lose 60% of 1 big bet = .6 big bets"

again, i don't see how you are giving us 40% equity on the turn.

when he calls we have at least 9 outs in the FD and probably an average of 3 pair outs so with 12 outs on the turn our equity is about 25%. so we lose .75bb we he just calls a turn cr.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Our equity... is closer to 15% and thus... we lose 2*.85bb = -1.7bb

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math here is wrong, and here's a simple counter-example. Imagine that you had 50% equity when you were 3-bet... would you then lose 2*.5bb = -1 bb? No, of course not. You'd lose nothing.

The key is to realize that you hold 15% of two big bets, not 1... your opponent matches every bet you put in the pot. So if you put in 2 big bets with 15% equity, you hold 15% of 4 total big bets that went into the pot.

I got .6 by assuming you had 20% equity with your flush draw.

[ QUOTE ]
when he bets the turn there are 4.25bb in the pot so 80% is 3.4bb right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You are going to call anyways, so you should include the 1 big bet you are using to call in the calculation. This is not a 2 bet bluff... it's a 1 bet call, 1 bet bluff. So you are risking 1 bet to win 5.25 big bets, not 4.25. (see my essay on semibluff equity calculations [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

[ QUOTE ]
...we lose .75bb we he just calls a turn cr...

[/ QUOTE ]

Like above. I'm assuming 20% equity, so we lose .6 bb when we raise and are called. Of course this % is up for debate, but to figure "bets lost" you multiply your equity by 2.


Hope that clears things up.

good luck.
Eric

[punter11235]

I elaborated a bit on Elindauer's analysis here .

Enjoy [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[elindauer]

To be honest Mig, when I first wrote that post, I thought you had flopped a flush draw and never considered folding. I didn't think about the numbers.

After the fact, I realized that the decent equity was due to this double-backdoor-overcard draw, and was forced to examine this assertion again, keeping in mind the idea that we will may often face a turn bet. After further reflection, it still seems like a call (I learned something here, since I would normally fold this). Here's why:

If we factor in the turn bet in advance, then we are looking at 7.5 : 3 odds to call and get to the river. That is, we are 2.5 : 1 underdogs, being offered 3 : 1 from the pot.

Now, we're going to get away on the turn from a lot of cards that give us little hope of winning, so our true odds are not this bad. Further, if villain really does ALWAYS bet every hand in his range twice, then I don't mind giving up a little bit here to encourage him... we should crush him by constantly trapping and check-raising the turn mercilessly. In other words, it's not a call that can be taken advantage of in a game theory sense. Folding though, likely leaves us the ones who are going to be exploited by a relentless bettor.

I'm hand waving here to say that it's there... I'm not exactly sure how to do the math to compare the reverse implied odds of catching hands like a 6, vs implied odds of catching a Q or making a flush on the river. Intuitively though, I think it's a call, though close, and even if it's slightly losing, it's a call you should make from a game theory point of view to avoid being run over by players on steal raises. If the metagame result is that players stop trying to bluff you, you come out way ahead (side note: I've experienced this in short handed games at lower stakes, and when it happens, you virtually can't lose).

my 2 cents.
Eric

[CAMEL1111]

How is 1/2 high limit?