Jump to content


Qdjd Flop Straight Fd Against Fish


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#41 Syous

Syous

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 579 posts

Posted 08 September 2008 - 12:34 AM

View PostBaseJester, on Sunday, September 7th, 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

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

#42 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 08 September 2008 - 01:00 AM

1) Shoving the turn is correct, and I don't think it's particularly close.2) BaseJester is correct.

#43 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 08 September 2008 - 03:58 AM

View PostNoBBiR, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 2:58 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#44 psujohn

psujohn

    There is no charge for awesomeness

  • Members
  • 3,788 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:MD

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:50 AM

View PostBaseJester, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 7:58 AM, said:

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.

#45 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:59 AM

View Postpsujohn, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 1:50 PM, said:

Even if our only FE comes from villain disconnecting or mis-clicking it's better to shove.
:club: :ts :D :D :4h :5c :D :3h :D :qh :qh :D :icon_clap: :icon_clap:

#46 SCS

SCS

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom, CA

Posted 08 September 2008 - 08:56 AM

View Postsimo_8ball, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 8:59 AM, said:

:club: :ts :D :D :4h :5c :D :3h :D :qh :qh :D :icon_clap: :icon_clap:
Explain please.

#47 krup24

krup24

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,561 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 08 September 2008 - 08:58 AM

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.
Give me a paper and pen so I can write about my life of sin. A couple bottles of gin in case I don't get in.
-2Pac

#48 NoBBiR

NoBBiR

    F34l2 Durrrr

  • Members
  • 3,522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton NY
  • Interests:Poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:No Lemon Tennis Hold Me Tightly.

Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:46 AM

View Postkrup24, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 8:58 AM, said:

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:
"How do they put the ****ing queen in the window?"

Darvin Moon, I hope you die in a grease fire.

#49 NoBBiR

NoBBiR

    F34l2 Durrrr

  • Members
  • 3,522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton NY
  • Interests:Poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:No Lemon Tennis Hold Me Tightly.

Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:54 AM

View PostBaseJester, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 3:58 AM, said:

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.

View Postpsujohn, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 4:50 AM, said:

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.
"How do they put the ****ing queen in the window?"

Darvin Moon, I hope you die in a grease fire.

#50 SCS

SCS

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom, CA

Posted 08 September 2008 - 01:31 PM

View PostNoBBiR, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 1:54 PM, said:

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.

#51 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 08 September 2008 - 02:09 PM

View Postpsujohn, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 8:50 AM, said:

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.

Quote

In that event we have zero fold equity right?
Yes.

Quote

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.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#52 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 08 September 2008 - 02:15 PM

View PostSCS, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 5:31 PM, said:

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.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#53 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 08 September 2008 - 03:19 PM

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.

#54 NoBBiR

NoBBiR

    F34l2 Durrrr

  • Members
  • 3,522 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Binghamton NY
  • Interests:Poker.
  • Favorite Poker Game:No Lemon Tennis Hold Me Tightly.

Posted 08 September 2008 - 03:37 PM

View Postsimo_8ball, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 3:19 PM, said:

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.
"How do they put the ****ing queen in the window?"

Darvin Moon, I hope you die in a grease fire.

#55 SCS

SCS

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,771 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom, CA

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:10 PM

View PostNoBBiR, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 7:37 PM, said:

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.

#56 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:17 PM

"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.

#57 Snamuh

Snamuh

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,094 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2008 - 04:34 PM

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.
Snamuh raises to $76.75, and is all in
BigKamp: yyou lose
BigKamp has 15 seconds left to act
BigKamp calls $24.50, and is all in
Seat 1: BigKamp (small blind) mucked [Ad Ac] - a full house, Aces full of Kings
Seat 2: Snamuh (big blind) showed [Kd Kh] and won ($102.50) with four of a kind, Kings
Snamuh: you lose

#58 simo_8ball

simo_8ball

    Multipass

  • Members
  • 9,277 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO/NLHE

Posted 08 September 2008 - 06:24 PM

View PostSnamuh, on Tuesday, September 9th, 2008, 1:34 AM, said:

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.

#59 Snamuh

Snamuh

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,094 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2008 - 08:20 PM

View Postsimo_8ball, on Monday, September 8th, 2008, 10:24 PM, said:

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.
Snamuh raises to $76.75, and is all in
BigKamp: yyou lose
BigKamp has 15 seconds left to act
BigKamp calls $24.50, and is all in
Seat 1: BigKamp (small blind) mucked [Ad Ac] - a full house, Aces full of Kings
Seat 2: Snamuh (big blind) showed [Kd Kh] and won ($102.50) with four of a kind, Kings
Snamuh: you lose

#60 Snamuh

Snamuh

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 5,094 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 September 2008 - 08:27 PM

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.
Snamuh raises to $76.75, and is all in
BigKamp: yyou lose
BigKamp has 15 seconds left to act
BigKamp calls $24.50, and is all in
Seat 1: BigKamp (small blind) mucked [Ad Ac] - a full house, Aces full of Kings
Seat 2: Snamuh (big blind) showed [Kd Kh] and won ($102.50) with four of a kind, Kings
Snamuh: you lose




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users