how do they do it

[jt1]

Yea, as other have said - capping only makes sense if Villain won't ever 4bet and won't ever continue on the river. It's a 7 bb pot that Hero turns into a 9 bb pot so villain has to cap 10% of the time which he obviously won't but if he ever continues UI on river than that # drops. Say he continues on river 1/4 times: Villain has to 3bet 8% of the time to break even. It drops to 5% when villain bluffs the river half the time.

I guess it's not "truly awful" like I said. A better description is truly risky. By the way, I don't like using total AF to determine how often a player semi-bluffs or bluffs. I doubt any player with a pfr of just 10% will ever have a high total AF no matter how often he semi-bluffs, excluding post flop manaics. I prefer to use the turn and river AF: If the turn is around 2 (depending on vpip) and/or the river AF is higher than the turn AF than I know that villain is aggro. Also, AF needs several hundred hands to be even close to a usuable stat. Leader once told me that after 20k hands, AF still has a standard deviation of 25%. And so against someone with whom you don't see often, you should get to the SD even more often.

[milesdyson]

i was under the impression that better hands could fold. does 22 not fold? 44? 56? 66? these never fold? no one ever, ever folds pairs? i know that's what we like to say (don't bluff a calling station), but ffs i'm pretty sure people fold pairs sometimes.

at least some Ax hands with 6 chopping outs could fold.

i really think being 4-bet bluffed or donk bluffed is near 0% so this should be pretty risk free, with the benefits of making me look like a retard and possibly folding better hands or folding Ax w/ 6 outs to half the pot.

the problem is he knew my cards.

[danzasmack]

Don't you 3-bet there so you can value bet an A or K and because he is f.o.s. a lot of the time?

When he 4-bet you it's either a full house or air and heavily weighted towards a full house

[milesdyson]

yes i would value bet an A or K because i expect to be good when called more than half the time on those cards given that he checkraised the turn and only called the 3-bet.

if i just call the check raise, i can't raise a river A/K. so i think i win more on my A/K outs when i 3-bet the turn.

i just don't think this is cut and dry at all, and the fact that i got owned is just a testament to my poker skills.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
i was under the impression that better hands could fold. does 22 not fold? 44? 56? 66? these never fold? no one ever, ever folds pairs? i know that's what we like to say (don't bluff a calling station), but ffs i'm pretty sure people fold pairs sometimes.

at least some Ax hands with 6 chopping outs could fold.

i really think being 4-bet bluffed or donk bluffed is near 0% so this should be pretty risk free, with the benefits of making me look like a retard and possibly folding better hands or folding Ax w/ 6 outs to half the pot.

the problem is he knew my cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Miles,

I don't think any pairs that play themselves this way postflop fold here. So if your opponent is the sort to c/r 22 on the turn I don't think he folds to a 3bet. Anyway I've already made my point on this one and I think you're heavily underestimating what unknowns will do even a small portion of the time.

Rob

[jt1]

Yea, I forgot that smaller pairs will sometimes fold. It aint a terribe play but it's risky. I honestly don't know how often a pp will fold. And I think a cap semi-bluff is extremely rare. But I don't know that either since i never 3-bet for a FSD. Basically, I'm saying I'd want a good solid read before I do this.

It's interesting hand and I respect the move you made. I keep changing my opinion on it but right now as of this moment I think that a pp will call your 3bet over 90% of the time and a player who is bold enough to c/r bluff you is bold enough to re-raise you at least 2% of the time. But on the other hand, I don't think he'll be firing again on the river very often at all. So if you were to plug in those #'s into an equation using say 5% for a pp folding the turn, 2% for a cap, and 1% for a river bet than you'd get....an answer [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
So if you were to plug in those #'s into an equation using say 5% for a pp folding the turn, 2% for a cap, and 1% for a river bet than you'd get....an answer [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

It looks like it would be a good play, under those circumstances. (Edit: Er, barely, and it depends in part on what the pp is; 22 and 77 are not equal here.)

There's been some strange math going on in this thread regarding the AK hand (or possibly I just don't understand the basis for it). But, if our plan is to 3-bet and then fold UI to any further aggression, the following seems to be the case (as I see it):

(1) If Villain has (his actual) 14-out draw and will never put any more money in the pot UI, the play nets us ~0.4 BB.

(2) If Villain has his actual 14-out draw and will always fire again on the river if we just call the turn checkraise and will also always shut off all aggression after getting 3-bet, the play is equal to calling down. (I see what Miles is saying about the how he can bet the river on an ace or king, but if we're so confident about Villain's tendencies, why not just raise-fold the river after that ace or king falls? It seems to amount to the same thing. I suppose an ace or king might shut Villain down on the river, though.)

(3) Okay, I'm mentioning this just because I don't understand Entity's ~70 percent figure, but . . .

If Villain will fire again on the river only 70 percent of the time after his 14-outer busts (and he will never semibluff-cap the turn or donk-bluff the river), then the calldown nets us about 0.2 BB less than the turn free-showdown raise would have.

(4) A turn semibluff-cap costs us about 6 BB any time Villain makes the play.

(5) A river donk-bluff costs us 10 BB any time Villain makes the play.


So, in any case, the basis is clear for Entity's claim that if Villain will 4-bet the turn or donk-bluff the river even a small percentage of the time, that cuts greatly into any gains we make on the play versus calling down. And the play becomes even more doubtful if we take into account that, like Entity says, in all likelihood Villain is going to fire again on the river if we just call the turn ~100 percent of the time.

Really, what we need is folding equity -- that's where our big gains are going to come from. Against a draw, we have no folding equity, but the question is how often Villain will fold a 38-outer (or 35-outer, or 32-outer) on the turn to our 3-bet. It is worth about 6 BB to us when he does.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) If Villain has (his actual) 14-out draw and will never put any more money in the pot UI, the play nets us ~0.4 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just read through what I wrote again and noticed how badly phrased this was. What I meant, of course, is that the play is worth 0.4 BB to us if Villain won't fire again on the river if we just call and he will merely call and chase with his nut low if we continue our aggression with a 3-bet. (If he would actually fold to a 3-bet, as my phrasing suggested, then that 3-bet would be a great play.)

Also (and how's this for picky?), the 42o is actually a 13-out draw.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]


(3) Okay, I'm mentioning this just because I don't understand Entity's ~70 percent figure, but . . .

If Villain will fire again on the river only 70 percent of the time after his 14-outer busts (and he will never semibluff-cap the turn or donk-bluff the river), then the calldown nets us about 0.2 BB less than the turn free-showdown raise would have.

(4) A turn semibluff-cap costs us about 6 BB any time Villain makes the play.

(5) A river donk-bluff costs us 10 BB any time Villain makes the play.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was more or less what I was going to post but I had to go to the pub instead. Now I've been to said pub so this might all be drunken nonsense but..

I completely see how the possibility of a turn 4-bet semibluff or river donkbluff kill MilesDyson's line, but I don't see Entity's point about river bluffing 70% - seems to me that the turn 3-bet nets you a big bet 100% of the time so is better IF he never bluffs again and only riverbluffs 70% if you call down.

Yeah I'm definitely drunk but that's more or less my point.

Guy.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


(3) Okay, I'm mentioning this just because I don't understand Entity's ~70 percent figure, but . . .

If Villain will fire again on the river only 70 percent of the time after his 14-outer busts (and he will never semibluff-cap the turn or donk-bluff the river), then the calldown nets us about 0.2 BB less than the turn free-showdown raise would have.

(4) A turn semibluff-cap costs us about 6 BB any time Villain makes the play.

(5) A river donk-bluff costs us 10 BB any time Villain makes the play.


[/ QUOTE ]

This was more or less what I was going to post but I had to go to the pub instead. Now I've been to said pub so this might all be drunken nonsense but..

I completely see how the possibility of a turn 4-bet semibluff or river donkbluff kill MilesDyson's line, but I don't see Entity's point about river bluffing 70% - seems to me that the turn 3-bet nets you a big bet 100% of the time so is better IF he never bluffs again and only riverbluffs 70% if you call down.

Yeah I'm definitely drunk but that's more or less my point.

Guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I think my lack of sleep may have been messing with my head a bit. I was thinking at the time that because you only "earn" .7x whatever goes in on the turn, then the extra bet everyone kept talking about was only a .7BB gain, not a full 1BB gain. I was neglecting to think about the fact that indiscriminately calling down means you lose 1BB on the river 30% of the time and gain it 70% of the time, though, which should in theory make them relatively equal, excepting the fact that you prevent yourself from being bluffed out of the pot, which is gigantic. Still looking at it now, though, I see absolutely no upside to 3betting the turn on this board.

Rob