FTR Chat Question of the Day #1: Full Ring vs. Six Max

[15:42] <spoonitnow> okay so here's your question of the day
[15:42] <spoonitnow> might make a thread out of this
[15:42] * gizmo ([email protected]) has joined #flopturnriver
[15:42] <@FTRbot> Welcome to #flopturnriver, gizmo !
[15:43] <gizmo> hi all
[15:43] <spoonitnow> hi gizmo
[15:43] <bucnasty> are you related to the gizmo on 2p2
[15:43] <spoonitnow> so it folds to you in the small blind and you raise
[15:43] <spoonitnow> the bb 3-bets
[15:44] <gizmo> probably not -- I'm not very active on 2p2
[15:44] <gizmo> same nick there -- NightGizmo
[15:44] <bucnasty> ah
[15:44] <spoonitnow> his 3-betting range is {AA, 72o}
[15:44] <bucnasty> gizmo im referring to is a chick
[15:44] <spoonitnow> you have 98s
[15:44] <spoonitnow> is his range stronger or weaker if you're playing 6-max or full ring
[15:44] <gizmo> lol
[15:44] <yaawn-> this is ez
[15:45] * yaawn- slaps spoonitnow around a bit with a large trout
[15:45] <spoonitnow> stfu yaawn
[15:45] <yaawn-> I am
[15:45] <yaawn-> LDO
[15:45] <yaawn-> it's a good question though imo
[15:45] <bucnasty> um

Umm... So the situation is:

Hero is in SB w/ 98s, the table (either 4 or 7 players) folds to Hero.

Hero opens
Villain (BB) 3-bets
Hero knows that Villain only 3-bets in response to SB ATS w/ { AA,72o }

The only difference in the FR scenario is that more people saw their cards and folded.

Now, people like to play aces, so does this mean that no one had an A... and that there are 6 more dead cards that are non-aces in the FR scenario?

No, I don't think it means that unless Hero knows that all Villain's will not fold with Ax.

I can't see any difference so I guess I'm the sucker for your trick question.


I'm gonna say C): they're the same, the ranges, positions, pot odds all the same, available info is the only variable, but I don't see the 2 more folds giving any insight into deck composition.

Default Equity:

{AA 72o}, 6 combos AA, 12 combos 72o
98s

54.995 / 45.005 in favor of 98s


likelihood of openfolding an ace by position:
BU: 0%
CO: 6.33%
HJ: 7.24%
MP: 8.14%
E3: 9.35%
E2: 10.9%
E1: 11.5%

Six max: 0.22 Aces have been folded
Full ring: 0.53 Aces have been folded


likelihood of openfolding 7x/2x by position

BU: 12.7%
CO: 24.4%
HJ: 25.0%
MP: 26.2%
E3: 26.5%
E2: 27.5%
E1: 27.5%

Six max: 0.88 7 or 2 have been folded
Full ring: 1.70 7 or 2 have been folded


results:

six max: 3.78 Aces, 3.56 Sevens, 3.56 Deuces
6 combos AA * (3.78/4) = 5.67 combos
12 combos 72o * (3.56/4) = 10.68 combos
16.35 total combos


full ring: 3.47 Aces, 3.15 Sevens, 3.15 Deuces
6 combos AA * (3.47/4) = 5.21 combos
12 combos 72o * (3.15/4) = 9.45 combos
14.66 total combos


Equity 98s vs AA = 22.06%
Equity 98s vs 72o = 72.46%

Six max Equity:
(0.2206)(5.67/16.35) + (0.7246)(10.68/16.35) = 54.98%

Full ring equity:
(0.2206)(5.21/14.66) + (0.7246)(9.45/14.66) = 54.55%



My math is probably fucked.

How do you get those "likelihood that..." %-ages without knowing Villains' pre-flop postional ranges?

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How do you get those "likelihood that..." %-ages without knowing Villains' pre-flop postional ranges?

I think his last line says the same thing!!!!!

His range is stronger in full ring.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How do you get those "likelihood that..." %-ages without knowing Villains' pre-flop postional ranges?

they are assumed tag opening ranges

I'm going with full ring.

My understanding is that there is no difference, unless you make a bunch of assumptions without any way of knowing if they are realistic (and in which case, the difference is minimal).

One related area I was thinking about recently is whether card removal would make any difference to whether hero is more or less likely to run below aiev or not - presumably it makes no difference without making any assumptions?

Originally Posted by Renton

full ring: 3.47 Aces, 3.15 Sevens, 3.15 Deuces
6 combos AA * (3.47/4) = 5.21 combos
12 combos 72o * (3.15/4) = 9.45 combos
14.66 total combos

The stuff previous to this is fine. There won't be 5.21 combos of AA. If there was 1.99/4 aces w/ this calculation we would be getting ~3combos when there isn't even 2 aces in the deck.

ill break the trend and go 6max cos folks are more likely to play an A in 6max and no fucker is playing so chance less As are in the muck.

Originally Posted by kickass

ill break the trend and go 6max cos folks are more likely to play an A in 6max and no fucker is playing so chance less As are in the muck.

Don't forget to think about how 2x and 7x make up a huge part of everyone's folding range.

Okay guys, let me ask you this. If a table full of tight-aggressive players folds to the big blind, no matter how many players who are at the table, is the big blind more likely or less likely to have AA?

He would be more likely to have AA because those players are less likely to fold hands with aces in them. That means that hands that have aces in them will be disproportionately represented the times that the big blind is folded to, so AA will be more likely.

The answer is that the big blind's range is stronger in full ring than six-max in the scenario offered in the OP. The point of this is for players to wrap their heads around the idea that outside factors can change the strength of a range even if it stays the same.