Jump to content

Qdjd Flop Straight Fd Against Fish


Recommended Posts

Because a huge donk is going to have a one pair here a LOT, and a ton of them are going to fold the turn . . .
What percent is a ton? I'm OK with your theory of him folding a lot on the turn, but I think you can see why it's not automatic.We know:
  1. He almost never folds preflop.
  2. He calls a lot on the flop.

And then you conclude (based on the range he must have), he'll fold a lot on the turn. OK, that's valid. But couldn't we also see a simpler trend of just calling a lot and infer that he'll call a lot on the turn?

It's a pretty simple concept. We currently have Q hi. We would prefer to win by making them fold. We're obviously not folding if we check and he shoves. Aggression is good. Passive is meh (usually you prefer being aggressive to being passive).
I have no argument with the concept, but it's not a first principle.
I don't know how you don't understand this. You made a lot of retarded posts in the other threads, and you continue to fill this thread with your stupidity.
Thanks.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think you're making sense here. It's just different than what I'm responding to. If you think the villain never folds, you shouldn't bet here. We would, in that case, have no "fold equity" and a shove would be a mistake. It's pure logic.The whole notion of balancing a range assumes that the villain is capable of folding. I like what you're saying here. We were, however, fortunate to receive an ace on the turn. If the turn bricks something else, he still loves his top pair against our phantom AK.Shoving the flop is exactly what I'm talking about. Bet the pot and raise twice the pot when he minraises.
If villain is never folding, which is false even for the fishiest of players, wouldn't this make shoving the turn even more correct against this particular opponent?
Link to post
Share on other sites
If villain is never folding, which is false even for the fishiest of players, wouldn't this make shoving the turn even more correct against this particular opponent?
Well, no. Are you thinking he'll call without a pair? We could be betting for value against a worse draw occasionally, but for the vast majority of his range we're making a semi-bluff by betting a brick turn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, no. Are you thinking he'll call without a pair? We could be betting for value against a worse draw occasionally, but for the vast majority of his range we're making a semi-bluff by betting a brick turn.
No, I don't. What do you think is villain's range here? How much of that range is villain folding to a turn shove? Is our equity against villain's calling range for a turn shove better than 31.5%?
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't. What do you think is villain's range here?
Before the turn action? He has something. Mostly a pair, but two pair, a set, or a draw sometimes.
How much of that range is villain folding to a turn shove? Is our equity against villain's calling range for a turn shove better than 31.5%?
Well, yes, I think quite clearly. I think you're falling into a logical trap I shall call the Panda fallacy.We can't bet for value in a heads-up pot when we're the dog. Right? No argument on this?We want him to fold the turn if we're behind. And we're almost always behind. So we want him to fold.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Before the turn action? He has something. Mostly a pair, but two pair, a set, or a draw sometimes.Well, yes, I think quite clearly. I think you're falling into a logical trap I shall call the Panda fallacy.We can't bet for value in a heads-up pot when we're the dog. Right? No argument on this?We want him to fold the turn if we're behind. And we're almost always behind. So we want him to fold.
:club: Are you serious? You do realize we show a profit against villain's calling range, right? We bet, villain calls, we show a profit. There is value. Whether villain folds or calls the turn shove, we profit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
:club: Are you serious? You do realize we show a profit against villain's calling range, right? We bet, villain calls, we show a profit. There is value. Whether villain folds or calls the turn shove, we profit.
Yeah, I'm serious and you're missing something.The hero has equity in the pot. That's great. Yea! Equity in the pot.Now we're playing the turn. We want to also make more money playing the turn, not just say, "Yea! We have equity in the pot."It makes perfect sense to semi-bluff (with a lot of equity) because we expect him to fold sometimes.After the flop action, the hero has 40% equity in a $45.75 pot. That is worth $18.30.If the hero shoves the turn, he has 40% equity in a $123.55 pot. That is worth $49.42. The hero paid $38.90 for this equity. If we just look at the turn action, the hero paid $38.90 and got $49.42. That's a net of $10.52. He lost money ($18.30 - $10.52) by betting the turn.That's probably not clearer than just saying betting and getting called as a dog is bad. I don't know what else to do, though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Before the turn action? He has something. Mostly a pair, but two pair, a set, or a draw sometimes.Well, yes, I think quite clearly. I think you're falling into a logical trap I shall call the Panda fallacy.We can't bet for value in a heads-up pot when we're the dog. Right? No argument on this?We want him to fold the turn if we're behind. And we're almost always behind. So we want him to fold.
But you're misunderstanding. Since the money we've put in the pot is no longer technically ours, in order to win that and his half of the pot, we shovel. Since we have less than a pot bet, we'll be risking our 38.9 to win his 38.9 PLUS the 45.75 already in the pot when he calls. That means we're getting better than 2:1 on a shove when we're hardly EVER worse than a 3:2 dog, meaning it's a winning play. Also if he folds, we win 45.75 without risking anything.Given that we A-L-W-A-Y-S have fold equity, we HAVE to shove this turn. He only needs to fold occasionally to make it profitable. Even when we have the worst hand, we can technically value/bluff shove our huge draw since we still have pretty high equity and there is so much money in the pot, and we have fold equity. We cannot fold if we check and he shoves, and since the range you're giving him for advocating a turn check means he's almost never checking back, we have to shoveeeeeeeeel.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But you're misunderstanding.
No, I'm not. Not even a little bit.
Since the money we've put in the pot is no longer technically ours, in order to win that and his half of the pot, we shovel.
All we have to do to get our share of the money in the pot is not fold. Nobody wants to even consider folding the turn, because it would be stupid. Shoving the turn does not create the equity we have in the pot. It's already there.
Since we have less than a pot bet, we'll be risking our 38.9 to win his 38.9 PLUS the 45.75 already in the pot when he calls. That means we're getting better than 2:1 on a shove when we're hardly EVER worse than a 3:2 dog, meaning it's a winning play.
When you compare it to folding, which is a meaningless benchmark, since we're not doing that.
Also if he folds, we win 45.75 without risking anything.
Which is good.
Given that we A-L-W-A-Y-S have fold equity, . .
OK.
we HAVE to shove this turn. He only needs to fold occasionally to make it profitable. Even when we have the worst hand, we can technically value/bluff shove our huge draw since we still have pretty high equity and there is so much money in the pot, and we have fold equity. We cannot fold if we check and he shoves, and since the range you're giving him for advocating a turn check means he's almost never checking back, we have to shoveeeeeeeeel.
The turn shove is fine, but it's not a value bet and the money in the pot doesn't justify it over check/calling.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You made a lot of retarded posts in the other threads, and you continue to fill this thread with your stupidity.
This entire post just reeks of stupidity. Either this is a level or you don't even have the beginnings of a clue here.
Can't we all just live in harmony, come together in a united voice, and tell Keith Crime he's an idiot?No?Worth a try.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're going to raise the flop, raise you like you ****ing mean it. What do you want to happen here? I'm pretty sure it's not get to the turn with the stack size you did.
On what street do you think the hero made money?It's the same damn hand as the other thread, and it's pretty meaningless to deem a play a correct with no notion of how often he folds. It would stand to reason from the description that it's very seldom, in which case the hero loses money on the turn action. Against a player who can fold, it would be a good line.
Can't we all just live in harmony, come together in a united voice, and tell Keith Crime he's an idiot?No?Worth a try.
Your responses bring the hate onto you.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I'm not. Not even a little bit.
Yeah, you're still missing it. FE is the key to this hand.
All we have to do to get our share of the money in the pot is not fold. Nobody wants to even consider folding the turn, because it would be stupid.
Obv.
Shoving the turn does not create the equity we have in the pot. It's already there.
Obv. Again, it's all about the FE we lose by checking.
When you compare it to folding, which is a meaningless benchmark, since we're not doing that.
I'm not comparing it to folding, I'm comparing to to checking.
Which is good.
Obv.
The turn shove is fine, but it's not a value bet and the money in the pot doesn't justify it over check/calling.
Yes, it absolutely does. Check calling FULLY eliminates the ability to take the pot down uncontested. We cannot force a better hand to fold by checking. Either way, since we're calling if he shoves, we're going to see the river. Since if we check, we lose the ability to push him off a hand, it's silly to check. This means that the ONLY way we'll win the hand is if we river a hand and hope it's good. We also give everyone at the table the ability to ALWAYS fold whenever we do shove turns here because we'll always have the nuts and never have a big draw.
Can't we all just live in harmony, come together in a united voice, and tell Keith Crime he's an idiot?No?Worth a try.
I can go for this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Without falling into all of the turn discussion (where I agree that shove is only move there) I want to come back to flop.OP: why did you decide to 3 bet 87 vpip guy and not 29 vpip guy (it obv should've been other way around). Adding the fact that Ama theorem applies here I like b/c on flop or 3bet allin.Bet/call will give us chance to draw and get paid because villain doesnt like fold button.3bet shove gets us actually value against his range as he might call you down with bottom pair.

Against this villain I think c/c the flop is probably better
Why aren't we cbetting this flop? I suppose you meant b/c
Link to post
Share on other sites
Without falling into all of the turn discussion (where I agree that shove is only move there) I want to come back to flop.OP: why did you decide to 3 bet 87 vpip guy and not 29 vpip guy (it obv should've been other way around). Adding the fact that Ama theorem applies here I like b/c on flop or 3bet allin.Bet/call will give us chance to draw and get paid because villain doesnt like fold button.3bet shove gets us actually value against his range as he might call you down with bottom pair.Why aren't we cbetting this flop? I suppose you meant b/c
Or he might call the flop and fold the turn (which a lot of donks like this will do). 3betting the flop with approximately this size is definitely optimal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of agree. This size will give us nice PSB on turn, but... On complete blank turn e.g 5 :club: I think this opponent does not find fold button very often. Ace is the best card for us (that doesn't complete our draw).

and fold the turn
OP read was that villain didn't like folding turns.As default play OP played it perfect. Now I'm not suggesting anymore but asking: can anything be done differently because of OP read, Snamuh?
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're going to raise the flop, raise you like you ****ing mean it. What do you want to happen here? I'm pretty sure it's not get to the turn with the stack size you did.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLQFT MOTHER****ERS
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, you're still missing it. FE is the key to this hand.
I have failed at conveying my point to you.This whole page of crap was a response to the Panda's post stating that we don't need any fold equity to shove. That misses the point of the turn shove. See? You and I agree on this part.
I'm not comparing it to folding, I'm comparing to to checking.
I think you kind of are. You could use the same exact logic to show that check/calling is a "winning" play. I'm not saying that we should check/call. Not at all. Let's just have the right reason for betting the turn: it's a semi-bluff, not a value bet.
Check calling FULLY eliminates the ability to take the pot down uncontested. We cannot force a better hand to fold by checking. Either way, since we're calling if he shoves, we're going to see the river. Since if we check, we lose the ability to push him off a hand, it's silly to check. This means that the ONLY way we'll win the hand is if we river a hand and hope it's good.
I have no problem with this.
We also give everyone at the table the ability to ALWAYS fold whenever we do shove turns here because we'll always have the nuts and never have a big draw.
I have no problem with this.Would it be fair to say that this is statement about balancing a range? Because that might get me in trouble.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This whole page of crap was a response to the Panda's post stating that we don't need any fold equity to shove. That misses the point of the turn shove. See? You and I agree on this part.
Well yes and no. What I meant by that is simply that if we check and villain shoves it's correct for us to call all-in. You agree with that right? In that event we have zero fold equity right? Therefore we're not dependent on FE to make getting it all in the middle the correct move.Now you're right in a sense. The reason that shoving is better than c/c'ing all-in is that we have some FE ALWAYS. Even if our only FE comes from villain disconnecting or mis-clicking it's better to shove.
Link to post
Share on other sites

wow I hope this thread continues.U know it's so funny how one person disagrees, calls someone names, and then 5 others share the same exact opinions. His pts have some merrit and he definitely doesn't deserve to b called stupid, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
wow I hope this thread continues.U know it's so funny how one person disagrees, calls someone names, and then 5 others share the same exact opinions. His pts have some merrit and he definitely doesn't deserve to b called stupid, etc.
I tend to avoid the personal insults for no apparent reason :club:
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have failed at conveying my point to you.1) This whole page of crap was a response to the Panda's post stating that we don't need any fold equity to shove. That misses the point of the turn shove. See? You and I agree on this part.2)I think you kind of are. You could use the same exact logic to show that check/calling is a "winning" play. I'm not saying that we should check/call. Not at all. Let's just have the right reason for betting the turn: it's a semi-bluff, not a value bet.3) I have no problem with this.I have no problem with this.4) Would it be fair to say that this is statement about balancing a range? Because that might get me in trouble.
1) I'd say its a "valuable semi-bluff." :club: Well we do need FE to shove the turn, we always have it.2) You can use the same kind of logic to show that checking is better, but again, you cannot make someone fold by checking. You lose all FE, and instead are relying on a guy to check behind when our check on the turn obviously shows that we're not really happy with that card.(Edit: I had to run so I didn't finish this before)3) aye.4) Balancing your range is important.
Well yes and no. What I meant by that is simply that if we check and villain shoves it's correct for us to call all-in. You agree with that right? In that event we have zero fold equity right? Therefore we're not dependent on FE to make getting it all in the middle the correct move.Now you're right in a sense. The reason that shoving is better than c/c'ing all-in is that we have some FE ALWAYS. Even if our only FE comes from villain disconnecting or mis-clicking it's better to shove.
I think the reason Simo is slamming his head off of a wall is because if thats the only time we have FE, then checking is better because he's more likely to check behind then accidentally fold or disconnect.Though it doesn't matter, we alwaysssssssssssss have actual FE, so the point doesn't really matter anyway. The thing is, if we NEVER expect him to fold, then checking is obviously better because we save money if he ever checks, and all the money is going in regardless on the turn.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1) I'd say its a "valuable semi-bluff." :club: Well we do need FE to shove the turn, we always have it.2) You can use the same kind of logic to show that checking is better, but again, you cannot make someone fold by checking. You lose all FE, and instead are relying on a guy to check behind when our check on the turn obviously shows that we're not really happy with that card.I think the reason Simo is slamming his head off of a wall is because if thats the only time we have FE, then checking is better because he's more likely to check behind then accidentally fold or disconnect.Though it doesn't matter, we alwaysssssssssssss have actual FE, so the point doesn't really matter anyway. The thing is, if we NEVER expect him to fold, then checking is obviously better because we save money if he ever checks, and all the money is going in regardless on the turn.
Actually, if we check and villain shoves turn, we can call and still show a profit. Against a set, which is an extremely narrow range for opponent, our equity is ~29%, and we need about 31.5% to show a profit.So, if we shove the turn and villain calls us 100% of the time we still show a profit.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...