Baby flush vs. slowplayer

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
"Are we ahead >60% of the time?"

Gris,

You've mentioned this twice in the past two days with regards to river analysis. I know I know where this is from but I can't think of the source and I'm having problems deriving this number. What is this a reference to and where is the source?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my math is a little off on this relative to the best alternative (check/call), but let me explain what I was thinking:

I ran through the math in the other thread on this -- has to do with checkraising/calling a 3-bet vs not. If villain auto-bets, and we checkraise, auto-call a 3-bet (even if we know we're beat, bcs, hey, pot is big, durrrrrrr):

60% of the time we win 2 bets this way (0.6 * 2 = 1.2bets +EV)
40% of the time we lose 3 bets this way (0.4 * 3 =-1.2bets -EV)

So it's neutral EV at the 60% mark with our assumptions.

At the 60% mark, though, check/call gets us a little profit -- 0.6 * 1 - 0.4 * 1 = 0.2BB/hand. So at 60%, check/call is better than checkraise/call a 3-bet.

At the 70% mark:

0.7 * 2 - 0.3 * 3 = 0.5BB/hand for checkraise/call 3bet
0.7 * 1 - 0.3 * 1 = 0.4BB/hand for check/call.

So I have to take back what I was saying -- the break-even point for checkraise/call 3-bet vs check/call is about 67%. Unless I messed up my math again [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. If the villain may 3bet with a worse hand some small proportion of the time (and we think he will, which is why we call the 3-bet) then things lean slightly more in favor of the checkraise/call a 3-bet line.

Where is Cartman when I need him?!