a poker god just wispered in our ears he busted draw.

[littleogre]

sadly we don't have the gonads to call with j high but what is the ev of a call in this spot if we assume leroy the poker god is a good guy and not a lieing devil

Absolute Poker (Cash Game): $0.01/$0.02 NL , 9 players
Tue Apr 07 07:49:54 EDT 2009
Powered by Poker Academy (Format: 2+2 Forums)

B4 ($0.96)
B3 ($7.19)
B2 ($0.49)
B1 ($2.64)
[color:#ff8c00]Hero ($0.82)[/color]
SB ($0.43)
BB ($0.77)
B6 ($2.30)
B5 ($0.66)

Hero is the button.

Precards:
SB posts the small blind $0.01, BB posts the big blind $0.02.

Preflop: Hero is dealt T J (9 active)
[color:#666666]B6 folds[/color], [color:#6495ed]B5 calls $0.02[/color], [color:#666666]4 folds[/color], [color:#ff8c00]Hero raises to $0.10[/color], [color:#666666]2 folds[/color], [color:#6495ed]B5 calls $0.08[/color].

Flop: 4 A 5 ($0.23, 2 active)
[color:#6495ed]B5 checks[/color], [color:#ff8c00]Hero checks[/color].

Turn: 4 A 5 Q ($0.23, 2 active)
[color:#6495ed]B5 checks[/color], [color:#ff8c00]Hero bets $0.16[/color], [color:#6495ed]B5 calls $0.16[/color].

River: 4 A 5 Q 6 ($0.55, 2 active)
[color:#329632]B5 bets $0.40 (all-in)[/color], [color:#ff8c00]Hero folds[/color].

Final Pot: $0.53, $0.02 raked
[color:#ff8c00]Hero, net: -$0.26, Folded River, has T J (Ace High)[/color]
[color:#329632]B5, net: $0.27, Won uncontested River[/color]
[color:#CC3333]BB, net: -$0.02, Folded Preflop[/color]
[color:#CC3333]SB, net: -$0.01, Folded Preflop[/color]

[littleogre]

we are not guessing use math to get the ev but we do not have to be exact we can fudge the math a little.

[tyrn]

You have 4 outs in the deck and 1 street left, so 8-9% (4 * 2 + ~1) of hitting.

You're putting 0.16 into a 0.23 pot, and assuming villain will not fold. so it will cost you 0.16 to win 0.55 (0.23 in pot + 0.16 from you + 0.16 from him). You have 16/55 or 29% immediate pot odds. Your EV here is 9% - 29% = -20%

But if you assume villain will not be able to fold to your bet on the river when you hit, you have an additional 40 cents in the pot (rest of his stack). Your implied pot odds are now 0.16 / (0.55+0.40) = 17%. so your EV is 9% - 17% = -8%

It's better but still negative EV so betting turn here is never profitable. Just check behind.

I'm no pro at these calculations either so if anyone notices something off please point it out.

[Erpel]

This hand confuddles me. We have 41bb, villain has 33bb so we're short/medium stacked - villain limp/calls which is horrible with just about any hand with those stack sizes and we raise on the button to 5bb with JTo which doesn't really have enough high card value to stack off unimproved and doesn't get the odds to improve with the price that we're setting. But at least we have position and can steal some of the time. On the flop we have an SPR of 2.7 and nothing we can continue with. Any money going in commits us, and we're well past the point when we should have made a commitment plan.

In this hand I'd be happy to fold preflop and if I choose to see the flop I'm probably even more likely to overlimp than raise - or if I raise at least raise smaller to like 3.5bb for an SPR around 4 if I think the blinds will still fold to that. As played I might cbet - I have no showdown value and air and can represent the ace on the flop - any ace would have to bet with the draws on the board. Something like b/f flop, c/f turn c/f river. For my cbet I'd bet $0.14. I don't think smaller gets the job done often enough and bigger is just spew. And all that is assuming that my opponent knows how to fold if he's missed. Since he limp/called preflop which is horrible with just about any hand I honestly don't think I'd expect him to find a fold often enough that a cbet is profitable. Limp/call can be indicative of calling station tendencies and the way to win money from calling stations is not to bluff them, but to value bet them when we have hand equity. In this case, we do not have hand equity and probably no fold equity. c/f every street could be good also.

I don't think the posed question is worth considering for a second.

[littleogre]

This hand confuddles me. We have 41bb, villain has 33bb so we're short/medium stacked - villain limp/calls which is horrible with just about any hand with those stack sizes and we raise on the button to 5bb with JTo which doesn't really have enough high card value to stack off unimproved and doesn't get the odds to improve with the price that we're setting. But at least we have position and can steal some of the time. On the flop we have an SPR of 2.7 and nothing we can continue with. Any money going in commits us, and we're well past the point when we should have made a commitment plan.

In this hand I'd be happy to fold preflop and if I choose to see the flop I'm probably even more likely to overlimp than raise - or if I raise at least raise smaller to like 3.5bb for an SPR around 4 if I think the blinds will still fold to that. As played I might cbet - I have no showdown value and air and can represent the ace on the flop - any ace would have to bet with the draws on the board. Something like b/f flop, c/f turn c/f river. For my cbet I'd bet $0.14. I don't think smaller gets the job done often enough and bigger is just spew. And all that is assuming that my opponent knows how to fold if he's missed. Since he limp/called preflop which is horrible with just about any hand I honestly don't think I'd expect him to find a fold often enough that a cbet is profitable. Limp/call can be indicative of calling station tendencies and the way to win money from calling stations is not to bluff them, but to value bet them when we have hand equity. In this case, we do not have hand equity and probably no fold equity. c/f every street could be good also.

I don't think the posed question is worth considering for a second.

well thats nice but the question is would it have been correct to call his river bet and the answer is yes. Now ducy but before you dismiss a question please understand what the question is i'm not sure why you both think i'm talking about betting the turn wether my turn bet was good or not is a whole other can of worms and is much more difficult to quantify

[littleogre]

k9
k8
k7
k3
k2
kt
kj

jt
j9
j8
j7
j3
j2

t9
t8
t7
t3
t2

98
97
93


92

83
82
72

combos that make a busted str8
k3
j3
t3
93
83
73

k2
j2
t2
92
82
72

the combos are all the hands that make up his range assuming our read of a busted draw is correct
also remember that i specifically said he had a busted draw. so a busted draw+ a pair is not in the given range

[tyrn]

well thats nice but the question is would it have been correct to call his river bet and the answer is yes. Now ducy but before you dismiss a question please understand what the question is i'm not sure why you both think i'm talking about betting the turn wether my turn bet was good or not is a whole other can of worms and is much more difficult to quantify

Sorry you asked about EV so I thought you were asking about drawing odds. The EV of calling a river bet with jack high is close to 0 because you don't even beat a stone cold bluff all the time. The correct answer is not yes to call his river bet, that's the result oriented answer.

[littleogre]

ok here is the math (.95)x.80-(.40)x.20= .68 the win perentages are estimations but basically he has 7 combos the beat us and 37 that don't. now if we add busted draws + weak pairs to his range then the math changes.

[littleogre]

well thats nice but the question is would it have been correct to call his river bet and the answer is yes. Now ducy but before you dismiss a question please understand what the question is i'm not sure why you both think i'm talking about betting the turn wether my turn bet was good or not is a whole other can of worms and is much more difficult to quantify

Sorry you asked about EV so I thought you were asking about drawing odds. The EV of calling a river bet with jack high is close to 0 because you don't even beat a stone cold bluff all the time. The correct answer is not yes to call his river bet, that's the result oriented answer.

yes he can have 7 stone cold bluff combos that beat us. also how can it be results oriented we are putting villain on a range and asking are we a head often enough to call. Also i can understand auto folding in the heat of battle as doing algebra quickly ain't my thing.

[Erpel]

We magically knows that he has a busted draw: This makes the question a bad idea to consider. Let's say he's playing 66 and hits his set on the river and wants to get paid - it's as consistent with his line as a busted draw if not more so. If for whatever reason we assume that a busted draw is the whole of his range we're making a critical mistake. I know it's the very basis for this thought experiment, but entertaining that type of thought experiments teaches us to ask questions in situations where the questions themselves are flawed. Getting in the habit of asking and answering questions with this kind of perspective or bias makes it more likely that we'll just assume an opponent is on a busted draw without considering that he could actually be holding a nut hand and make costly mistakes as a result. Learning is not just about learning lessons well, it's also about learning the right lessons.

Better to put him on a realistic range with nut and air hands both and try to calculate based on that whether we're good to call. Mathematically we need to be good about 30% of the time for calling to be correct.

If we go with the exercise that I disagree with what is a 'busted draw'? It's not specified any further, and since the villain is unknown we don't know if he'd be playing Tc2h etc or whether you count 7h6h as a 'busted draw' since the draw didn't complete, but the hand still improved to beat us. It could be perceived as a busted draw and the opponent might think that he's bluffing with a busted draw even though he just made the best hand. The question as posed is really really vague and not really conducive to analysis or math imo. What draws are being played here? Flush draws? 8-out straight draws? 4-out straight draws? Unpaired high cards (like KJo could be considered a drawing hand hoping to hit a pair on the flop or a pair/straight on the turn). Is he the most unlikely of villains who thinks top pair is weak and who is playing Ahxh hoping to hit his flush and betting the river in frustration as a 'bluff'?

Let's examine the busted draw concept most closely - we'll define it as hands that were draws and which did not in any way improve to beat anything - hands for which the turn and river were both blanks.

32: Flopped straight - not qualifying
Qx: Turned pair - not qualifying
6x: Rivered pair - not qualifying
Pairs: Not draws - not qualifying (not even 22/33 which are technically also gutshots)
87, 73: Rivered straight - not qualifying
Hearts: Qualifies

The only straight draws that qualify as busted on the river are the gutshot kind - the 2x and 3x hands. No higher gutshot works because it will either contain a 6 and make a pair or hit the straight with the 6. As I'll do with the suited discussion I'll basically rule out all 3x and 2x hands as having not reached the flop.

This leaves us with hearts. Ace of hearts is out because it gives a pair - same is the queen, 4 and 5 of hearts are out because they're on the board. 6 of hearts is out because it hits a pair on the river. This leaves the hearts with which he could have had a draw that by the river is busted at these: Kh, Jh, Th, 9h, 8h, 7h, 3h, 2h

Total combinations of these:
KhJh, KhTh, Kh9h, Kh8h, Kh7h, Kh3h, Kh2h
JhTh, Jh9h, Jh8h, Jh7h, Jh3h, Jh2h
Th9h, Th8h, Th7h, Th3h, Th2h
9h8h, 9h7h, 9h3h, 9h2h
8h3h, 8h2h
7h2h

I don't think it's realistic that all these hands have seen the flop, so we should rule out the more unlikely ones such as 7h2h, 8h3h, 8h2h, 9h3h, 9h2h, Th7h, Th3h, Th2h, Jh7h, Jh3h, Jh2h, Kh3h, Kh2h.

This leaves us behind:
KhJh, KhTh, Kh9h, Kh8h, Kh7h

Splitting with:
JhTh

Ahead of:
Jh9h, Jh8h
Th9h, Th8h
9h8h, 9h7h

So by calling against that range we're winning about 54% of the money and since we need to win 30% of the money for calling to be breakeven then yes.. given these ranges it is correct to call.

But honestly it is NEVER realistic to put an opponent on 'busted draw' as narrowly as I have defined it in this post. It's just bad thinking. Any reasonably wide interpretation of 'busted draw' will contain enough 22/33/6x hands that still beat us that we're -EV to call.

Edit note: Not to mention that it never said that our opponent had a draw on the flop. Any KJ, KT, JT hand is also a busted draw as it's a gutshot on the turn and KJ and KT are 12 hand combinations each.

he actually has 78, but ok

[littleogre]

ok i will re run the calculation adding more hands but why would he blast me out of the pot if he hit a big hand like a set ?

[Erpel]

ok i will re run the calculation adding more hands but why would he blast me out of the pot if he hit a big hand like a set ?

What? Nobody is blasting anyone out of the pot. He's making an 80% PSB on the river. It's not even an overbet.

You cannot meaningfully run any calculation without adding in hands that are not busted draws. There will be hands in his range that are not busted draws or which accidentally improved to beat you. Even if you have a rock solid read that he THINKS he's bluffing with a busted draw he can still have 22/33/6x/KJ/KT etc - and there's actually not that many hands he can realistically have played that you beat with J-high.

I think I know what you were trying to do here, but you just happened to pick a hand that developed in a way where all the likely draws either completed or where there are many blockers out there - so the realistic part of a hand range that is busted draws is actually very small.

[littleogre]

he actually has 78, but ok

then why the heck would he lead out? seem to me he would be better off going for a c-raise.

[littleogre]

things quickly go down hill if we think he is the type of player to get excited and donk us if he hits 2 pairs or better on the river.
infront of 30 combos behind 46

(.95)x.40-(.40)x.60 .14

now if we subtract busted str8 hands that were trash preflop it likely becomes a -ev call but i'm to tired to do any more math

[littleogre]

i just ran this through stox ev and for some reason it doesn't show any ev on the river.

[mxiu]

assuming villain will not fold.

this is the reason why people bet the turn

[littleogre]

actually it says the equity is a tie as far as river ev goes but i'm gonna have to send a message to them because no matter what hands i add to villans range it says the river equity is a tie.

[littleogre]

ok i think i see where i fudged it up and i know it's been said that we cant assume villain missed a draw but just for the sake of argument the actually ev of our hand in that situation is .65

[Stacks]

This may be the worst thread in the BC this year. God I can't even read the hand history. Same goes for anything littleogre types. Periods, commas, capital letters, and even thoughts are a good thing man.

Obviously if he you magically know he has a busted draw, and never has a pair with that draw then you call here. Only Kx beats you, and there are many more combos of lesser busted draws than Kx, so it's a LDO obvious call.

HOWEVER, you never know for sure he has a busted draw. It can be part of his range, but it likely is never his entire range. It's a huge mistake to only consider a portion of his range that you beat, and ignore the part of his range that beats you. All so you can make a pretty absurd call.

[littleogre]

This may be the worst thread in the BC this year. God I can't even read the hand history. Same goes for anything littleogre types. Periods, commas, capital letters, and even thoughts are a good thing man.

Obviously if he you magically know he has a busted draw, and never has a pair with that draw then you call here. Only Kx beats you, and there are many more combos of lesser busted draws than Kx, so it's a LDO obvious call.

HOWEVER, you never know for sure he has a busted draw. It can be part of his range, but it likely is never his entire range. It's a huge mistake to only consider a portion of his range that you beat, and ignore the part of his range that beats you. All so you can make a pretty absurd call.

First of this isn't a grammar contest. secondly if you don't like my threads then stfo. I can't see why you would take the time to reply to a thread that he didn't care about. Nice to see that you can figure things out after i have already explained them several times. Sorry man but i hate people that reply to threads that they don't care about. Honestly it would take less effort to just not open my threads in the first place. The hand history is whack because the only HH program i have at the moment is prospector 2 and it sucks for posting histories

[Stacks]

Basically the thread should be locked because you are promoting a terrible way of thinking which is focusing on only a portion of a villains range. Which you are also assuming villain is playing an incredibly wide range of hands preflop, which is likely incorrect without any reads (like does he really limp/call 72?). So while your not accurately considering villains range, your also not accurately assigning a range.

However, your saying a call on this river is +EV. And while I understand you are saying it's +EV if and only if he has a busted draw with no pair, some people might not pull that out of your posts because it was relatively difficult to understand what you were even trying to say. So they may think you are stating that a call on this river is +EV altogether, when that is obviously not the case. There is no way I call this river here.

Also why are you checking back the flop? Your hand has very little showdown value. Cbet the flop.

Also, I wasn't stating this is a grammar contest. That would be retarded. I was just saying that the hand history is terrible. If the program is retarded and not posting good hand histories, you could have done a little work yourself and cleaned up the hand history a bit to make it more readable. Also, the lack of periods and commas just made it really hard and rather annoying to try to deduce what you were trying to say. It wasn't until half-way down the page that I understood what you were actually talking about.

And lastly, I open these thread because it's sorta my job ya know? A mod is supposed to open threads, find what doesn't belong in the forum, move things, try to clear things up, etc. Oh and also, I didn't know the thread was going to suck when I opened it, although maybe I should have amirite?

Okay... I'll just go stfo anyways.

[Micro2Macro]

Please don't call jack high when someone you don't even know anything about shoves into you on the river.

[Erpel]

It's not a grammar contest, but your first posts made absolutely no sense. At least TRY to communicate the ideas and the situation you want to discuss. It may be very obvious to you what you mean because you are thinking about it, but it wasn't obvious to anyone else. We didn't answer the question wrong because we were stupid, we answered the wrong question because you didn't clearly communicate the right one. None of your posts are particularly clear. You begin a sentence in the middle of a thought without explaining the context and end it without a conclusion as your mind wanders off and completes the thought.

In the hand you need to remember stack sizes. Once you were talking about how the villain could check-raise the river - his bet is all-in and less than pot. Check/raise makes no sense to even think about. Donking on the river with 2 pair because he gets excited is the same thing. On the river, he has less than a pot sized bet behind. If he has ANY HAND WITH EQUITY against your range he'll want to get the last of his money in. That includes the busted draws bluffing but also any set, pair, two pair, made straight (like 87). You keep talking about his actions as if you think he has a huge stack behind and he's making the right play for his huge stack - this is just not the case. He has very little money behind.

Stacks is completely right to call you out, and since he's a moderator of the forum it's worth remembering that while this is your thread, it's his forum. When he reviews a thread he asks himself if the content of the thread, with the way it's presented and the way it is discussed is helping you sort something out and if it can help someone else who is a beginner on the right path. If a thread is likely to lead someone in the wrong direction this needs to be put plainly in the thread, and if the wrong direction is being espoused vigorously it may even be necessary to lock the thread. In this case - a thread lock would not be unreasonable. I think Stacks said it best when he said that the thread should be locked because you are promoting a terrible way of thinking where you only focus on the part of the opponents range that you beat and not the part of his range that beats you. When I initially replied that the question is not worth considering, this is what I was getting at - I made my long reply to illustrate why the conclusion with the limited perspective (busted draw) is a dangerous one to consider, hoping that you would see that you are asking the wrong questions.

On the topic of ranges I was pretty generous in my replies to include lots of trash he should have folded preflop as well just to humour your concept, but including every conceivable hand with no regard for the fact that our opponent paid money to see the flop is also terribad.

Nice to see that you can figure things out after i have already explained them several times.

Considering the actual content and idea you are contributing in this thread, this is just offensive. Honestly. You are discussing something BASIC, and you're DOING IT WRONG. When we try to point out that your idea is misguided (because it is) you throw out something offensive like this suggesting that you are just levels and levels above everyone else and it's only because you explain your thought processes to us that we really get it. At least you don't demand that we're grateful, but it's close. It's really close.

i know it's been said that we cant assume villain missed a draw but...

Good, it's good that the message is getting through but.. there should be no but in that sentence. And it'd be nice to hear something more engaging than a grudging admittance that "it's been said". Are you ready to accept that it's actualy quite important to consider the whole of a range that will have taken the actions up to a given point and not just part of it? It's about as I said - learning the right thing.

If you are holding a hammer all problems start to look like nails.

If you focus on when it is correct to make loose calls against busted draws you will subconsciously and completely automatically make it more likely that you will assume you are in such a situation. It's like a weight - if you dispassionately consider a situation and decide that he has 50% busted draws and 50% the nuts and even if you can beat most of the busted draws you do not have the odds to call.

If you spend a lot of time on these "busted draws" types of exercises you will not dispassionately say 50% nuts, 50% busted draw - you will subconsciously adjust the odds to 70% busted draws because you feel that you KNOW HOW THEY WORK and your mind has a way to process them which is effective and going through that process brings a feeling of success as you complete a process that you do well. And suddenly the overall result says that because you can beat the busted draws you are good to call even when you actually aren't - and you make expensive mistakes. You can get into that kind of bad habits yourself, and that's fine and your own responsibility - but for the received wisdom on this forum it would be inappropriate to let the flawed thinking stand unopposed.

It is often said that in poker you are your own worst enemy. This is also an example of that. Don't grow unprofitable habits.

[littleogre]

To start this post i would like to say i'm sorry to stacks. Don't get me wrong sir i think was rude for you to come into my thread with the sole purpose of trying to insult and belittle me. Just the same i should of bit my tongue.

[littleogre]

well i apologize to everyone if my post was unclear. I thought my comment about not having the gonads to call with jack high would make it clear that i was talking about the river , as that was the only place where i had any opportunity to call. As far as the hand is concerned it is indeed +ev to call if you can soul read the villain and put him on a busted draw. The problem is it quickly becomes -ev if you add just a few hands to his range. So those that said calling here is bad you were right. Or atleast we would need a very strong read to make a call. Something like villain rarely leads the river with a made hand.

[Erpel]

As far as the hand is concerned it is indeed +ev to call if you can soul read the villain and put him on a busted draw. The problem is it quickly becomes -ev if you add just a few hands to his range. So those that said calling here is bad you were right. Or atleast we would need a very strong read to make a call. Something like villain rarely leads the river with a made hand.

I mentioned something earlier which especially applies as a comment here. I think you are correct in saying that there are situations where you can have a strong read that makes it to correct to call with jack high. However, I'm not sure this is one of them - especially the 6 coming on the river and the board being A-high messes us up. If our opponent plays draws in a particular way and the board comes T54r, he plays it like he has a draw and the only draws likely are 76 or 32 and he'd have played both given the preflop action - and he then spazzes out and bets the river when no flushes are possible and only cards 9 and higher come on turn and river - then maybe.

So there is the discussion of an interesting idea (calling for value with jack high) and the discussion of the application of that idea. I think the hand example given does not work for a discussion of this idea, because it is a hand for which this cannot be a profitable move.

I don't feel strongly that the discussion of that idea doesn't belong on the beginners forum, but others might. The argument would be that most beginners are struggling to figure out what it means to play solid, and thinking about fancy plays just makes it harder to establish solid habits. It's a bit like suggesting a baby learns to jump on one leg before he's learned to keep his balance on both, let alone walk. It's maybe fun to learn/try and may bring better overall mobility/balance/coordination in the long term, but it doesn't bring any short term gains in the probably more important skills of being able to stand up and take steps without falling over.

[2ndline.4thstreet]

This hand confuddles me.

Thats pretty much all I have to say other than you rarely even beat a bluff here.

[froggie53088]

i think he made his hand and wanted u to call that .40 is that not an option? i see donks all the time especial ones with very little money on the table that buy in with 1$ or 2$, wait til they make a hand and just go all in. either way u obv cant call with J high once he called you on the turn u gotta just cut ur losses and move on

[littleogre]

Ok here is a topic you guys might find more intriguing. I actually got it from a topic at 2P2. You are in the sb in a SH game. It's folded around to the button who steals liberally in lp. He raises 3xbb. Which is a better hand to 3bet with? A suited connector or a hand like AXs Personally i would think connectors. They are fairly easy to play post flop. Axs on the other hand can get people in a lot of trouble. Some people say it's better to 3bet Axs . They reason that if the other guy steals a lot you have a good amount of folded equity. That's true regardless of your hand. mainly they say you make more money by flopping and ace and getting under pairs to call you on a couple streets. Then you do by playing a hand like 87 suited and trying to hit a big hand.

[JKDS]

suited connectors generate fold equity because villains continuing range is much tighter than his opening range. a hand like Axs has the same fold equity, and some additional fold equity since the likelihood of villain having a hand like...say...AK decreased. The implications are that the top of villains opening range was shrunk making it so he can continue even less often.