Bottom set just a bluffcatcher?

What happened to not trying to fold the relative nuts?

I'll help you out. Unless the board is a four straight or four flush, we prob don't need to be thinking about folding sets all that often.

Originally Posted by griffey24

What happened to not trying to fold the relative nuts?

I'll help you out. Unless the board is a four straight or four flush, we prob don't need to be thinking about folding sets all that often.

When I saw the thread title and boris I knew this thread was going to be ridiculous

Ah, I think I get it - it's because if I station it off, I get 2.1:1 on the turn (with 50% equity) and 2.2:1 on the river (with 44% equity), so that's why I get the EV's that I do, wheras if I jam the turn (with 41% equity vs his calling range, and 24% fold equity vs. his turn raising range in a 51bb pot when I jam) the odds are worse.

Have I also interpreted CREV correctly in that if the EV of a turn call is ~15bb, and the EV of a river call is ~23bb, that I can say the EV of that line as a whole (ie. making the decision on the turn to call any river) is simply 38bb, or is it somehow more complex than that in some way I haven't thought of?

Originally Posted by BorisTheSpider

Ah, I think I get it - it's because if I station it off, I get 2.1:1 on the turn (with 50% equity) and 2.2:1 on the river (with 44% equity), so that's why I get the EV's that I do, wheras if I jam the turn (with 41% equity vs his calling range, and 24% fold equity vs. his turn raising range in a 51bb pot when I jam) the odds are worse.

Have I also interpreted CREV correctly in that if the EV of a turn call is ~15bb, and the EV of a river call is ~23bb, that I can say the EV of that line as a whole (ie. making the decision on the turn to call any river) is simply 38bb, or is it somehow more complex than that in some way I haven't thought of?

I would just look at the EV of the earliest point on the branch that makes sense. So maybe in this case the EV starting at the point of betting on the turn.