Jump to content

Qdjd Flop Straight Fd Against Fish


Recommended Posts

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?
Yes.
In that event we have zero fold equity right?
Yes.
Therefore we're not dependent on FE to make getting it all in the middle the correct move.
"Getting it all in the middle" isn't a move. Betting all-in is a move. It requires some non-zero fold equity to be correct.Calling an all-in is correct given that the villain pushes due to our equity and pot odds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.
If by "show a profit" you mean that we have less money than we did before we bet but still more than if we folded, then yes, shoving the turn and getting called shows a profit.I find that not to be the ideal definition, but whatever floats your boat is fine with me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Noone is arguing in the slightest that we lose money by shoving. In fact, noone is really arguing that shoving the turn isn't the best move. It is. But a lot of you are really misunderstanding WHY it is the best move. It's not because we make money even when called. It's not because being aggressive is better than being passive. It is because we have fold equity. That is the ONLY reason why shoving is good here (ignoring metagame). If we knew villain had A9, shoving would be stupid. In fact, against an 87/9, if we knew he was calling our shove, then checking would be MASSIVELY more profitable.Similarly to the other thread on this topic, I believe it is relatively close, especially because an 87/9/2 player is very rarely going to be shoving this turn. A large % of the time he will be checking behind, and I think he will pay us off a decent % of the time too. I think people just totally miss where the equity comes from.Apologies to BaseJester for basically repeating his posts from earlier here.I think there's a lack of understanding of what pot odds mean in terms of profitability, and incredibly important free cards are in terms of equity. Any time we put money into the pot with less than 50% equity, we lose money. Full stop. If we have pot odds to call, the money we lose on that street remains offset by our equity share of the main pot.Suppose for simplicity that the pot is 100 and we have 40% equity.Suppose we can guarantee to check this hand down regardless. We will win ~40% of the pot as it stands, or $40.If we shove $50 on the turn and get called, we get 40% back from an overall $200 in the pot = $80. We have put in $50 and got back $80, for a $30 profit. Yay. But had we checked it down we would be $10 better off. We have put in $50 when we are only 40%. As a result we get back 40% of the $100 that goes in on the turn. We lost $10 by putting that money in. It's just that we already had $40 equity to start, so it remains profitable despite the deduction. We would prefer it to be checked down though. In this case we would prefer to get as little money in on the turn as possible.If we shove $200 on the turn and get called, we get 40% back from an overall $500 in the pot = $200. We have put in $200 and got back $200. What has actually happened though? Looking at the turn alone, $400 has gone in, and we got 40% of that back. That's $160. We lost $40. However, we had $40 equity in the original pot, so overall the loss on the turn action breaks us even.I'll say this again, because it seems like people are skirting over it or misunderstanding it. If you put money into the pot with <50% equity, you lose money. Having pot odds simply means that the amount you lose on that action is less than the amount of equity you already hold in the pot.1) If it checks through here, you get a minimum of $17.5 if he never pays you off for anything when you hit.*2) If all the money goes in here you get just $8.3) If he folds you get $46.*(In fact you will likely get >$25 if it checks through because he will definitely call a river bet a reasonable % of the time)It should be quite clear from these 3 true statements that fold equity is where ALL the value of shoving originates. If you cannot steal the pot, then you should want as little cash to go in as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It should be quite clear from these 3 true statements that fold equity is where ALL the value of shoving originates. If you cannot steal the pot, then you should want as little cash to go in as possible.
This is what I've been saying the whole time. If you could fully eliminate the villain from folding, then obviously shoving doesn't do anything. But we can never assume he doesn't fold the turn. I think honestly he folds the turn pretty often, somewhere 25% and under. Even 87/9/2 fish make hero folds.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what I've been saying the whole time. If you could fully eliminate the villain from folding, then obviously shoving doesn't do anything. But we can never assume he doesn't fold the turn. I think honestly he folds the turn pretty often, somewhere 25% and under. Even 87/9/2 fish make hero folds.
We should also consider that villain is getting to the turn with an extremely wide range of hands. Granted, villain probably has something here, due to flop action, but that doesn't mean villain is super strong here and won't fold on the turn. Also, we don't need that much fe to make shoving correct. It's obviously much better if he does though.
Link to post
Share on other sites

"As played the turn is certainly a shove and you really don't need any FE""On the turn villain doesn't need to fold in order for hero to profit. Yes even though we're almost certainly a dog. Hero likely has about 40% equity and is getting better than 2:1 on a shove. You understand this don't you?"BaseJester has been trying to demonstrate that this logic is false, and has been called stupid and retarded for it by people who are quite simply not understanding him. I just think it's out of line to criticise him when he has made many valid points.In a way it reminds me of ID vs Evolution."Intelligent Design is how we came to be here""Look, here's some evidence of evolution""We look designed, therefore we are designed. You don't need evidence to see that's right"Maybe I'm being a little unkind here, but it does remind me of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Simo, why do you not expect an 87/9/2 to be shoving the turn often? Do you guys realize how massively high 2 AF is for an 87% VPIP? That's insanely aggro.
It really was just the reasoning that I think people are/were missing. The logic you gave for shoving is horribly incomplete and unpersuasive."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)."You skipped over what the concept actually is, and you provided no reasoning for WHY shoving is better. If we have 5% fold equity then shoving is pretty obviously not as good as checking, so it's not as simple as you made out. It's a complex equation with several variables, and although in this case shoving is better, it wouldn't take much for check/calling to be better. You simply stated the potential upside to shoving and then basically said "plus, if the money is going in anyway we may as well shove".In any case it's fairly irrelevant overall because I think we all generally agree that in this case shoving>checking. However, I don't think he shoves the turn very often when checked to.- He doesn't shove anything like KT/QT on the turn. He either checks or he bets small.- He doesn't shove a set or two pair on the turn every time. Again, I think he bets like $20 or something a lot of the time.- 100 hands isn't enough to converge aggression factor, even for someone playing as many hands as he is.- AF of 2 doesn't tell you much in terms of bet sizing. I'd imagine he loves minraising and minbetting. I'd say he's likely to be the sort to minbet/call, minbet/call, minbet/call down.- IMO 87/9 players don't float you very light and shove the turn.I'm struggling to think of a range that he would just shove with on the turn. Maybe some draws. Maybe T9. I just don't see him pushing that often because I really think this kind of player will very often do stupid shit like bet $7 on the turn with JT/99/etc and then pay off on any river.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It really was just the reasoning that I think people are/were missing. The logic you gave for shoving is horribly incomplete and unpersuasive."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)."You skipped over what the concept actually is, and you provided no reasoning for WHY shoving is better. If we have 5% fold equity then shoving is pretty obviously not as good as checking, so it's not as simple as you made out. It's a complex equation with several variables, and although in this case shoving is better, it wouldn't take much for check/calling to be better. You simply stated the potential upside to shoving and then basically said "plus, if the money is going in anyway we may as well shove".In any case it's fairly irrelevant overall because I think we all generally agree that in this case shoving>checking. However, I don't think he shoves the turn very often when checked to.- He doesn't shove anything like KT/QT on the turn. He either checks or he bets small.- He doesn't shove a set or two pair on the turn every time. Again, I think he bets like $20 or something a lot of the time.- 100 hands isn't enough to converge aggression factor, even for someone playing as many hands as he is.- AF of 2 doesn't tell you much in terms of bet sizing. I'd imagine he loves minraising and minbetting. I'd say he's likely to be the sort to minbet/call, minbet/call, minbet/call down.- IMO 87/9 players don't float you very light and shove the turn.I'm struggling to think of a range that he would just shove with on the turn. Maybe some draws. Maybe T9. I just don't see him pushing that often because I really think this kind of player will very often do stupid shit like bet $7 on the turn with JT/99/etc and then pay off on any river.
Don't try to come up with ranges for donks. Their ranges are all over the place and tend to be very random. Don't try to give reason to those without reason.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is this skipping over what the concept is? You skipped over this part and bolded another part of my paragraph."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 (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity)."That's the concept. There's really nothing more to it.Simo, you keep doing your complex equations and whatever. If it works for you, then good job with it. If you keep doing things like this and trying to break down ranges of fish with no concept of what they're doing, you won't make it far in the poker world.FWIW, Raptor made an interesting comment in the recent Leak Finder Pro video with Taylor Caby. The topic of math was brought up and he said something along the lines of "that's why there's no math guys in the nosebleed games." Most good players understand the math involved. But they don't fawn over every little detail like you seem to do. They use their knowledge (accumulated over hundreds of thousands or millions of hands) and intuition to make decisions. Yes, they incorporate math into their game, but they don't break down every single little move.All I'm saying is, you do a lot of breakdown and analysis and make a lot of matter-of-fact statements, but where is it getting you in the cash game world? Instead of spending time on trivial things like this, figure out where your bigger leaks are and focus on them. THAT will make you a better player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, you called BaseJester stupid and retarded, when in fact he was making valid points. You were just missing his point entirely, jumping to incorrect conclusions, then insulting him. All he was saying is that the logic presented in the thread was based on an incorrect interpretation of pot odds and equity (that having pot odds = profit). Psujohn made some comments that were wrong and he analysed the flaw in the thinking. Did he deserve to be called retarded for that? The rest of this thread is just trying to better explain that misunderstanding. The idea that having pot odds doesn't make something profitable. The fact that if you have <50% equity you lose money when you bet or call.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And how is this skipping over what the concept is? You skipped over this part and bolded another part of my paragraph."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 (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity)."That's the concept. There's really nothing more to it.
There is more to it. You're trying to remove all thought from the alternative line. You're saying "Shoving is better because X, Y, Z" without comparing it to anything. All you're doing is saying that shoving makes money which is something noone disagrees with anyway. You just completely ignore any merits of any other line because you seemingly already know for absolute certain that you are right. You did the same in the previous thread. Why do you flat out refuse to acknowledge or discuss any other possibility?Again, this does remind me of the ID argument."We look designed, so we are designed""Have you considered evolution?""No, why would I? ID works.""But there's a lot of persuasive evidence here""You don't need to look into all that. We look designed, therefore we ARE designed. Simple as. Move on."
Simo, you keep doing your complex equations and whatever. If it works for you, then good job with it. If you keep doing things like this and trying to break down ranges of fish with no concept of what they're doing, you won't make it far in the poker world.FWIW, Raptor made an interesting comment in the recent Leak Finder Pro video with Taylor Caby. The topic of math was brought up and he said something along the lines of "that's why there's no math guys in the nosebleed games."
FWIW I've heard CTS and sbrugby talk about creating spreadsheets to analyse ranges. That's kind of irrelevant though and it doesn't further the discussion about this hand. In fact, you're almost saying that doing this math makes me a worse player. I'm not trying to analytically break down the ranges of fish, my "intuition" tells me that he won't shove the turn very often; that based on my experience with players like this they will very often bet a weird amount or check behind. You asked me to justify it and I gave an answer as best I could. Then you told me that I can't justify it anyway.
Most good players understand the math involved. But they don't fawn over every little detail like you seem to do. They use their knowledge (accumulated over hundreds of thousands or millions of hands) and intuition to make decisions. Yes, they incorporate math into their game, but they don't break down every single little move.All I'm saying is, you do a lot of breakdown and analysis and make a lot of matter-of-fact statements, but where is it getting you in the cash game world? Instead of spending time on trivial things like this, figure out where your bigger leaks are and focus on them. THAT will make you a better player.
Do you actually think I create spreadsheets to work out whether to call or fold? You might be surprised at how little 'math' there is in my game. If I was so driven to being a better player I'd play more than 3k hands a month, and I'd watch more CR vids than I do at the moment. I do these equations because I find them interesting and I like discussing theory, not because I think it will make me a better player. I analyse people's stats not because it makes me a better player, but because I think it's helpful. Same with many of the MSN/AIM discussions I have with people. Plus, I guess I could say the same to you. Have you become a better player with the posts you've made in this thread? You could have spent this time focusing on your own leaks.Look, I have nothing against you at all and I don't really want to go further into this almost non-existent argument. I just didn't appreciate you insulting someone for going into a bit of theory. I felt like his message was being misinterpreted and that I should straighten it out. It looks like I may have failed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And how is this skipping over what the concept is? You skipped over this part and bolded another part of my paragraph."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 (or we're going to be getting it in with around 40% equity)."That's the concept. There's really nothing more to it.Simo, you keep doing your complex equations and whatever. If it works for you, then good job with it. If you keep doing things like this and trying to break down ranges of fish with no concept of what they're doing, you won't make it far in the poker world.FWIW, Raptor made an interesting comment in the recent Leak Finder Pro video with Taylor Caby. The topic of math was brought up and he said something along the lines of "that's why there's no math guys in the nosebleed games." Most good players understand the math involved. But they don't fawn over every little detail like you seem to do. They use their knowledge (accumulated over hundreds of thousands or millions of hands) and intuition to make decisions. Yes, they incorporate math into their game, but they don't break down every single little move.All I'm saying is, you do a lot of breakdown and analysis and make a lot of matter-of-fact statements, but where is it getting you in the cash game world? Instead of spending time on trivial things like this, figure out where your bigger leaks are and focus on them. THAT will make you a better player.
arrogance, that will be your downfall
Link to post
Share on other sites
All I'm saying is, you do a lot of breakdown and analysis and make a lot of matter-of-fact statements, but where is it getting you in the cash game world? Instead of spending time on trivial things like this, figure out where your bigger leaks are and focus on them. THAT will make you a better player.
It's on. Heads up for rolls. We'll play until one of us has it all.Meet me at UB playchip 246s. Unless you're chicken.
Link to post
Share on other sites
arrogance, that will be your downfall
Nice blanket statement with no real meaning. You need to be arrogant in a sense to be successful in this game, but you also need to be honest about where you are making mistakes in your game. Seriously, explain this statement and how it makes any sense at all. I'm successful because I'm aware of my abilities and I'm constantly finding weaknesses in my game and improving them. I also don't take uncontrolled shots or do anything to jeopardize my bankroll. Being CONFIDENT about my game certainly will not be my downfall.Edit: Oh and NOW I'll be arrogant and ask "Who are you to say something like that? Are you accomplished enough to even understand what it takes to be a successful higher stakes player (meaning stakes above uNL)?"
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's on. Heads up for rolls. We'll play until one of us has it all.Meet me at UB playchip 246s. Unless you're chicken.
I know you are being somewhat sarcastic in this post but I meant what I said in response to Simo. He spends a ridiculous amount of time analyzing very trivial things in the grand scheme of things. If he spent more time improving the bigger leaks in his game, he might actually go further as a player. The way I say it sounds harsh, but it's true, and it's something that more people need to realize. Spend time figuring out what your big mistakes are and do what it takes to fix them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I have nothing against you at all and I don't really want to go further into this almost non-existent argument. I just didn't appreciate you insulting someone for going into a bit of theory. I felt like his message was being misinterpreted and that I should straighten it out. It looks like I may have failed.
It's not just the theory, because I like discussing theory. It's also the "know-it-all without having proven results" attitude you often bring to the table, and the fact that you spend a lot of time just analyzing very trivial information. Yes, there are some great hands that can and should be thoroughly analyzed, but this isn't one of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's on. Heads up for rolls. We'll play until one of us has it all.Meet me at UB playchip 246s. Unless you're chicken.
Do you really play playmoney? If so I'd think you'd easily be able to get a staker. TBH I've been really impressed with your understanding and arguing of this stuff, and to think I used to think you were a joke account!
Link to post
Share on other sites
TBH I've been really impressed with your understanding and arguing of this stuff, and to think I used to think you were a joke account!
Oh, I'm definitely a joke account. Your read is correct. The poker stuff was serious, though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not just the theory, because I like discussing theory. It's also the "know-it-all without having proven results" attitude you often bring to the table, and the fact that you spend a lot of time just analyzing very trivial information. Yes, there are some great hands that can and should be thoroughly analyzed, but this isn't one of them.
That's not really how these medium works. Simo's posts stand on their own merit, not by an appeal to authority. We haven't really traded balance sheets, and even if we had, good results for a poster don't make his posts good and bad results don't make his posts bad.Results are something to consider, but we've put even Daniel Negreanu's posts under scrutiny. And I think that's a good thing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice blanket statement with no real meaning. You need to be arrogant in a sense to be successful in this game, but you also need to be honest about where you are making mistakes in your game. Seriously, explain this statement and how it makes any sense at all. I'm successful because I'm aware of my abilities and I'm constantly finding weaknesses in my game and improving them. I also don't take uncontrolled shots or do anything to jeopardize my bankroll. Being CONFIDENT about my game certainly will not be my downfall.Edit: Oh and NOW I'll be arrogant and ask "Who are you to say something like that? Are you accomplished enough to even understand what it takes to be a successful higher stakes player (meaning stakes above uNL)?"
I think he's saying this because you're always very, "Holy than thou" about a hand which you think there is no other way to play. This hand isn't one of those because I fully agree we need to shove. However, calling people names isn't exactly the most mature way of arguing another side unless you're Bill O'Reilly.I'm unsure about how you can say you are constantly looking for weaknesses in your game if you've almost never been willing to consider the other side of a problem once you've locked in your answer. It takes a lot of patience and understanding to improve and eliminate your weaknesses, and maybe you do have that, but you don't often show it here. That irks a lot of people.
It's not just the theory, because I like discussing theory. It's also the "know-it-all without having proven results" attitude you often bring to the table, and the fact that you spend a lot of time just analyzing very trivial information. Yes, there are some great hands that can and should be thoroughly analyzed, but this isn't one of them.
I'm really not sure results are the tool you should be using as your infallibility for your reasoning in a hand. Everyone is wrong at one time or another, and this is a really borderline "HU FOR ROLLZ" type of remark.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he's saying this because you're always very, "Holy than thou" about a hand which you think there is no other way to play. This hand isn't one of those because I fully agree we need to shove. However, calling people names isn't exactly the most mature way of arguing another side unless you're Bill O'Reilly.I'm unsure about how you can say you are constantly looking for weaknesses in your game if you've almost never been willing to consider the other side of a problem once you've locked in your answer. It takes a lot of patience and understanding to improve and eliminate your weaknesses, and maybe you do have that, but you don't often show it here. That irks a lot of people.I'm really not sure results are the tool you should be using as your infallibility for your reasoning in a hand. Everyone is wrong at one time or another, and this is a really borderline "HU FOR ROLLZ" type of remark.
There's a lot of times where I'm open to playing a hand multiple ways. There is really no link between my posts in this thread and your comment about me looking for weakness in my game. There are tons of posts where I'm open to playing a hand multiple ways. However when it comes down to it, a lot of the hands I've responded to recently are really standard spots where there is one BEST way to play it.The fact of the matter is, a lot of standard spots have a single best way to play it, especially in lower level games where history between players is not much of a factor (especially because even though 2 players may have played with each other a lot, their games aren't really advanced enough to the point that they're really using the metagames in their favor). A lot of these spots really don't require THAT much thinking, and there is one way of playing that will be significantly better than other options.Results are the best tool imo in judging the credibility of one's argument, not so much in a specific hand, but in the grand scheme of things. Whether you want to believe it or not, I am (and most would do better to) going to end up putting a lot more credit into the words of a proven MSNL+ winner than someone who speculates a lot at uNL/SSNL. I've seen a lot of Simo's posts, and occasionally I just end up wanting to smash my head into a wall based on some of the things he's said. Personally, I think he has a ton of FPS, and that's why I made the comment that he should be looking to plug his bigger leaks (and a lot of the FPS seems to generate from all of the theory and speculation that he does).Also, you kind of need to have somewhat of a thick skin when making strategy posts. It's more advantageous to you as a player if you get picked apart and chewed up, because it'll help you realize where you need to improve.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not really how these medium works. Simo's posts stand on their own merit, not by an appeal to authority. We haven't really traded balance sheets, and even if we had, good results for a poster don't make his posts good and bad results don't make his posts bad.Results are something to consider, but we've put even Daniel Negreanu's posts under scrutiny. And I think that's a good thing.
Oh I definitely agree with this. I just want to clear up that I'm not saying I don't respect people's posts if they don't have proven results. I'm saying, for this specific instance I've seen said player make a ton of posts, a lot of which come off in this "know it all" way, and I don't put a lot of stock into them anymore. And I do think think said player would do better to just ignore the standard spots, and just move onto leak plugging and fixing areas of his game that need improvement.I want to clear up that this isn't me just trying to bash someone because they're a micro stakes or SSNL player. That's where I started (and stayed for a long time) as a player.
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...