AK against super nit

[AFchung]

11/6 over decent sample

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (8 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

SB ($24.50)
Hero (BB) ($57.10)
UTG ($42.20)
UTG+1 ($46.95)
MP1 ($52.55)
MP2 ($50)
CO ($112.95)
Button ($51.50)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, A
UTG calls $0.50, 2 folds, MP2 bets $2.50, 3 folds, Hero calls $2, 1 fold

Flop: ($5.75) Q, A, Q (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $3.50, Hero calls $3.50

Turn: ($12.75) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $7, Hero calls $7

River: ($26.75) 5 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $12.50, Hero calls $12.50

Total pot: $51.75 | Rake: $2.50

[Micro2Macro]

Any reads on any prior bet sizing?

His bet sizing looks like he's just begging you to call.

[Hoopy]

I would 3 bet preflop, if he comes over the top its a fold.
My range preflop is (88+,AQo+).
As played I like leading out for full pot on the flop, he won't continue without the A or third Q. Defines his range better.
River really looks like a value bet. Could it be a flush draw?

[Airles™]

Good god what is with the back-to-back-to-back-to-back calls? Way to be as passive as humanly possible while learning absolutely nothing about your opponent's hand other than he likes it enough to bet it on all streets OOP. Hope you had a read on his bet sizing or timing because I just can't condone this type of play.

[Micro2Macro]

what good is raising

[Illfavor]

what good is raising

Let's us know where we're at.

[Micro2Macro]

so 3-bet preflop?

[JKDS]

what do we make of a range for villain?
pre
88+, KQs, AJs+, AQo+???

of these, likely 88, qq+, Kqs, AJs+, AQo+ continue to the end, where we have like 33% equity.

is this more likely pre?
TT+, ATs+, KQ, AQo+?
then wed have
QQ+, ATs+, KQ, AQo+ continuing and be like 40%.

im not sure about this kind of range...I never actually played 50nl. If this is good though, i think we're ok calling every street since the pot is offering enough odds to continue against his range.

[Airles™]

That 1/2 pot bet on the river could be a "please call" bet or a horse shit under-bet because he think you hit the flush by calling all 3 streets (or both for that matter).

What good is raising? I don't see how I can justify dumping half my stack into a hand by calling down only to find out I've just been taken to value town. Of course we're getting good odds to call, but are we that positive we're ahead? So did he get taken to value town? Split pot, what? Hell if I know. The OP posted no post-flop reads whatsoever. At NL FR I'm around 12/8 but I'm practically a maniac post flop. So telling us villain is 11/6 means nothing to me except he's opening with something half-way decent.

[Micro2Macro]

what do we make of a range for villain?
pre
88+, KQs, AJs+, AQo+???

of these, likely 88, qq+, Kqs, AJs+, AQo+ continue to the end, where we have like 33% equity.

is this more likely pre?
TT+, ATs+, KQ, AQo+?
then wed have
QQ+, ATs+, KQ, AQo+ continuing and be like 40%.

im not sure about this kind of range...I never actually played 50nl. If this is good though, i think we're ok calling every street since the pot is offering enough odds to continue against his range.

[bigspenda73]

if he's a true 11/6 he cannot have a flush here, his range for betting the river is AA/QQ/AQ, I'd bet he checks AK behind a TON here.

[Micro2Macro]

is it just me or is AK have 0 implied odds vs a player like this

[tyrn]

Uh way to passive if you cared about this hand. If you're correct that he is in fact a super nit, then you just got valued, why call river.
I dont agree with leading flop, c/c is good. b/f turn I think is much better though.

is it just me or is AK have 0 implied odds vs a player like this

Just because hes not shoving with AQ when board comes 2 9 A rainbow doesn't mean you're going to get 0 money from him. Just stop playing ATo vs this player and you should be fine.

[Micro2Macro]

I don't think I cold call ATo to anyone's PFR in full ring

Are we betting the turn for value?

[tyrn]

You can't cold call someone's PFR with ATo if you've already raised it before action even got to them right? I'm just kidding, that last sentence in my previous post was only meant as a joke in reference to the other thread.

About the turn bet, it's for pot control and to see where we stand. The problem with just c/c'ing all the way is that we haven't represented our hand whatsoever so folding river seems shitty. Assuming reads are right, I think we might get a check behind on river if he doesn't have a queen, meaning folding to a bet is a lot better.

[Stacks]

I think the turn is a pretty clear fold. Your likely never ahead of his value range (he doesn't open and 2 barrel AJ likely... Or bet flop and turn with KK,99-JJ). So imo you don't have the needed equity to make at turn call.

Raising anywhere in the hand would most definitely be a bluff if he's a true nit like his stats indicate. Preflop your pretty much just building a pot OOP against a range you don't fair great against. A range that you are going to be "forced" to check/fold numerous different flops because his 3bet calling range is going to be so strong. When you do hit a Kxx or Axx flop you not going to get a shitload of value when your ahead. 3betting preflop may be +EV based on fold equity and the blockers you hold; however, without running math it sounds bad theory-wise.

On the flop the same applies, you have a very marginal hand against this villain. Check/raising will essentially be turning your hand into a bluff because he doesn't continue with worse. And I don't really like turning TPTK into a bluff on the flop, and by the turn I'm almost sure he isn't folding enough for it to be profitable. So I wouldn't go that route either.

Criticizing the play because he was too passive, and he did not make a play to clearly define villains range is just retarded. You have information about the villain and you don't need to make what is likely to be a -EV play just to "define his range" or "find out where you are". You know he is really tight. This tells you a good bit here. You can likely conclude from either that information or other information that he doesn't bluff very often. So given his tightness you can conclude you don't fair very well against his value range, and since he isn't bluffing often your hand is very marginal. There is no need to raise to figure that out.

[Micro2Macro]

DING DING DING ^

[tyrn]

Criticizing the play because he was too passive, and he did not make a play to clearly define villains range is just retarded. You have information about the villain and you don't need to make what is likely to be a -EV play just to "define his range" or "find out where you are". You know he is really tight. This tells you a good bit here. You can likely conclude from either that information or other information that he doesn't bluff very often. So given his tightness you can conclude you don't fair very well against his value range, and since he isn't bluffing often your hand is very marginal. There is no need to raise to figure that out.

Are you saying you fold to his 60% pot bet on flop because his stats are 11/6? Just because he's a little tight, you're folding 100% to his c-bet?

Lets give villain range of AQo+, JJ+ PF, all of which I see c-betting this flop IP. We're going to assume the rest of the 6% isn't c-betting.

Board: Qs Qc As
Dead:  

	        equity   	win   	 tie 	            pots won 	pots tied	
Hand 0: 	57.554%  	44.71% 	12.84% 	         73034 	    20980.50   { AKo }
Hand 1: 	42.446%  	29.60% 	12.84% 	         48355 	    20980.50   { JJ+, AQo+ }

Now, if you call his flop bet, why not lead turn and get some control of a pot you still have equity in? I understand check folding turn, if villain was an 8/6 player, but sample size would have to be approaching 2000 or I'd need other reads for me to believe he's only ever betting with AA, AQ, QQ on turn. I think the success of c/f turn also depends heavily on villain's image of us.

Board: Qs Qc As 8h
Dead:  

	        equity  	 win  	  tie 	             pots won 	pots tied	
Hand 0: 	60.124%  	47.23% 	12.89% 	          3429 	      936.00   { AKo }
Hand 1: 	39.876%  	26.98% 	12.89% 	          1959 	      936.00   { JJ+, AQo+ }

[Illfavor]

My advocation of raising was clearly a joke. I never try to "find where I'm at."

Tyrn, I'm pretty sure Stax is saying to fold the turn, not the flop. All of the hands that bet the flop and turn from this player we either split with/lose to.

[Stacks]

I never said to fold the flop. I call flop because he could very likely have learned to cbet when he misses. However, the turn is not inherently a good 2barrel card (aka not a scare card), so I don't expect him to 2 barrel bluff often, if at all without further reads. So no.. Don't fold the flop because you are likely still ahead of his range, but on the turn you probably aren't ahead of the range he bets for value and because he is so nitty that he doesn't bluff often, then calling when you have very little equity against his value range and him having such a low bluffing frequency is quite foolish.

Also I don't agree with your ranges. While he could very likely have JJ+, AQ, I don't think he is cbetting 100% of that range. Why would he cbet JJ/KK here? If he bet KK here, are you ever calling with a worse hand? I highly doubt it.

Also, why do you want control of this pot. As much as aggressive play is likely better than passive play in a lot of spots, aggression is not always correct. What would a turn lead accomplish? What would be your objective? Are you leading the turn with the belief that he will call with worse hands? Are you leading the turn with the belief that he will fold often enought o be profitable? Because imo the second option (he folds often enough) is the only likely candidate. Name one hand he cbets the flop with, and calls a turn lead with that we beat in his range (other than AJ and I believe he doesn't have AJ in his range 100% of the time nor does he call AJ 100% of the time on the turn).

Also with your second range example you are either (A) being highly optimistic with his calling range or (B) made a mistake. As soon as the turn rolls off, practically nothing about the hand has changed. Before I act I still believe I'm ahead of his range for raising preflop and cbetting the flop. However, because I feel I'm ahead of that range, it does not automatically warrant a bet. Why? Because when I bet I am no longer dealing with his entire range. My bet will manipulate his range in such a way he now has subranges. A range of hands he will fold, a range he will call, a range he might raise either for value or as a bluff. So I can't just look at his entire range and how I fair against his entire range when I decide to make a bet or not on the turn. I need to focus on his calling range. And against his calling range, I do not feel we are ahead (>50% equity). It is because of this that I don't believe we can bet the turn for value, since when we are called we are likely behind more often than not.

I see in your range analysis you have JJ and KK still in his range. While "if" he cbet this flop with those hands, it is in his turn range at the start. But when we bet is he going to call with those hands? I highly doubt it. So we no longer have 60% equity against the range of hands he calls our turn lead with. We have more like 25%. Which is less than the needed 50% to bet for value.

[Stacks]

My advocation of raising was clearly a joke. I never try to "find where I'm at."

Tyrn, I'm pretty sure Stax is saying to fold the turn, not the flop. All of the hands that bet the flop and turn from this player we either split with/lose to.

I knew you were joking, but others imo were not.

And yeah as I explained in my last response, flop is a call, turn is a fold in most instances against this player.

[kfaess]

Nice analysis stacks, I agree with what has been said although I probably wouldn't have come to that conclusion on my own. I often lack the discipline when I play to make these kinds of folds.

[tyrn]

You're right, I forgot to take JJ and KK out of the second equity calculation, no wonder it looked so good.

You say he doesn't c-bet JJ or KK, then what are we hoping he checks behind on turn? correct me if I'm wrong, but that leaves AK as the only hand that doesn't have us ~99% beat? is it really worth calling flop in hopes of tieing for the pot? We're calling $3.50 to win $2.88, and folding to any further aggression.

The point I was trying to make was that on the turn, we're given no information to narrow his range from what it was PF. We're first to act so the decision becomes b/f or c/f. Obviously seeing how villain played the turn and river, we have more information than when it was our turn to act on the turn and I think that might be biasing some decisions. If OP posted this instead would b/f still be as bad?

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, A
UTG calls $0.50, 2 folds, MP2 bets $2.50, 3 folds, Hero calls $2, 1 fold

Flop: ($5.75) Q, A, Q (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $3.50, Hero calls $3.50

Turn: ($12.75) 8 (2 players)
Hero???

[Stacks]

Yes, I would still not advocate bet/folding the turn. My decision is not based on either the fact that villain bet the turn or 3 barreled.

The thing is this... Preflop is even a bit sketchy against this guy. We will be playing OOP against such a very tight range. We will be missing the flop a fair amount of the time, and we will have a hard time bluffing this villain, as a result of his right range. Also, because his value range is so narrow we aren't likely to get too much money in when we are ahead. For example I don't expect him to put in 2-3 streets worth with AQ/AJ/KK on Axx board, and I don't expect him to have KQ/KJ in his range on Kxx boards. So even preflop is a bit sketchy, and given we are OOP I wouldn't terribly hate a fold; however, a call is still probably +EV and would likely call myself.

On the flop, the reason I say he doesn't cbet JJ or KK all that often really falls on the same reasoning I advocate hero in not betting the turn. What would a bet with JJ/KK in villain's spot on the flop really accomplish? Worse hands likely do not call, so he wouldn't be getting value (as I'm not check/calling 99/TT/JJ on this flop). And he doesn't really need to bluff because he beats all the other hands (with KK he beats our KK/JJ/TT/99), and doesn't hate giving those hands a free card because of the relatively little chance of them catching their 2 outer. So since he can't bet for value and expect to be called by worse, and he can't bluff and fold out many better hands, and he is still ahead of the majority of our range with KK/JJ, then he should likely check behind and turn his hand into a bluff-catcher, or valuebet thinly on the later streets.

However, this is different for the weaker part of his range. If villain has a hand like 77/88, I would be more inclined to cbet this flop. It would obviously not be for value as we would never get a call from worse (barring an unlikely flush draw). But he could fold out some better hands, such as 88-JJ (24 combos). So a bet with 88 would be a bluff, and he could also barrel and expect us to fold AJ/AK some % of the time. So I would expect him to bet this board with a large % of the weaker part of his range (whether that be air or hands that he is likely behind with).

So on the flop, I do think hero has enough equity to make a call, as long as we don't expect villain to bluff us on the following streets very often (in which case if he does we should begin to call his future street bets more often with a wider range, or just fold the flop).

If for instance villain's range is 88+, AQ+ preflop, which isn't a terrible assumption. And he bets his nut hands, and the weaker part of his range on this flop (88-99, QQ, AQ, AK, AA), and checks back the rest (TT, JJ, KK), then on the flop we have 60% equity against his cbetting range. Since we only need 27% equity to have a Breakeven call (350/1275), then we should call. Obviously if he has a wider range, or is cbetting his entire range, then a call in this situation becomes more +EV.

Now if we continue with our assumption that he bets with the range I assigned (88-99, QQ, AQ, AK, AA), then as soon as the turn drops we are no longer ahead of his range. We only have 43% equity now. Also given the fact that if we bet he only calls with a hand that either beats us or ties us (he would fold 99, and maybe AK some % of the time), then we can't bet for value. So we check to him, and he makes his decision.

His decision will obviously affect his range. We can assume again that he will bet his best hands, but he may no longer bet his weakest hands as he doesn't believe we will fold. So let's say he bets AA/QQ/AQ/88 when we check the turn, and he checks back AK/99 for separate reasons (99 being he knows he's behind and doesn't believe you will fold so he gives up on the pot. AK because he thinks he might still be ahead, but isn't sure so he doesn't want to build the pot more. [aka pot control]). Well when he bets the turn we obviously do not have the equity to make a call, so the only options are to raise and fold. A raise for value is obviously out of the question because in order to raise for value you need >50% equity against the range of hands he calls the raise with, and that is not even close to the case here. You could consider raising as a bluff if he folds enough of his betting range for the bluff to be profitable; however, that is also not the case here. So a fold becomes our only option.

The point I was trying to make was that on the turn, we're given no information to narrow his range from what it is PF.

This is incorrect as I proved above. Do you see how even though we don't bet at him, and we play this passively, we are still able to alter his range? He isn't always going to bet with 100% of his range. He is going to check back some % of his hands, and bet the other %, which inevitably allows us to determine using logic and assumptions which portion of his main range he is doing which with. Which can then narrow his range based on the actual action he takes.

[tyrn]

Ok using your assumptions: he's betting 88, 99, QQ, AA, AQ, AK on flop and never betting TT, JJ, KK.

6 combinations of 88
6 combinations of 99
1 combinations of AA
1 combinations of QQ
4 combinations of AQ
6 combinations of AK

he folds 99 and AK to our bet on turn and calls/raises with 88, AA, QQ, AQ.

So it's exactly 50% FE with this range. Now considering were extending his range to 88 exactly, which has a big impact given the turn card. What's to say his range doesn't stop at 77, or 99. Also if he ever c-bets with TT or JJ this further increases the FE. Pot sized bet on turn seems to be 0 EV at worst.

I think we've over analyzed the shit out of this hand.

[Stacks]

First off, I don't believe he always folds AK on the turn. But also, he is just as likely to check back 77-99 than cbet TT/JJ (actually I say he checks back his weak small pairs more often than he cbets TT/JJ/KK). So when he does bet the flop if we are going to sway his range on the turn in any manner, I would lean more towards his flop cbet being geared more towards value and elimating a portion of his weak range/bluffs, than going the other way and saying he cbets more of those hands. This would mean that we have less FE on the turn after check/calling the flop because his range is now more geared towards hands he doesn't fold.

You can continue to analyze and see where a bet on the turn would work as a bluff (note it is most definitely a bluff). However, this is going to contain a bit of math and time to come to the conclusions. Luxuries that are hard to find while at the time. So while we may be able to look back and do a range analysis post-hand and come to the conclusion that a bluff on the turn is +EV (which I'm still not entirely convinced off), but at the table we are going to have to make a much quicker assessment. And my entire logic throughout the hand would be as follows:

Preflop - I'm likely ahead of his range. I feel I play better postflop, and building a pot OOP with AK against this opponent might not be a good idea. Especially given his tight opening range and the likelihood that my hand does not fair wonderful against the range of hands he calls my 3bet with.

Flop - I'm checking to let him to continue to make numerous mistakes, such as putting in money with worse value hands, and cbetting air. When he bets, I feel I am ahead of his betting range at this time. Because a call is +EV, and I don't feel I am >50% against the range of hands he calls a raise with, I'm simply going to call.

Turn - I have a hand with moderate SD value. It can still be ahead of a decent portion of his range. I can't bet for value, so my decision is either to bluff and b/f, c/f, or c/c. I figure given my SD value and the likelihood he turns his hand pretty faceup if I check the turn, and the fact that given his nitty tendencies his range for betting the flop might be tighter than I"m given credit. So I don't feel I have a shitload of FE, and decide to check. When he bets, I dismiss the idea of check/call because I'm likely not ahead of his range. So check/fold it is.

Either way, I'm not responding with such a long response again ITT. Too much typing even for my liking.

[Hoopy]

Great post Stacks, you really thought the hand through well.

[bigspenda73]

wtf is this thread, turn is probably a tight fold and the river is an obvious fold.

[Outlaw]

11/6 over decent sample

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (8 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

saw flop

SB ($24.50)
Hero (BB) ($57.10)
UTG ($42.20)
UTG+1 ($46.95)
MP1 ($52.55)
MP2 ($50)
CO ($112.95)
Button ($51.50)

Preflop: Hero is BB with K, A
UTG calls $0.50, 2 folds, MP2 bets $2.50, 3 folds, Hero calls $2, 1 fold

Flop: ($5.75) Q, A, Q (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $3.50, Hero calls $3.50

Turn: ($12.75) 8 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $7, Hero calls $7

River: ($26.75) 5 (2 players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets $12.50, Hero calls $12.50

Total pot: $51.75 | Rake: $2.50

This is a leak here for sure.

3-bet preflop because he ships AA, KK and a lot of worse hands call.

At least raise the flop because its tough to continue w/o a queen in his hand and you are ahead of anything else besides AA. Make Ax pay to play you here. If he ships its an easy fold and you save money.

I expect him to show down KQ, QJ a ton here. The only thing we beat is AJ and would he really fire 3 streets with that as an 11/6?

As played fold the turn and definitely fold the river.

[Erpel]

OP is meh but Stacks' replies in this thread are gold - mandatory reading for beginners and I'd almost say put it in the digest for an example of how to properly think your way through a hand. Instant classic. Yeah, ok the turn fold might be a bit tight, but it's the thought process that counts.

In fact - I've never really been able to produce an analysis of this quality, but I really think we should have a "best of" set of analysis posts that show beginners how it's done. Would be ideal if we could cut out some of the noise (even where the noise is the asking of the stupid question that causes the excellent and insightful response - just leave out the question and go with the response).

Maybe make it an occasional thing. Pick a hand that's been posted and/or discussed (on any forum) - even simple ones (maybe especially simple ones seeing as it's the beginners forum) and do a proper, relatively complete analysis and add it to a distinct library of reading material. There's a ton of good stuff on here, but trying to find it can result in reading barely legible trash for hours.

Maybe given a bit of time this could become a library of standard situations where in a given hand history instead of pointing out the obvious we could link to a couple of applicable "best of" analysis posts and ask the OP himself to consider which principles from those hands apply in his situation. Really fantastic learning accelerator if this could be accomplished.

don't 3b preflop unless he calls 3b with AQ ldo

[Outlaw]

I am never not 3-betting here. His hijack range includes enough hands we dominate that might call in position.

I am not sure 9/6 even qualifies as a "super-nit" at FR. I 3-bet these people endlessly at FR and get flatted like once every 50 times.

[Stacks]

3-bet preflop because he ships AA, KK and a lot of worse hands call.

I am never not 3-betting here.

Sure sounds like some sort of cover-up to me. Or at least a conflict of interests.

Also, what worse hand is he calling with? I fold AQ to 3bets some % of the time. I would have to suspect that a nit would do it with a much higher frequency. Also TT-QQ > AK. I'm confuzzled.

[Micro2Macro]

Analysis of the 3-bet - LONG

Introduction:
Okay if your lazy or you just don't care, this is going to be super long so either don't bother reading and learn nothing or get off your ass and try to understand so this will benefit you and me.

I hope I am wrong (and well I probably am somewhere in this post), since nothing is ever learnt from being right. I do however feel fairly comfortable with my analysis as I did it carefully, though I may have made numerous mistakes in both my assumptions and maths. Specifically, the part about the EV after villain calls our 3-bet. I basically don't know what to do here so I just went with what I felt was right, and am hoping someone will step in and correct that.

EDIT: Calculations have been fixed, total $EV was incorrect as the pot size was correct for postflop.



Assumptions:
-We hold AdKs
-Villain raises here with {77+, ATs+, KQs, AQo+}
-Blinds .50/1.00 for simplicity in calculations
-UTG folds 100% of limping range in this situation
-Villains continuing range to our 3-bet is {TT+, AKo, AQs+}
-Of villains continuing range, he 4-bets only {KK+}
-We 3-bet to $18, which is roughly 3.5x the raise (3.6 to be exact)

Now to disect villains raising range, taking into account our blockers:
Combo's of 77+ = (6*6)+(3*2) = 42
Combo's of ATs+ = (3*3)+(2*1) = 11
Combo's of KQs = (3*1) = 3
Combo's of AQo+ = (12*2) = 24
Therefore based on the assumed range, villain is raising a total of 80 combo's

Now to disect villains continuing range, taking into account our blockers:
Combo's of TT+ = (6*3)+(3*2) = 24
Combo's of AKo = (9*1) = 9
Combo's of AQs+ = (1*3) = 3
Therefore based on the assumed continuing range, villain continues with 36 combo's

Villain calls or 4-bets 36/80 combo's, = 45% of the time
Villain folds 44/80 combo's, = 55% of the time
Of the 45% continuation, villain 4-bets 6/36 combo's, = 17% of the time, thus calling 28% of the time he continues

Against villains continuing range:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 52.251% 37.58% 14.67% 19305294 7535541.00 { QQ-TT, AQs+, AKo }
Hand 1: 47.749% 33.08% 14.67% 16992744 7535541.00 { AdKs }

Figuring out the expectation of 3-betting:
POT: $1 limp + $1 bb, + $0.50 sb, + $5 raise = $7.50 pot
We risk $17 to win $7.50

Case 1: Villain folds
EV = .55 (+$7.50) = $4.13

Case 2: Villain 4-bets KK+, and we fold
EV = .17 (-$17) = -$2.89

Case 3: Villain calls and we go see a flop with villain having about 52% equity. This is where I'm unsure of how to figure out the EV, because basically, we're assuming we win exactly 48% of the time and lose 52%. The problem with this is it does not take into account any postflop action, so it really depends on how villain plays postflop to determine whether we have an edge, what our implied odds are, and blah blah blah beyond this I'm stuck so I just did this (let me know if this is just fucked or whatever, but I'd really like to see some further analysis before anyone starts saying everything I've typed so far is wrong, which I think it probably is):

EV= .28(+$36.50*.48) + .28(-$36.50*.52)
= $4.9056 + (-$5.3144)
= -$0.4088

Total EV estimate:
$4.13 - $2.89 -$0.4088 = +$0.83

So according to my simplified scenerio, raising is slightly +EV. HOWEVER, this is based on many assumptions, and it also does not take into consideration at all how either villain or hero plays postflop. Because we are at a disadvantage being out of position, I would have to believe this number is actually quite generous. Figuring out anything beyond this is pretty ridiculous and I'd be surprised if anyone even though about it.

The assumption that we win 48% of the time postflop I believe is very flawed, but I'm really stumped on how many more assumptions we can make for this beyond preflop. Basically, it assumes no further betting postflop. Of course this won't really be the case :/

BASED ON FOLDING EQUITY ONLY: i.e, we give up on 100% of flops (another flawed assumption), 3-betting is -EV. We must squeeze out some value postflop for this to make us money.

Personally, I feel calling may yield a higher EV, even though 3-betting has been shown to be +EV. When making decions, we don't just want to take EV, we want to MAXIMIZE EV. I could do up the EV of just calling based on assumptions, but that's for another week, possibly month.

Blah blah blah, I'm done talking now. Please give me some feedback on this analyis if you feel like it or w/e. If somone could run the EV of just calling that'd be sick since we'd find out for sure whether calling>3-betting, though being out of position, I would never 3-bet here, as intuitively, I'm able to see that calling yields higher EV, for obvious reasons stated earlier.

[Micro2Macro]

Another note on my assumptions:
Some seem to be iffy, but I think they balance out enough to say that they're correct enough to go ahead and figure out our approximate expectation.

[tyrn]

There's no point of getting that precise with calculations if they're based on an estimation, the error in your initial assumptions will just carry through.

I don't agree with the opening range you gave him preflop. The whole basis for the analysis in this thread (checking turn and letting him turn his hand face up) was villain's nitty tendencies. No true 11/6 player is opening that wide from MP2. Stacks gave him a good opening range, 88+, AQo+. His continuing range to a 3-bet is probably more like QQ+, and AK will likely be push or fold based on his image of us. He may also call with jacks some percentage of the time. After flop hero's OP with AK which when combined with villain's continuing range should he call hero's 3-bet, probably means hero is folding often post flop or winning a small pot. 3-betting then becomes mainly a bluff, making 70% FE the break even point. I think there's more value to be had by flatting and playing villain's wider range.

[Micro2Macro]

The point of precise calculations is to build intuition away from the table regarding estimating EV at the table. Obviously at the table we take short-cuts to calculate EV, so we are not being so precise. When we do calcualtions away from the table we obviously can run them through a calculator and be more exact. I find it good practice and I still feel it is important to exercise your mind once and awhile and do some math - and there's no point in just dissing someone's analysis without giving much of one yourself.

Well that opening range is 6% of hands, and considering he is 11/6, I figure he'll open fewer hands in EP, more hands in LP, and about well, 6% of hands it MP. Also, he is isolating a limper, so if anything his range could be slightly wider than 6%. In other words, give or take 1% and it still doesn't change things too much - run the math.

Whether the range is tighter or not, either way there's still definately more value calling as opposed to 3-betting, like you said. I haven't done the precise calcuations regarding postflop play because what I did was enough. I'm not trying to disagree with 3-betting being the better play, in fact, if you even bothered to read my analysis, you'd see my conclusion on why it is NOT better.

If you don't think doing math away from the table is important to learning how to think through situations that arise, that's fine. This game is 100% math though, so good luck to you, sir.

EDIT: fwiw I believe MP2 opening ranges will be roughly + or - 1% off from the total PFR, depending on a players postional awareness.

(ATS stat would be nice here)

[Micro2Macro]

There's also a way to figure out whether we can bet for value postflop or not given my ranges. Roughly, I believe that doing the calculation will result in 3-betting being overall -EV, as I discussed with someone who also reviewed this thread.

Hope that ^ sort of clears things up and satisfies all our conclusions not to 3-bet.

[Stacks]

Total EV estimate:
$4.13 - $2.89 + $2.28 - $2.48 = +$1.04

I may have missed something, but where does the +$2.28 come from?

[Micro2Macro]

Total EV estimate:
$4.13 - $2.89 + $2.28 - $2.48 = +$1.04

I may have missed something, but where does the +$2.28 come from?

You know what, I'm not going to bother explaining that because I forget to add in the change in the pot size when villain calls our 3-bet let me try and fix that before doing anything else.

[tyrn]

there's no point in just dissing someone's analysis without giving much of one yourself.

Yeah I should have just left that first sentence out of my post. Thats not how I meant it at all. You obviously put a lot of effort in that post, and I'm not coming down on you. I just wanted to point out since your calculations are based on a range which has an uncertainty, then your answer will also have an uncertainty. I just happen to think the initial range you assigned has a high error in it :P

[Micro2Macro]

I actually made some big mistakes in the EV calc, they are now fixed (I hope).

EV is now less than +$1.00

Of course our range has uncertainty, however I feel from MP2, one's raising range will typically be about the same as their total PFR, so I felt it was a good assumption.

[Stacks]

SHOVE PREFLOP!! INCREASE FOLD EQUITY!!!!

[Stacks]

Also, AFchung, did you manage to get anything out of this thread? Tough to tell with you being so passive up there...

[AFchung]

Also, AFchung, did you manage to get anything out of this thread? Tough to tell with you being so passive up there...

LOL

yes, i read every post here don't worry. :P