$5/5 Session, Hand #4

[shynepo3 0]

I think the OP is being results-oriented in his description of the hand and his reads. No way a standard read is that someone will call a 3x pot overshove on the flop with a naked draw (and not even a nut one at that)The ranges aren't as wide as a lot of people are saying they are. OP hit the bottom of both their (even wider than normal) ranges here, but for normal players MP's overshove is FDs, flopped straights/sets/2P, and combo draws. MP+1's call is much more weighted to made hands and combos.

I can definitely see why you would think this...and me too, if I wasn't there, but my first instinct is to fold...but he was insanely aggro....but my reads are the same as when I played the hand. I just got lucky that I happen to be closer to what I was hoping for. I didn't expect to be that close though...like i had said, I put MP on a better hand that open ended straight draw with a pair of 3's, but not a set/straight. I thought I had good equity against him, and a ton against MP+1.Without the pair and/or gutshot, and just the flush draw, maybe I dont call...Only thing, I dont see why you would think MP+1 couldn't have a draw...when he calls the shove, he knows nobody can really raise more than the shove (only by a bit). So unless he wants to isolate, with a made hand, he's better of calling with his draw to get invite callers. My reasoning I guess....he is drawing to the nut straight...so in his mind, i think he knows once he calls, he's giving flush draws odds to call, so basically, he hits one of his 6 outs, he has the nuts...so he wants callers...did i mention he came to gamble?

[Ninja Ace 1]

did i mention i don't understand how a snap call got on page 2?

[SwolyswoND 1]

Why don't you run out the math and show us

I don't have stove to calculate exact equity but I'll give it my best shot. I'm also of course not going to use the hands the villains showed up with, as I don't think that is reasonable. Against a set (we'll say 55, the numbers are just slightly different for 22) and another FD: We have 7 outs, only 1 of which is not subject to villain's 9 redraw outs. So we have approximately 23% equity.Against a set and two pair: this is an unlikely scenario to begin with given card removal, but in this situation we have 9 outs, only 1 of which is not subject to 7 redraw outs. That gives us ~ 32% equity.Against a straight and a FD: 7 outs, for about 28% equityAgainst a straight and a set: 9 outs, subject to 9 redraw outs, for ~30% equityAgainst 54 and a FD: Again unlikely given card removal (and I'm not going to bother with 52/24 as that shouldn't be in villain's ranges) 11 outs, against 3 redraws, for ~39% equityGiven these various equities, and the fact that I would weight very heavily toward the set/FD, set/straight, and straight/FD combos, I calculate as a whole we have approximately 29% equity here.Since we have to shove and can't just call, we are risking $510 to win $1130. We are therefore getting 2.21:1 odds, and would need 31.1% equity.So it's -EV, granted actually closer than I expected, but add to the top how insanely high variance it is and that we shouldn't be getting ourselves into high variance neutral EV situations in live poker where we should have a huge edge, and this should be an easy fold.

[mtdesmoines 3]

You're 35% to hit the flush approx.HOWEVER. That drops to 30% if you're up against another FD, and if you're up against a set you're 25% because they have kill outs/redraw if you get there.I think this is some combo of set/straight/FD a lot. I don't think I'd call here with only $40 invested.

And I'm thinking ... "how do I get all kinds of money in this pot."

[shynepo3 0]

I don't have stove to calculate exact equity but I'll give it my best shot. I'm also of course not going to use the hands the villains showed up with, as I don't think that is reasonable. Against a set (we'll say 55, the numbers are just slightly different for 22) and another FD: We have 7 outs, only 1 of which is not subject to villain's 9 redraw outs. So we have approximately 23% equity.Against a set and two pair: this is an unlikely scenario to begin with given card removal, but in this situation we have 9 outs, only 1 of which is not subject to 7 redraw outs. That gives us ~ 32% equity.Against a straight and a FD: 7 outs, for about 28% equityAgainst a straight and a set: 9 outs, subject to 9 redraw outs, for ~30% equityAgainst 54 and a FD: Again unlikely given card removal (and I'm not going to bother with 52/24 as that shouldn't be in villain's ranges) 11 outs, against 3 redraws, for ~39% equityGiven these various equities, and the fact that I would weight very heavily toward the set/FD, set/straight, and straight/FD combos, I calculate as a whole we have approximately 29% equity here.Since we have to shove and can't just call, we are risking $510 to win $1130. We are therefore getting 2.21:1 odds, and would need 31.1% equity.So it's -EV, granted actually closer than I expected, but add to the top how insanely high variance it is and that we shouldn't be getting ourselves into high variance neutral EV situations in live poker where we should have a huge edge, and this should be an easy fold.

wow..good post...in the end, about a 2% diff, given your calculations...and you're adamant on folding...so if one of us was to make a case for calling, i'm sure we could show a bigger difference than 2% (it wouldn't be me, that's just too much math)...but really, it's close either way...i can see both sides...

[SwolyswoND 1]

Yes, it's close, but that's why the last point in my post was so key. This is very neutral EV, if its + or - it's not much in either direction. But it's HUGE on variance. And when we're playing live, where we typically have a big edge, and especially against the drooler players you describe, we should typically be avoiding high variance, neutral EV plays for 100 bb.

[trystero 0]

Swolys you need stove to do this. Because you're not using it your numbers are off. For example you're saying that against 55 and a flush draw we're 23%. That's not true; if we're against KhQh and 55 we're about 32% to win. Similarly, against 54 and a FD (say khqh) we're 47% to win, not 39%.You also have to at the very least consider the opponents' actual hands. You can't say that their holdings aren't reasonable when they are in fact what they showed up with. These aggrotards are bad and can certainly felt marginal holdings. TT/99 wouldn't shock me.

[SwolyswoND 1]

Swolys you need stove to do this. Because you're not using it your numbers are off. For example you're saying that against 55 and a flush draw we're 23%. That's not true; if we're against KhQh and 55 we're about 32% to win. Similarly, against 54 and a FD (say khqh) we're 47% to win, not 39%. You also have to at the very least consider the opponents' actual hands. You can't say that their holdings aren't reasonable when they are in fact what they showed up with. These aggrotards are bad and can certainly felt marginal holdings. TT/99 wouldn't shock me.

I cannot see how this could possibly be true. In scenario #1, we only have 7 outs, which if there were no redraws would give us about 28% equity. But there ARE kill/redraw outs, and quite a few of them. I also just don't see how in scenario #2 it can be higher than 40%, when we have 10 outs. (7 hearts and three aces...the 4s are no good)And I have to disagree with the bottom part of your post. Usually the live fish are too passive, not too aggro, and I'm not going to base my analysis on what the two biggest idiots did in this situation. I mean seriously I don't know who was dumber, the guy who lawl 3x pot shoved 33 or the guy who called said shove with 67o. The term "reasonable" means what an ordinary, prudent person would do under the same circumstances. I feel my given range reflects that, and the reasonable range doesn't include 33 or 67o. If OP hadn't posted their hands, we never would've thought to include them in the range.

[BaseJester 1]

I don't have stove to calculate exact equity but I'll give it my best shot. I'm also of course not going to use the hands the villains showed up with, as I don't think that is reasonable. Against a set (we'll say 55, the numbers are just slightly different for 22) and another FD: We have 7 outs, only 1 of which is not subject to villain's 9 redraw outs. So we have approximately 23% equity.

You're omitting the straight outs.

Board: 2h 4d 5hDead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	36.768%	  35.86% 	00.91% 			  1065 		   27.00   { Ah4h }Hand 1: 	63.232%	  62.32% 	00.91% 			  1851 		   27.00   { 55 }

Board: 2h 4d 5hDead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	38.345%	  37.79% 	00.56% 			 29346 		  432.00   { Ah4h }Hand 1: 	30.827%	  28.58% 	02.25% 			 22191 		 1749.00   { 55-44, 22, KhQh, 53s }Hand 2: 	30.827%	  28.58% 	02.25% 			 22191 		 1749.00   { 55-44, 22, KhQh, 53s }

[SwolyswoND 1]

I did indeed BaseJester, and mea culpa on that. But in turn, in calc #1 there you omitted that we were assuming up against a set and another FD. I'm also not sure why you included 53s in the villains' ranges for calc #2.

[trystero 0]

I wouldn't have included 33, sure, but I'd include other hands against which we have massive equity. You can't say "live players are usually passive" and then apply it universally, especially when OP's read was that these two guys were aggressive. OK, 33 is ridiculous, but is TT really unreasonable for anyone to have?As for the equities...I'm going with PokerStove. I can say this, that your original analysis excluded our gutshot draw and our backdoor outs. edit: Jester for the save.

[BaseJester 1]

I did indeed BaseJester, and mea culpa on that. But in turn, in calc #1 there you omitted that we were assuming up against a set and another FD. I'm also not sure why you included 53s in the villains' ranges for calc #2.

I don't know why either. I meant for it to be a straight.

Board: 2h 4d 5hDead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	33.468%	  33.09% 	00.38% 			 35856 		  410.00   { Ah4h }Hand 1: 	33.266%	  29.89% 	03.37% 			 32394 		 3653.00   { 55-44, 22, KhQh, 63s }Hand 2: 	33.266%	  29.89% 	03.37% 			 32394 		 3653.00   { 55-44, 22, KhQh, 63s }

[mtdesmoines 3]

And I have to disagree with the bottom part of your post. Usually the live fish are too passive, not too aggro, and I'm not going to base my analysis on what the two biggest idiots did in this situation. I mean seriously I don't know who was dumber, the guy who lawl 3x pot shoved 33 or the guy who called said shove with 67o. The term "reasonable" means what an ordinary, prudent person would do under the same circumstances. I feel my given range reflects that, and the reasonable range doesn't include 33 or 67o. If OP hadn't posted their hands, we never would've thought to include them in the range.

If you ever want to make your game profitable for real money, you have to put it in here. Middle limit players will never give you any action if you play only strong hands.

[SwolyswoND 1]

If you ever want to make your game profitable for real money, you have to put it in here. Middle limit players will never give you any action if you play only strong hands.

I think this statement is way too broad. If I had any FE in the hand or if villains' bet sizes were more normal (i.e. not a 3x pot overshove) then I probably would be putting everything in the middle with this hand. It's the 3x overshove and flat call of that shove that made me call this a fold. And I still think it's way too high variance for a live game, even if it is in fact slightly +EV.

[BaseJester 1]

And I still think it's way too high variance for a live game, even if it is in fact slightly +EV.

Why do you tolerate less variance in a live game?

[mtdesmoines 3]

I think this statement is way too broad. If I had any FE in the hand or if villains' bet sizes were more normal (i.e. not a 3x pot overshove) then I probably would be putting everything in the middle with this hand. It's the 3x overshove and flat call of that shove that made me call this a fold. And I still think it's way too high variance for a live game, even if it is in fact slightly +EV.

It's slightly +EV vs two made hands. We can't be sure that we're sitting here looking at two made hands. Hey, yo, bring on the variance and marginal spots, please. It only makes the upswongs bigger.

[SwolyswoND 1]

Base, I tolerate less variance in live games because my edge - whether real, perceived, or both - is higher there than online. Therefore I feel less need to take gigantic risks with high variance spots for huge pots. Yes in the long run we might come out slightly ahead there, but I feel there are much better spots.

[BaseJester 1]

Base, I tolerate less variance in live games because my edge - whether real, perceived, or both - is higher there than online. Therefore I feel less need to take gigantic risks with high variance spots for huge pots. Yes in the long run we might come out slightly ahead there, but I feel there are much better spots.

This is covered in the FAQ. You're letting your emotions get in the way of a better win rate if you pass this up, imho.

[SwolyswoND 1]

This is covered in the FAQ. You're letting your emotions get in the way of a better win rate if you pass this up, imho.

I'm aware of that discussion in the FAQ, and I don't think the situations are equal, even though I used the same term. In online, you can easily play for stacks at 100bb games with the slightest of EV edges, because you should be properly rolled for the amount, and even if you only win 25% of the time but are getting 3.1:1 odds, it's still fine to push that edge because you can get so many hands in that the variance evens out more quickly.Live, let's admit it, since 1/2 is the smallest live, there are very few of us who are actually properly rolled for it (that is, who are comfortably rolled for 200NL online). Also, since when playing live you get in far fewer hands in the same time frame that you would online, variance is a much higher factor when you push marginal spots. It's the size of the pot here and the exact circumstances that made this a fold for me. If the original bet was pot-sized and then MP+1 called, I'd be shoving. If the pot on the flop was 40 and the betting was 120 from MP, call from MP+1, I'd be shoving. But yes, I would much rather wait for a bigger +EV spot, with less variance, than pushing a 2-3% equity edge in a pot for over 300bbs.