You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

-£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here?

2»

Comments

  • dub1dub1 Member Posts: 149
    edited April 2012
    In Response to Re: -£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here?:
    Am I a respected reg?..can I comment lol.... Anyway the numbers look cool.  Fwiw I don't like ur flop size really...maybe it's better if you are gonna be check raising some complete air balls too.   Just a cooler with how it's played.  Also the villain in the hand is decent so threfore the range is a lot wider than most on the site...
    Posted by scotty77
    What do you feel about the plan in general of calling 3Bets OOP vs a percieved range of 12-14% all broadway combos, and check/raising low flops, some people have disagreed, claiming it to never be +ev?
  • percival09percival09 Member Posts: 3,804
    edited April 2012
    In Response to Re: -£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here?:
    In Response to Re: -£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here? : What do you feel about the plan in general of calling 3Bets OOP vs a percieved range of 12-14% all broadway combos, and check/raising low flops, some people have disagreed, claiming it to never be +ev?
    Posted by dub1
    Just in case you're referring to my post here - I stated it's 'definitely not profitable' meaning over a long period of time.. Occasionaly of course this will work - but so will the worst plays in the book. Just to clarify I said calling a 3b oop vs a laggy opponent with 67s ISN'T profitable over a long period of time - It's not going to be a low flop enough of the time in order for it to be
  • WHOAMI196WHOAMI196 Member Posts: 1,170
    edited April 2012
    When calculating the math you have to add the amount you have to call on top of the pot to work it out

    (89 + 25) = 114/25 require equity 25%, thus making it a call as you are clearly getting over 4-1, River is +EV to call, rest of the hand is prob not so, flop is so dry a float would be better and make a play on the turn.

     dubdubdub interesting hand though, note taking here ;)
  • dub1dub1 Member Posts: 149
    edited April 2012
    In Response to Re: -£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here?:
    In Response to Re: -£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here? : Just in case you're referring to my post here - I stated it's 'definitely not profitable' meaning over a long period of time.. Occasionaly of course this will work - but so will the worst plays in the book. Just to clarify I said calling a 3b oop vs a laggy opponent with 67s ISN'T profitable over a long period of time - It's not going to be a low flop enough of the time in order for it to be
    Posted by percival09
    Percival09?

    In previous posts you seem to think that i donk have a clue about villains range. Villain and I have played 1k's of hands together. I think I have villains range down. Like I said 12-14% all broadway combos.

    I Have to disagree with you about not being able to turn a profit long term.
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner Member Posts: 3,863
    edited April 2012
    I'm certainly not a well respected reg, but I'll offer my opinion anyway.

    First; Yes the numbers on the call are fine. You can reasonably expect to have 12 outs, so are 3/1 to win. Therefore you need 3/1 pot odds and 89/26 is better than 3/1. You'd be pretty unlucky to see a higher flush draw.

    I do have concerns with your flop raise size and your turn bet size though.

    The problem with the flop check-raise is that you offer really good odds on the call. I don't necessarily hate the size but you have to be confident that it will get two random overcards to fold (so it's read dependent). You are making a pure bluff here. You can't like getting called and if you can't get two overs to fold, then what's the point? With that in mind, one of two things is wrong: Either the size of your raise is wrong or the range you're assigning to your opponent on the turn should not include those AK, KQ type hands that had no hand and no draw on the flop. You should be making a raise that you would expect to only be called by a made hand, not be called by just two overs or as a float.

    The issue I have with the turn bet is that it's a bit small. If you're leading out on the turn you might as well make a bet that continues a reasonably strong story and gives a chance to those weak one-pair hands to fold. You're not going to be bet-folding, so make it £20. However, I'm not sure we should be leading on this turn.

    The alternative to the bet-call line on the turn would be a check-fold, I think. I wouldn't mind that since you should expect that your check-raise on the flop would only be called by a made hand, with no draws on this dry flop. Once you check you wouldn't be getting the right odds to call, unless he makes a very small bet, and you might just get a free card out of him.

    As for playing out of position; we do need to form strategies for doing it. We definitely don't want to play out of position but it can't always be avoided. In this case, I think you had a sound strategy for dealing with someone who had been 3-betting alot. Calling with the 67s or similar and check-raising a dry flop is fine but once our check-raise fails, most of the time we'll have to give up.

    So in this hand, if I was using your strategy, I'd check-raise the flop to about £15 or £17, then check-fold the turn. I'm sure there are people who'd disagree.
  • BorinLonerBorinLoner Member Posts: 3,863
    edited April 2012
    If our opponent is capable of frequently floating our check-raise with air then we shouldn't call the 3-bet pre-flop. Allowing a highly-skilled laggy player to have position on us in an inflated pot with 67 isn't going to be profitable.
  • grantorinograntorino Member Posts: 4,710
    edited April 2012
    EV of folding =0 (as it always is)

    EV of calling (assuming your range correct)
    =(89.08*0.25)-(25.94*0.75)
    =22.27-19.46
    =+£2.81

    so its a call.

    We dont own money in pot already so I would usually use above method, your method may be fine also
  • grantorinograntorino Member Posts: 4,710
    edited April 2012
    also if you want to go nuts in this hand I prefer c/c flop c/r turn. Fold>>4b/f>>>>>>>>>>call pre, unless you completely own villain
  • DrSharpDrSharp Member Posts: 1,213
    edited April 2012
    If we use solomons rule i think its something like (number of outs x 4)-(number of outs in excess of 8)=%

    This is with 2 cards to come though but we can just divide this by 2 to give us a more accurate % than using the rule of 2 and 4.

    So we have 12 outs.... (12x4)-4=44/2=22%.

    Using gt's maths which i believe to be correct

    =(89.08*0.22)-(25.94*0.78)
    =19.60-20.33
    =-0.73.

    Hopefully someone can double check that as i have only just recently messed about with this. If i am right here then this is -EV but very marginal.

    I'm not a respected reg,i am a simple micro stakes player so if someone could confirm whether my math is right or wrong it would be appreciated.
  • LOL_RAISELOL_RAISE Member Posts: 2,188
    edited April 2012
    pre is really really bad tbh, regarding raise size i prefer c/minraising but i think your raise size is fine
  • Spad3sSpad3s Member Posts: 269
    edited April 2012
    In Response to Re: -£ but most +ev. Is my math correct here?:
    If our opponent is capable of frequently floating our check-raise with air then we shouldn't call the 3-bet pre-flop. Allowing a highly-skilled laggy player to have position on us in an inflated pot with 67 isn't going to be profitable.
    Posted by BorinLoner

    Yes dub1, be wary of highly skilled players like the villian.

    Be very very wary.
  • rancidrancid Member Posts: 5,945
    edited April 2012
    No one respects me but ..............

    fold pre


    call now even though it's not massive +EV

    Not sure calling pre in this situation long term would actually turn out +EV overall but hey..........
    maybe you own vill oop - yes raise flop when vill flats pre)

  • dub1dub1 Member Posts: 149
    edited April 2012
    First off apologies for the misunderstanding about my comment

    "respected regs"

    My bad, I can see how this sounds bad. what I meant was "Higher stakes griders." I was not inplying that I disrespect anyone. 

    Also thanks for everyones input.

    All the best
    dub1
Sign In or Register to comment.