10$ pot, all-in with Nut Flushdraw and Middle Pair

This hand was from last week but it still stings the fish in this hand were going crazy back and forth like maniacs in the past couple hands in a row they were tilted with each-other or something so I didn't give them both credit for big hands I gave one of them Q with a solid kicker at best.

$0.01/$0.02 No Limit Holdem
PokerStars
6 Players
Hand Conversion Powered by WeakTight Poker Hand History Converter

Stacks:
UTG ($2.35) 118bb
UTG+1 ($3.62) 181bb
CO ($3.80) 190bb
BTN ($1.96) 98bb
SB ($2.29) 115bb
BB Hero ($2.93) 147bb

Pre-Flop: (0.03, 6 players) Hero is BB :9s: :as:
UTG calls $0.02, UTG+1 raises to $0.12, CO calls $0.12, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.10, UTG calls $0.10
Flop: :qs: :4s: :3c: ($0.49, 4 players)

Hero checks, UTG bets $0.46, UTG+1 calls $0.46, 1 fold, Hero calls $0.46

Turn: :9h: ($1.87, 3)
Hero checks, UTG goes all-in $1.77, UTG+1 goes all-in $3.04, Hero goes all-in $2.35 River: :4c: ($9.03, 3), 3 all-in

Final Pot: $9.03
Hero shows two pair, Nines and Fours
:9s: :as:
UTG shows two pair, Queens and Fours - lower kicker
:5s: :qh:
UTG+1 shows two pair, Queens and Fours
:qc: :kd:

UTG+1 wins $8.74 (net +$5.12)

Hero lost $2.93
UTG lost $2.35
CO lost $0.12


I made a mistake in the hand and did'nt realize the short-stack went all in, I thought when the next fish raised I would go in and 1st fish would call aswell, which lowered my implied odds a bit . should I have folded?

Price of calling/(Pot+price of calling)

Pot on turn $1.87 + UTG all in $1.77 + UTG+1 all-in $3.04 = $6.68 +2.35(to call)= $9.03 $2.35/$9.03= 26% required equity to call

we have 14 outs assuming the ranges we gave villains,any A,9 or spade=14outsx2= roughly 28% Equity

28% is slightly better than our required Equity of 26% so it was slightly profitable?

with my error in calculation which was UTG still putting in another $1.27 in the pot since I made an error in the hand by not realizing he was all-in it would make our Required Equity 23% is that a huge difference ? should we make these kinds of gambles with a small percentage above the break even ? I made a mistake in calculations if Villain 1 was still going to call the $1.27 difference would that 5% over the Required Equity had been worth it ?

:/

Equity is complicated by the fact that you're calling into a side pot when you call the all-in bet.

I'm a little confused on the numbers at the end.
Going into the turn, there was 1.87 dead money in the pot.
UTG ships for 1.77. Now the pot is $3.64, with action on UTG+1.
UTG+1 over-shoves and that over-shove is more than you can call. His effective shove size is not 3.04, but it's your remaining stack size of 2.35. You are the only one left to act and that's as much as you can call. The extra 0.69 he threw out there has no bearing on this, so I'm ignoring it.
Now the action is on you. The main pot now has 5.41 in it, and there's a side pot of 0.58.

By my reckoning, after you call
There's the main pot of 7.18, into which you put 1.77 on the call.
There's also the side pot of 1.16 into which you put 0.58.

The total value of the pot is 8.34.

I get the hand converter showing the pot as 9.03, as it's mistakenly including the portion of UTG+1's over-shove that is not actually in the pot.

What I don't get is where the "UTG+1 wins 8.74" comes from.


Before I crunch an equity calculation, I'd like to know where the error in my understanding of the above lies.

theres a cashout feature in pokerstars when your all in, you can use it and it protects some of your money if you lose an all in maybe that has something to do with it

Just shove the flop. We're printing money here by taking the easiest possible route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Just shove the flop. We're printing money here by taking the easiest possible route.

---

why am I shoving the flop with a flushdraw and overcard when I don't know if both players are coming along with me ? If only 1 villain calls I'm making -EV play

Is it -ev when we get one call? There's dead money in the pot from the guy who folded, plus we have an overcard at least sometimes. Also, we might get called by a worse flush draw sometimes. All this helps our equity.

And even if it is -ev, does that outweigh the benefit we get when we get two calls, or two folds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is it -ev when we get one call? There's dead money in the pot from the guy who folded, plus we have an overcard at least sometimes. Also, we might get called by a worse flush draw sometimes. All this helps our equity.

And even if it is -ev, does that outweigh the benefit we get when we get two calls, or two folds?

---

If he has AQ its -EV, the turn card gives us more equity to hit another 9 plus we know both villains are already all in

adding in someone might call us with worse flush is optimistic

also if one of the villains flopped 2 pair and we shove into him thats not so great either. The 9 on the turn gives us better Equity to beat that on the river

AQ is the worst hand they can have from our pov, along with QQ 33 and 44. That's not much of their ranges, and even against this part of their ranges, we're still not losing much money.

Calling the flop in this spot, it just puts us in potentially horrible turn spots. Like this one. Calling this turn all in is certainly more marginal than check/raising the flop all in. I think turn might be a fold, but I'm not sure about that. I'm sure that check/raising flop all in is printing money though. We might get JJ to fold and KJss to call, as one example.

We're never in bad shape on this flop, especially three handed vs fish.

Ok, villain can easily have 2 pair on the flop if he does thats -EV, if Villainholds AQ thats -EV you cant argue with math. My play on the turn was marginally profitable but I made a mistake and didnt realize villain 1 was all-in I thought he was going to call the extra . The play you say to do on the flop is questionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

AQ is the worst hand they can have from our pov, along with QQ 33 and 44. That's not much of their ranges, and even against this part of their ranges, we're still not losing much money.

Calling the flop in this spot, it just puts us in potentially horrible turn spots. Like this one. Calling this turn all in is certainly more marginal than check/raising the flop all in. I think turn might be a fold, but I'm not sure about that. I'm sure that check/raising flop all in is printing money though. We might get JJ to fold and KJss to call, as one example.

We're never in bad shape on this flop, especially three handed vs fish.

---

This is not the advice you want to give to someone who's new to poker ... tell them to make plays that are -EV? The turn card gives us a pair so we have chance to beat out the 2 pairs now and a 9 or flush can beat out AQ, on the flop it is different

What 2 pair hands does villain flop?

Shoving the flop is not -ev.

He could have held Q4 or Q3 , I already did the math argue all you want your wrong
Any sets , 2 pairs or AQ .I excluded sets because these players were playing dumb but we can’t exclude 1 of them having a stupid range of Q3 or Q4 look ... he held Q5o

Quote:

---

My play on the turn was marginally profitable

---

Quote:

---

we have 14 outs assuming the ranges we gave villains,any A,9 or spade=14outsx2= roughly 28% Equity

---

You're assuming your A and 9 are always good, which they're not. And then there's rake. So it's less marginal than you think.

But I did say I wasn't sure about the turn.

Quote:

---

The play you say to do on the flop is questionable.

---

Not at all. How much equity do you suppose you have on the flop? It's certainly more than you have on the turn, yet it's the turn where you put all of your money in. Do you not think there's something wrong with that?

@DonkeyBets:
They're not calling with a hand, they're calling with a range of hands. You're betting against the range, not their specific holding this time.

No single hand can be considered +/- EV when Villain calls. They call with a range against which your bet was +/- EV.

"If he calls with 2-pair, that's -EV"
Nah. Not unless his entire range was 2-pair, which it can't be.
Otherwise, you get the equity from all his folds in the + column to add to the - of the times you're called and lose.
(And you have a lot of outs to retake the lead, even if you're behind when he calls.)

You get EV from their folding range and their calling range that you beat, and you lose EV from their calling range that beats you.
There are 3 terms in there.
It's the sum of the 3 terms that tells you if your line was +/- EV.

***
Look at it this way:
If you bet and they fold 95% of the time, then the 5% of the time they call (with the nuts), you're not -EV on the line. You made so, so much money off their folds that you don't even care about the 5% when they call and you lose.
It doesn't make you line -EV because they had that hand this time. 95% of the time they're just folding good equity against you.

This is what I mean when I say you're not playing against their hand, you're playing against their range.

Quote:

---

I already did the math argue all you want your wrong

---

Show me the math you did.

I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong and to learn from the mistake.
Ong, too.

If you're so confident that you're right and we're wrong, then repay that kindness you keep telling us we have and teach us something.
:)


But I'm pretty sure your math is failing to take into account the reality of your choices. You can't know his hand, only his range, so you can't say "If he calls with that hand, it's -EV" because that's just not the whole story of what he will call with in that spot.


Poker isn't about winning this hand.
Rather, it's about winning this spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're assuming your A and 9 are always good, which they're not. And then there's rake. So it's less marginal than you think.

But I did say I wasn't sure about the turn.



Not at all. How much equity do you suppose you have on the flop? It's certainly more than you have on the turn, yet it's the turn where you put all of your money in. Do you not think there's something wrong with that?

---

OK look our hand is A9ss we have a flushdraw on the flop

IF we give villain a range of having AQ,Q4,Q3, the hands that we are losing too not including sets or weaker Q's we are given an equity of
35% villain will have 65% equity if he shows up with these hands.

On the flop there is $1.40 money already in pot after Villain 2 calls the .46 cents.

IF we shove our $2.83 into the pot and lets say only Villain 2 calls and he has enough to make the call then we are given

Price to call=$2.83/ (POT+PRICE TO CALL)

$2.83/ ($4.23+2.83=$7.07)

$2.83/$7.07= 40% required equity to break even...... We are getting 35% if villain has those holdings....


ON THE TURN when I did it the Required Equity was Different

$1.87 in pot beginning of turn.

Villain 1 goes all in for $1.77

Villain 2 goes all in for $3.04

total pot before Heros turn : $6.68

Hero calls the rest of his stack

Price to call / POT+Price to call) $2.35/($6.68+$2.35= $9.03)

$2.35/$9.03= 26% required equity

Our equity versus a two pair on the turn is 31%. This is profitable call, ON THE FLOP OUR EQUITY WAS 35% BUT WE NEEDED 40% TO CALL VERSUS 1 VILLAIN WHO HAD 2 PAIR we did not hit the 9 and had 35% Versus Villains Two-Pair but we did not know if both villains would come in , also didnt have the 9 hit . its pretty hard to hit runner runner 9s I assume you know that






If we called all in on the flop versus a two pair we need to hit either two 9's.two aces.one 9 and one ace or the flush to make the best hand. Go look at how the equity drops from the flop to the turn without us hitting a 9 on the turn and the look at how much it drops when we do , Our equity drops less when we hit the 9 on the turn against a 2 pair. With the 9 on the turn not only did it drop less against 2 pair but in this position we now have seen that both players are all in and we don't need to hope or guess what they will do from here its just calculating the money and our odds...its a better position than the flop

I know we put villains on ranges and a 2 pair is not outside the realm of possibility, to tell someone to shove their stack in on the flop in this hand doesn't sound right when you really think about it

Quote:

---

IF we shove our $2.83 into the pot and lets say only Villain 2 calls and he has enough to make the call then we are given

Price to call=$2.83/ (POT+PRICE TO CALL)

$2.83/ ($4.23+2.83=$7.07)

---

No. That's not your equity calc for shoving. That's his equity calc for calling.
They're not the same.

Your equity calc is
(% of times he folds)*(value of the pot NOW)
+ (% of times he calls)*(% of times you win when he calls)*(value of the pot after he calls)
- (% of times he calls)*(% of times you lose when he calls)*(value of the pot after he calls)

which can be cleaned up a bit with parentheses

(% of times he folds)*(value of the pot NOW)
+ (% of times he calls)*(value of the pot after he calls)*((% of times you win when he calls) - (% of times you lose when he calls))

We can use the calculation that I used, nobodies folding both villains are all in

Quote:

---

I know we put villains on ranges and a 2 pair is not outside the realm of possibility,

---

It's just not their whole range. That means that when they call us with 2-pair, that's not indicative of everything they could have done in that spot.

If they call us with 2-pair, but that 2-pair only represents a small fraction of their range, then we get so much value from fold equity that we don't even care about the tiny %-age of the times they call and we lose to 2-pair.

Quote:

---

We can use the calculation that I used, nobodies folding both villains are all in

---

You can use it to calculate the equity they need to call you, but

IT'S NOT THE SAME CALCULATION TO SHOVE ALL IN AS IT IS TO CALL AN ALL IN SHOVE

EDIT: I'm talking about ong's suggestion to shove OTF, not your decision to call OTT.

I understand its not their whole range but we are talking about villain having better not anything worse

OK monkey was it a better position on the flop or the turn then to get the money in? I'm getting a headache over this

If you ship OTF, then you get value from all the hands he folds that do not beat you AND you have a lot of outs to come ahead when he calls.

Just because he ONLY calls when he beats you doesn't mean you shouldn't shove.

Assuming his range going into that street was pretty wide, which it is, because you're playing the micros and we're talking about the flop.
Players almost universally call too wide PRE, so that means he can't have a nutted range going into the flop. If he has a wide range and will only call with 2-pair+, then all those times you win the pot when he folds is a part of your equity calc when he calls.

If you have a read that the player is super nitty PRE, then you can still look at their range and see how many of those hands are 2-pr + on the flop and see.


I'm not arguing that just because a line is +EV, that it's your optimal line. There may be other +EV lines that are better than the one we studied.
I am arguing that you're not doing the EV calculation correctly if you are considering only the portion of villain's range they call with when determining the value of your shoves.

Quote:

---

OK monkey was it a better position on the flop or the turn then to get the money in? I'm getting a headache over this

---

I'd rather shove the flop than call the turn, if that's my choice.
I don't like folding the turn with a pair and a flush draw, but to be the 3rd hand in that pot, I probably would do so.

I'd rather ship it into 2 people with NFD and 2 cards to come than call 3rd all-in with a weak pair and NFD with 1 card to come.

Quote:

---

I know we put villains on ranges and a 2 pair is not outside the realm of possibility, to tell someone to shove their stack in on the flop in this hand doesn't sound right when you really think about it

---

Your focus is on our shape when we're up against 2pr, but even if they have all 2pr combos, it's still vastly more likely they have just 1pr. In fact, them having Q3 and Q4 in their ranges is fantastic for us, because it means they have all Qx, which makes it a lot less likely they have AQ.

AQ Q3 and Q4 is 27 combos. KQ QJ and QT is 36 combos. Q2, Q5-Q9 is another 72 combos. So of their Qx hands, 27/135 are 2pr or AQ, and 108/135 are 1pr.

That's 80% of their Qx that are one pair hands, 20% two pair/AQ.

If they had just KQ and AQ in their range, then they would have 12 KQ combos and 9 AQ combos, which makes AQ much more likely than if they have all Qx.

Their wide range is good for us, not bad. You can't give them Q3 and Q4, but not all the other junk Qx. As soon as you start adding all those hands to their ranges, it gets really good for our equity because our overcard is worth 13% when it's live, and when they have such a wide range, that ace is good more often.