Straight Flush
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: soaking up ethanol, terrorising the micros
Posts: 5,502
|
|
short version - squeeze work you have done is very nice.
Long version -
I wonder how many people are going to properly read what you have written and work through the implications. Not too many I hope! Anyway, I read the squeeze posts and ran through the math.
I like the post and it has made me think further about a couple of spots...
You may enjoy how I managed to somehow get stuck at Q(P+5)/2 cos i was like hang on it's Q(P-5)/2+5Q.... and then i didn't want to put C in the extension to replace the ....
but i got there!
My comments:
I know you address this in bold earlier in the post, but I'm uncertain on using P = 80, especially as P=contested pot size rather than pot size, meaning that you're assuming a bet and a raise on the flop and/or HU to a turn a lot of the time. Lucky it doesn't make much difference to Q, but for other analysis/spots this may become more important.
Re your notes
1) Q vs short-stacks vs P. I think this needs to be reconsidered (not that it matters until you choose to shortstack). At 20bb a squeeze == All-In, meaning that B=0. Now it becomes a simple matter of villain tendencies re calling/folding and their ranges to do so. Assuming a call range of 88+/KQs/AJs+ from some villains means one thing for your range, other call ranges mean something different. Also need to consider that the flat-caller often has a monster if there are 2 or more short-stacks left to act...
anyway, analysis becomes even simpler at (1/45)*(-8F/C -2.5)+0.5, right?
The maths geek in me wants to shortstack. But... I'll probably open a stars account, tell nobody, and shortstack it while laughing at FTR mid-stakes regs groaning about awful shortstackers
2) here I got interested when i was thinking about full ring application here - basically trying to figure out how easy it is to be breakeven post-flop against a 2% range (i.e. a 13-10 who opened from EP or MP cos otherwise we can't LP squeeze, so his range is like 7-2-2 where calling range=4-bet range about evenly balanced)
And this is where i started to wonder about how post-flop equity was going to be calculated, cos stoving ranges assumes a static state post-flop, and that doesn't happen. 9Ts does just great against AA, unless you have to play a flop with your one pair/gutshot/runner runner FD...
3/4 combined) obvious implication here is how we should deal with a squeeze when we are either the PFR or the flat-caller! more 4-betting. nh.
5) the whole thing has lead me to seriously question some of my earlier (and incorrect) ideas about blind squeeze plays
As above, I switch off at the specific hand analysis a little because of the stove-approach vs multi-street dynamic in HU pots. It's obviously useful, I think it needs to be combined with solid flop and turn range-estimation and understanding of villain's post-flop tendencies
|