This is my second post of the day, again dealing with poker theory in general rather than my own results. I was taking the quiz over at www.donkeytest.com for probably the 3rd time (scored 122 this time), when I had one of those mind blowing *eureka* moments.
One of the questions is the following:
5/10 NL. $1,000 stacks. You raise to $40 from late position. A loose-aggressive player in the big blind (who has been re-raising from the blinds a lot) re-raises to $130 and you call.
Your image is loose aggressive. You and the BB have been in a few big re-raised pots so far, both of you have been bluffing and semi-bluffing relentlessly.
Flop is: 2c 6d 10s
He makes a $200 continuation bet. Which hand is best if you plan to raise all-in on this flop?
A) 88
B) AK
C) A9
D) QJ
Obviously A9 and QJ don't really make sense since, so lets discount those.
I'm pretty sure the first couple times I took the quiz I thought this was a no brainer, 88 was the obvious answer. I imagine most lower stakes players would think this way, because our opponents 3-bet range contains a lot of combinations of AK and AQ that missed, and we are way ahead of these hands with 88!
The reason why we bluff in the first place however, is to have better hands fold. If we bluff raise with 88, the only better hand we are likely to fold out is 99, with which our villain may even find a hero call. We very likely fold out all hands worse than ours which include smaller pairs and and AQ/AK (which still has some overcard equity, so AQ/AK folding isn't terrible from an EV perspective). However, should we get called by better hands, which in this case would be JJ+ or sets, in all cases we are drawing to 2 outs or worse. Sets are certainly significantly less likely than the overpairs.
Now consider what happens when we bluff shove with AK. Do better hands fold? Certainly. We fold out most small pairs, as well as AK most of the time (which we'd chop with) and of course AQ. We will still get called by better hands, but against JJ and QQ we have now improved to 6 outs, with 3 outs versus KK. As with 88, we are nearly dead against sets and AA.
Thus, the right answer is very probably B) AK.
What's the lesson we should take from this? With medium strength hands (like 88 on this flop versus villain's range) we should be trying to get to a cheap showdown rather than turning them into bluffs. They don't make great bluffs because we only fold out worse hands which we could potentially extract value from on later streets, though that might be difficult in this particular example as it is a 3-bet pot to start with and any action on the turn or river likely means getting it all-in.
On the other hand, with AK we do often fold out better hands, and still have some equity against much of villain's calling range.
(Of course, we probably should have taken a 4b/call line preflop with AK versus this villain.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Three Theorems From 2+2
I've played a lot of hands recently, and during my last session ran several bluffs against a few of the best regs (who are both 2+2 posters) at $50NL. I should probably post a few of the hands, and might in the future, but as I don't have the histories available to me at the moment I'll instead discuss a few theorems that have become 2+2 gospel over the last couple years.
Aside from my comments which are in italics, the below is copied and pasted from Cry Me A River's thread in the 2+2 Micro Stakes FR forum. Here we go!
Zeebo's Theorem - Nobody ever folded a full house.
Reasoning: Nobody is good enough to fold a monster. Most players aren't even good enough to fold a hand that looks like a monster but really isn't.
Application: There are two basic applications to this theory. The first is that if you put your opponent on a full house and you can beat them, don't be afraid to overbet/push the river. This is particularly true when there is three of a kind on the board. Players will call with an incredible range of full houses in that spot. It is true that some villain may fold 22 on a board with three aces. However, you have no way of knowing if they have 22 or TT so go ahead and felt them. You are losing value if you don't. And sometimes they'll call with 22 anyway.
The second thing to realize is to never try to bluff anyone off a full house. If you have 22 on a board with three Aces, don't expect to be able to push 66 off his hand.
This theorem also generally applies to any monster over monster situation, from straight flush over quads/FH/nut flush down to set over set.
Reliability: This is the most reliable theorem. Nearly 100%. Somebody will post and argue that it is actually 100%.
Prof Awesome: I'm sure there are some spots where I should have "value shoved" rivers based on this theorem, where villain likely has a FH and I instead make a smaller value bet with the nut FH/quads. These situations don't come around terribly often however, but I need to keep this in mind for the future.
Clarkmeister's Theorem - When you are OOP HU on the river and a 4-flush comes always bet.
Reasoning: Simply put, a 4-flush is an ideal bluffing situation.
Application: Bet a lot of 4-flushes, particularly HU, OOP on the river. You will get a ton of folds. Most everyone is folding non-flush hands (that beat you) and small flushes.
Reliability: Yes, sometimes villain has the nut flush or calls with the K-high flush. Nothing you can do there. But over the long haul this is a VERY profitable spot to bluff.
Keep in mind though, you ARE turning your hand into a bluff. If you have a hand you don't want to turn into a bluff (very villain dependent) like top set or the K-high flush then check/calling can be fine.
Prof Awesome: This is something I need to do a heck of a lot more. However, this should only be run against decent players - if someone is a complete calling station they may well call you with two-pair type hands every time, and that isn't what we want.
BelugaWhale Theorem - When you are the preflop raiser and your turn bet is raised or check/raise, it is time to re-evaluate one pair hands.
Reasoning: In raised pots, most players will just call down with one pair (be it pocket pair or top pair) type hands as well as draws. The turn is where most players who flopped a monster stop slowplaying and try to build pot. Or, they raise if they hit their draw.
Application: A raise on the turn is a signal to re-evaluate where you are at. It is not and automatic fold but you need to consider if villain has a monster or just hit his draw.
Reliability: Against fish and bad players in general, with the exception sometimes of LAGs and maniacs, this is a VERY reliably theorem. However, it is also an extremely popular and well known theorem, perhaps the best known. A lot of good players, particularly 2+2 players can try to exploit this theorem, especially by floating. So depending on the player (a decent player who is ALSO capable of making a play) you may need to discount this theorem considerably.
Prof Awesome: Against solid TAG/LAG regulars, I need to be bluffing the turn more, and have an easier time getting away from one-pair type hands when facing turn aggression. Against very good thinking players, I need to have the guts to make turn hero calls when appropriate. I had one such chance during a session last night, where I timed down and folded, though my read was that the villain (a very good reg) was bluff shoving a missed AK.
Aside from my comments which are in italics, the below is copied and pasted from Cry Me A River's thread in the 2+2 Micro Stakes FR forum. Here we go!
Zeebo's Theorem - Nobody ever folded a full house.
Reasoning: Nobody is good enough to fold a monster. Most players aren't even good enough to fold a hand that looks like a monster but really isn't.
Application: There are two basic applications to this theory. The first is that if you put your opponent on a full house and you can beat them, don't be afraid to overbet/push the river. This is particularly true when there is three of a kind on the board. Players will call with an incredible range of full houses in that spot. It is true that some villain may fold 22 on a board with three aces. However, you have no way of knowing if they have 22 or TT so go ahead and felt them. You are losing value if you don't. And sometimes they'll call with 22 anyway.
The second thing to realize is to never try to bluff anyone off a full house. If you have 22 on a board with three Aces, don't expect to be able to push 66 off his hand.
This theorem also generally applies to any monster over monster situation, from straight flush over quads/FH/nut flush down to set over set.
Reliability: This is the most reliable theorem. Nearly 100%. Somebody will post and argue that it is actually 100%.
Prof Awesome: I'm sure there are some spots where I should have "value shoved" rivers based on this theorem, where villain likely has a FH and I instead make a smaller value bet with the nut FH/quads. These situations don't come around terribly often however, but I need to keep this in mind for the future.
Clarkmeister's Theorem - When you are OOP HU on the river and a 4-flush comes always bet.
Reasoning: Simply put, a 4-flush is an ideal bluffing situation.
Application: Bet a lot of 4-flushes, particularly HU, OOP on the river. You will get a ton of folds. Most everyone is folding non-flush hands (that beat you) and small flushes.
Reliability: Yes, sometimes villain has the nut flush or calls with the K-high flush. Nothing you can do there. But over the long haul this is a VERY profitable spot to bluff.
Keep in mind though, you ARE turning your hand into a bluff. If you have a hand you don't want to turn into a bluff (very villain dependent) like top set or the K-high flush then check/calling can be fine.
Prof Awesome: This is something I need to do a heck of a lot more. However, this should only be run against decent players - if someone is a complete calling station they may well call you with two-pair type hands every time, and that isn't what we want.
BelugaWhale Theorem - When you are the preflop raiser and your turn bet is raised or check/raise, it is time to re-evaluate one pair hands.
Reasoning: In raised pots, most players will just call down with one pair (be it pocket pair or top pair) type hands as well as draws. The turn is where most players who flopped a monster stop slowplaying and try to build pot. Or, they raise if they hit their draw.
Application: A raise on the turn is a signal to re-evaluate where you are at. It is not and automatic fold but you need to consider if villain has a monster or just hit his draw.
Reliability: Against fish and bad players in general, with the exception sometimes of LAGs and maniacs, this is a VERY reliably theorem. However, it is also an extremely popular and well known theorem, perhaps the best known. A lot of good players, particularly 2+2 players can try to exploit this theorem, especially by floating. So depending on the player (a decent player who is ALSO capable of making a play) you may need to discount this theorem considerably.
Prof Awesome: Against solid TAG/LAG regulars, I need to be bluffing the turn more, and have an easier time getting away from one-pair type hands when facing turn aggression. Against very good thinking players, I need to have the guts to make turn hero calls when appropriate. I had one such chance during a session last night, where I timed down and folded, though my read was that the villain (a very good reg) was bluff shoving a missed AK.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Playing AA Preflop vs. Standard TAGs
I'm going to save my session review graphs, etc. for the end of the month, and instead focus on posting a few more helpful strategy articles on the blog. After reading a thread on 2+2 today on the subject of playing AA preflop, it occurred to me that maybe I hadn't given this topic enough thought.
Lets consider two situations:
Situation 1
It is folded around to a regular 14/9/2 TAG in MP, who raises to 4BB. We hold AA in the CO, and after the open raise it is folded to us. Obviously we aren't folding - and the standard play here is to raise. Should we ever get tricky here and just call behind? If you really think about it, the answer is clearly that we should always raise (raising an appropriate amount of course, around 3.5x the initial bet) so that our opponent has terrible odds to set mine. Why is it so much better to raise here when we are likely folding out 2/3rds of our villain's range, all of which we are ahead of (22-TT, AJ, sometimes AQ, KQo, etc)? Without going into too much detail, we want to build a pot while we are ahead, while narrowing his range to hands he is likely to stack off to us with while he is behind.
For example, our villain probably doesn't call our 3-bet with 44, which we are ahead of. That said, we probably also don't pick up further value from 44 postflop unless our villain hits his set (where we potentially lose a lot of money), so it's a good thing to fold him out preflop. By sizing our 3-bet appropriately, we make it a majorly -EV play for him to call with his 44, even if we give him our stack every time he hits his set. However, our villain does likely call with AK, sometimes AQ, QQ, and sometimes JJ. These hands all potentially allow the villain to lose his stack to us when they become overpairs/TPTK hands. Further, our villain is likely to 4-bet KK, which makes it a near certainty that we get to play for stacks preflop where we are a 85% favorite.
Situation 2
Next, lets consider us having AA in MP. It is folded to us, and we raise to 4BB. Villain in the CO 3-bets us an appropriate amount to 15BB. Should we raise or fold? Gut instinct here will sometimes tell us to 4-bet. However, if we 4-bet the villain, we likely only get further value from KK, and maybe rarely sometimes QQ or even AKs. That said, because our villain is a standard TAG, his 3-bet range is probably something like {JJ+, AQ+}. Against these hands, we can extract significantly more value post-flop when our villain makes TPTK or an overpair should we cold call the 3-bet, rather than raising. This cold call is an especially dangerous weapon because our hand looks a lot like AK/AQ/JJ/QQ, and most villains will c-bet the flop if checked to. This is great, because after a 3/4 pot sized bet into what was a 3-bet pot preflop, our villain should already have 25BB+ of his stack committed, and it's going to become harder for him to fold.
Against a spewing donkey, we probably can't misplay this hand either way, we just want to get the money in ASAP.
I'll be playing my usual weekend volume of $50NL this weekend along with the $100k monthly freeroll for Gold Star+. I may as well spoil the surprise that I'm going to hit Platinum Star this month, which will further increase my rakeback. Huzzah!
Lets consider two situations:
Situation 1
It is folded around to a regular 14/9/2 TAG in MP, who raises to 4BB. We hold AA in the CO, and after the open raise it is folded to us. Obviously we aren't folding - and the standard play here is to raise. Should we ever get tricky here and just call behind? If you really think about it, the answer is clearly that we should always raise (raising an appropriate amount of course, around 3.5x the initial bet) so that our opponent has terrible odds to set mine. Why is it so much better to raise here when we are likely folding out 2/3rds of our villain's range, all of which we are ahead of (22-TT, AJ, sometimes AQ, KQo, etc)? Without going into too much detail, we want to build a pot while we are ahead, while narrowing his range to hands he is likely to stack off to us with while he is behind.
For example, our villain probably doesn't call our 3-bet with 44, which we are ahead of. That said, we probably also don't pick up further value from 44 postflop unless our villain hits his set (where we potentially lose a lot of money), so it's a good thing to fold him out preflop. By sizing our 3-bet appropriately, we make it a majorly -EV play for him to call with his 44, even if we give him our stack every time he hits his set. However, our villain does likely call with AK, sometimes AQ, QQ, and sometimes JJ. These hands all potentially allow the villain to lose his stack to us when they become overpairs/TPTK hands. Further, our villain is likely to 4-bet KK, which makes it a near certainty that we get to play for stacks preflop where we are a 85% favorite.
Situation 2
Next, lets consider us having AA in MP. It is folded to us, and we raise to 4BB. Villain in the CO 3-bets us an appropriate amount to 15BB. Should we raise or fold? Gut instinct here will sometimes tell us to 4-bet. However, if we 4-bet the villain, we likely only get further value from KK, and maybe rarely sometimes QQ or even AKs. That said, because our villain is a standard TAG, his 3-bet range is probably something like {JJ+, AQ+}. Against these hands, we can extract significantly more value post-flop when our villain makes TPTK or an overpair should we cold call the 3-bet, rather than raising. This cold call is an especially dangerous weapon because our hand looks a lot like AK/AQ/JJ/QQ, and most villains will c-bet the flop if checked to. This is great, because after a 3/4 pot sized bet into what was a 3-bet pot preflop, our villain should already have 25BB+ of his stack committed, and it's going to become harder for him to fold.
Against a spewing donkey, we probably can't misplay this hand either way, we just want to get the money in ASAP.
I'll be playing my usual weekend volume of $50NL this weekend along with the $100k monthly freeroll for Gold Star+. I may as well spoil the surprise that I'm going to hit Platinum Star this month, which will further increase my rakeback. Huzzah!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Sizing Preflop 3-Bets
Since I haven't offered much lately to help readers improve their game, I'd like to talk about 3 betting preflop. If you're playing $25NL or higher, you should hopefully be at the point where when an open raise is made, you can put the raising individual on a range (sometimes a reasonably precise one using their PFR% if you have enough hands played against them). 3 betting (raising this initial open raise, for those unfamiliar), is important because it allows us to do two things:
(1) Play a big pot with our big hands.
(2) Have fold equity preflop and often take down a small pot right there.
However, as with most things in poker, it's more complicated than that. The size of our raise is extremely important. This should actually be fairly obvious given the two points above - you want to raise enough to build a pot, and you want to raise enough to have some fold equity. Perhaps the most important factor when considering raise size however, is that it needs to be a size so that your opponent calling is a -EV decision based on his range.
Lets consider a typical 13/7 TAG (nitty, but pretty standard for $25NL or $50NL) open raising to a standard $2 (50c BB, no callers in front) from middle position. Both us and the villain have $50 stacks. Lets say that we are on the BU with QQ. This is a great spot for us to 3 bet because we have a strong hand that is ahead or racing with much of his range, we can get some fold equity, and if this reasonable player repops us we can avoid stacking off to AA/KK as we might if we were just to call behind and flop an overpair. In all, this is a standard spot for us to be 3-betting, and should do so every time. Of course, this would not be a good spot to 3 bet if our opponent was a 7/2 ubernit over a large hand sample - in such a case we should probably be calling with our QQ for set value, and getting away from it if we flop an overpair and our opponent shows aggression.
So, what is our opponents range? From MP it is probably something like (88+, AJs+, AQo+). Now, the key to threebet sizing is that we want to make calling a -EV move for our opponent for the hands in his range that don't crush us. At the same time, we don't want to bet so much that if he repops us with his AA/KK, we are losing much more than we need to. The villain has raised to $2 and has $48 left behind. Consider the medium pairs 88-JJ in our villain's range, which we crush. We do not want to give our opponent odds to setmine against us, which makes a small raise here very bad. Based on the 5/10 rule of setmining (I deal with this in a previous post somewhere), if we raise $5 (10% of effective stacks) it's a clear fold (or -EV call) for the villain, whereas a raise of $2.50 (5% of effective stacks) is a clear call (+EV call to setmine). A raise of right in the middle between $5 and $2.50 to $3.75 is likely a marginally +EV call for the villain given the circumstances. We don't want to risk more than we have to in case of getting repopped by AA/KK, so an appropriate 3-bet size here is to raise his $2 bet $5 to $7 total.
Note that if we had AKo in the hand above, we should be playing it the same way. Even though we are racing against the medium size pocket pairs and instead are crushing AJs, AQs and AQo, our villain is playing against our range and we still do not want to give him odds to setmine - and thus the exact same raise size would be appropriate.
Below is an example of where a villain does a very poor job of sizing his 3-bet, and gets owned by me. Notice that based on the 5/10 rule and the dead money in the pot (along with the increased chance of him stacking off if I hit my set), him raising only 6.7% of the effective stacks makes calling a pretty clear +EV choice for me.
Villain is a 16/7/3 regular over a sample of 500+ hands.
Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
Hand History Converter by Stoxpoker
Hero (BTN): $60.25 (120.5 bb)
SB: $66.50 (133 bb)
BB: $67.80 (135.6 bb)
UTG: $23.40 (46.8 bb)
UTG+1: $56.10 (112.2 bb)
MP1: $33.55 (67.1 bb)
MP2: $12.75 (25.5 bb)
MP3: $30.85 (61.7 bb)
CO: $46.75 (93.5 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with 5
5
UTG calls $0.50, 2 folds, MP2 calls $0.50, 2 folds, Hero raises to $3, SB raises to $7, 3 folds, Hero calls $4
Flop: ($15.50) 2
6
5 (2 players)
SB bets $6, Hero raises to $17, SB raises to $59.50 and is all-in, Hero calls $36.25 and is all-in
Turn: ($122) 8 (2 players, 2 are all-in)
River: ($122) 7 (2 players, 2 are all-in)
Results: $122 pot ($3 rake)
SB showed K K (a pair of Kings) and lost (-$60.25 net)
Hero showed 5 5 (three of a kind, Fives) and won $119 ($58.75 net)
(1) Play a big pot with our big hands.
(2) Have fold equity preflop and often take down a small pot right there.
However, as with most things in poker, it's more complicated than that. The size of our raise is extremely important. This should actually be fairly obvious given the two points above - you want to raise enough to build a pot, and you want to raise enough to have some fold equity. Perhaps the most important factor when considering raise size however, is that it needs to be a size so that your opponent calling is a -EV decision based on his range.
Lets consider a typical 13/7 TAG (nitty, but pretty standard for $25NL or $50NL) open raising to a standard $2 (50c BB, no callers in front) from middle position. Both us and the villain have $50 stacks. Lets say that we are on the BU with QQ. This is a great spot for us to 3 bet because we have a strong hand that is ahead or racing with much of his range, we can get some fold equity, and if this reasonable player repops us we can avoid stacking off to AA/KK as we might if we were just to call behind and flop an overpair. In all, this is a standard spot for us to be 3-betting, and should do so every time. Of course, this would not be a good spot to 3 bet if our opponent was a 7/2 ubernit over a large hand sample - in such a case we should probably be calling with our QQ for set value, and getting away from it if we flop an overpair and our opponent shows aggression.
So, what is our opponents range? From MP it is probably something like (88+, AJs+, AQo+). Now, the key to threebet sizing is that we want to make calling a -EV move for our opponent for the hands in his range that don't crush us. At the same time, we don't want to bet so much that if he repops us with his AA/KK, we are losing much more than we need to. The villain has raised to $2 and has $48 left behind. Consider the medium pairs 88-JJ in our villain's range, which we crush. We do not want to give our opponent odds to setmine against us, which makes a small raise here very bad. Based on the 5/10 rule of setmining (I deal with this in a previous post somewhere), if we raise $5 (10% of effective stacks) it's a clear fold (or -EV call) for the villain, whereas a raise of $2.50 (5% of effective stacks) is a clear call (+EV call to setmine). A raise of right in the middle between $5 and $2.50 to $3.75 is likely a marginally +EV call for the villain given the circumstances. We don't want to risk more than we have to in case of getting repopped by AA/KK, so an appropriate 3-bet size here is to raise his $2 bet $5 to $7 total.
Note that if we had AKo in the hand above, we should be playing it the same way. Even though we are racing against the medium size pocket pairs and instead are crushing AJs, AQs and AQo, our villain is playing against our range and we still do not want to give him odds to setmine - and thus the exact same raise size would be appropriate.
Below is an example of where a villain does a very poor job of sizing his 3-bet, and gets owned by me. Notice that based on the 5/10 rule and the dead money in the pot (along with the increased chance of him stacking off if I hit my set), him raising only 6.7% of the effective stacks makes calling a pretty clear +EV choice for me.
Villain is a 16/7/3 regular over a sample of 500+ hands.
Poker Stars, $0.25/$0.50 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
Hand History Converter by Stoxpoker
Hero (BTN): $60.25 (120.5 bb)
SB: $66.50 (133 bb)
BB: $67.80 (135.6 bb)
UTG: $23.40 (46.8 bb)
UTG+1: $56.10 (112.2 bb)
MP1: $33.55 (67.1 bb)
MP2: $12.75 (25.5 bb)
MP3: $30.85 (61.7 bb)
CO: $46.75 (93.5 bb)
Pre-Flop: Hero is BTN with 5
5UTG calls $0.50, 2 folds, MP2 calls $0.50, 2 folds, Hero raises to $3, SB raises to $7, 3 folds, Hero calls $4
Flop: ($15.50) 2
6 5 (2 players)SB bets $6, Hero raises to $17, SB raises to $59.50 and is all-in, Hero calls $36.25 and is all-in
Turn: ($122) 8
(2 players, 2 are all-in)River: ($122) 7
(2 players, 2 are all-in)Results: $122 pot ($3 rake)
SB showed K
K (a pair of Kings) and lost (-$60.25 net)Hero showed 5
5 (three of a kind, Fives) and won $119 ($58.75 net)
April 15-16 Sessions
I played two short sessions on the evenings of Tuesday and Wednesday. On Tuesday I ran very poorly, couldn't hit a flop to save my life, and on the few occasions I did, had some very nasty suckouts against. On Wednesday, I was hitting flops (sets especially) like a madman, but also had several large suckouts when folks decided to try to outdraw despite having terrible pot odds. Overall on the two sessions combined, I'm up $40, or just under a buy-in.
Here is my Showdown EV Graph:
Here is my All-In Luck Graph:
As you can see, I've been really unlucky with people outdrawing me lately. Fortunately, since I hit so many flops hard on Wednesday, it hasn't done any damage to my roll. Since I haven't done a "teaching" type post recently on the blog, I'll be writing up something later (sparked by a hand I played last night) regarding 3 bet sizing and 3 betting preflop in general.
Here is my Showdown EV Graph:
Here is my All-In Luck Graph:
As you can see, I've been really unlucky with people outdrawing me lately. Fortunately, since I hit so many flops hard on Wednesday, it hasn't done any damage to my roll. Since I haven't done a "teaching" type post recently on the blog, I'll be writing up something later (sparked by a hand I played last night) regarding 3 bet sizing and 3 betting preflop in general.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
~11k Online Hands and a Live Session
I haven't posted in the last 6 days, so I've got lots to recap! I played a large number of hands over that time period, including a short session last Thursday in which I ran cool, and two long sessions Saturday and Sunday, running badly during each. Finally, I had a nice heater session on Monday. Overall, I had a +1.2 ptBB/100 winrate over the last 11k hands, mainly due to the huge number of cooler hands I had during first three sessions. I've run KK into AA way too many times, and had two flopped flush over flush spots as well. Last night I had my AA cracked by 22 AIPF, but I still ended the session +4 BI thanks to several other heater hands, so I won't bitch further.
There's a couple hand histories I wanted to post from Monday night's session where I outplayed some regulars to take down medium size pots, but I don't have access to them at the moment. At any rate, here are my graphs for the entire 11k hands:
Showdown EV graph:
Luck graph (notice the big spike at the end, which is my AA being cracked by 22 AIPF):
At any rate, despite my poor luck online in the recent past (though I guess it isn't technically a downswing, as I'm up money, just not enough), I ran really well over a 3 hour live session at the Cash Casino with Will on Friday. Our table was weak as hell, and had several fish that were willing to pay off light. At the start I couldn't hit a flop to save my life and ended up half stacked, but tripled up when I flopped a set with my first big hand (KK) and was paid off by two folks, one of which was Will who had the NFD. The flush never came and the board paired on the river regardless.
My biggest hand of the night I was in the BB with 8c6c. The flop came 10c 7c 5c, giving me the baby flush with a straight flush draw. I bet $15 into what was probably a 6-7 way pot, getting a call from the donkey in the CO. The solid TAG lady on the BU then raised to $50. After getting coolered by two flopped flush over flush situations online lately, this sent off alarm bells initially. However, the nut flush certainly isn't raising this flop ever - it just doesn't make sense.
So, since the nut-flush almost certainly isn't raising, I'm not hero folding the flop here ever. The donkey in the CO had about $100 behind at this point, with the BU having ~$200 more behind. I have them both covered. I ended up just calling the raise, intending to check-shove a non-board pairing, non-club turn to get extra value. In hindsight, this is probably the wrong way to play this hand, because even though a shove on the flop may fold out top pair and draws, thus losing some value, there are a lot of cards we don't want to see on the turn. Bad turn cards include the 8 remaining clubs, and the 9 cards which pair the board (a few of these are likely in villains' hands, but I digress). Thus, 17/47 (or 36%) of the time we see scary turn and potentially can't continue. This makes the right play obviously a shove on the flop - live and learn.
At any rate, a safe turn card came, I don't recall what it was. I checked, the donkey in the CO pushed all in for ~$50. The BU thought for a short amount of time and called. I then shoved over the top for $200+ more. BU tanked while looking distraught and eventually folded what she said was 2-pair (and likely was). The CO flipped over his set of 10s (way to not raise PF donkey), and the board did not pair for him on the river, so I took down a very large pot.
Thanks to those two big pots, I ended up with $560 when I cashed out, +$360 in profit. It was a good night, especially considering it was such a short session.
There's a couple hand histories I wanted to post from Monday night's session where I outplayed some regulars to take down medium size pots, but I don't have access to them at the moment. At any rate, here are my graphs for the entire 11k hands:
Showdown EV graph:
Luck graph (notice the big spike at the end, which is my AA being cracked by 22 AIPF):
At any rate, despite my poor luck online in the recent past (though I guess it isn't technically a downswing, as I'm up money, just not enough), I ran really well over a 3 hour live session at the Cash Casino with Will on Friday. Our table was weak as hell, and had several fish that were willing to pay off light. At the start I couldn't hit a flop to save my life and ended up half stacked, but tripled up when I flopped a set with my first big hand (KK) and was paid off by two folks, one of which was Will who had the NFD. The flush never came and the board paired on the river regardless.
My biggest hand of the night I was in the BB with 8c6c. The flop came 10c 7c 5c, giving me the baby flush with a straight flush draw. I bet $15 into what was probably a 6-7 way pot, getting a call from the donkey in the CO. The solid TAG lady on the BU then raised to $50. After getting coolered by two flopped flush over flush situations online lately, this sent off alarm bells initially. However, the nut flush certainly isn't raising this flop ever - it just doesn't make sense.
So, since the nut-flush almost certainly isn't raising, I'm not hero folding the flop here ever. The donkey in the CO had about $100 behind at this point, with the BU having ~$200 more behind. I have them both covered. I ended up just calling the raise, intending to check-shove a non-board pairing, non-club turn to get extra value. In hindsight, this is probably the wrong way to play this hand, because even though a shove on the flop may fold out top pair and draws, thus losing some value, there are a lot of cards we don't want to see on the turn. Bad turn cards include the 8 remaining clubs, and the 9 cards which pair the board (a few of these are likely in villains' hands, but I digress). Thus, 17/47 (or 36%) of the time we see scary turn and potentially can't continue. This makes the right play obviously a shove on the flop - live and learn.
At any rate, a safe turn card came, I don't recall what it was. I checked, the donkey in the CO pushed all in for ~$50. The BU thought for a short amount of time and called. I then shoved over the top for $200+ more. BU tanked while looking distraught and eventually folded what she said was 2-pair (and likely was). The CO flipped over his set of 10s (way to not raise PF donkey), and the board did not pair for him on the river, so I took down a very large pot.
Thanks to those two big pots, I ended up with $560 when I cashed out, +$360 in profit. It was a good night, especially considering it was such a short session.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Tuesday 900 hand heater
I played for just over an hour Tuesday night, clocking in 900 hands at an exceptional $165 profit (18ptBB/100 winrate). I definitely ran good, but it was a different kind of heater than normal. While I did win some big pots, I didn't flop a set all night. I did however flop two nut flushes, and was paid off on both. What really made the session special however, was that I didn't commit a significant amount of money into just about any pot I lost. Reviewing the hands that went to showdown, the most I lost in a single hand was -$3.50. For comparison, I won more than a net of +$3.50 in 14 pots. I did probably commit $5-$10 into a couple pots where I didn't make it to showdown due to folding when an opponent's line looked strong, or I missed my outs. I won't post my All-In Luck Graph, but I ran $10 above expectation there. As you'll see in my showdown EV graph below, I was about $55 above Sklansky expectation. It's also worth noting I didn't have a single "cooler-hand" or suckout against (or for) all night - it seems it was a night where a fair amount of things go right, but is truly special because nothing goes significantly wrong.
Showdown EV graph:
I also purchased the first book in the "Harrington on Cash Games" series today using 2,500 of my FPPs. It should be arriving in 3-6 weeks, and I'm looking forward to reading it. I will order the second one if I find the first to be helpful.
April sure has been fun, over my first 12,000 hands at $50NL I'm running at 6ptBB/100 and am up $720, not counting my FPPs and success in the WSOP Qualifier Sit & Go Steps (turned 8 Step 1 entries that cost me 4,000 FPPs, or around $46, into a Step 4 ticket worth $215).
Current BR Status: $2355, 11,500 FPPs (~$130), and 1 WSOP Qualifier Sit & Go Step 4 Tourney Ticket ($215 if bought into directly).
Showdown EV graph:
I also purchased the first book in the "Harrington on Cash Games" series today using 2,500 of my FPPs. It should be arriving in 3-6 weeks, and I'm looking forward to reading it. I will order the second one if I find the first to be helpful.
April sure has been fun, over my first 12,000 hands at $50NL I'm running at 6ptBB/100 and am up $720, not counting my FPPs and success in the WSOP Qualifier Sit & Go Steps (turned 8 Step 1 entries that cost me 4,000 FPPs, or around $46, into a Step 4 ticket worth $215).
Current BR Status: $2355, 11,500 FPPs (~$130), and 1 WSOP Qualifier Sit & Go Step 4 Tourney Ticket ($215 if bought into directly).
Sunday, April 6, 2008
April 4-6th Weekend Review
I played a beastly 8.5k hands between Saturday and Sunday this weekend. I'm happy with the way I played, and have solid results to show for it. My EV graph says I ran warm on hands that went all the way to showdown, but I'm certain I had far more cooler hands (most of which occurred during a brutal 4 hour downswing on Sunday) than heaters, and also couldn't draw to save my life. Since hands where I folded busted draws don't go to showdown, and heater vs. cooler hands can't be considered from an EV perspective at all, I'll go out on a limb and say that I ran close to average this weekend when considering the big picture.
Here's my Showdown EV graph ($375 total winnings, 4.4ptBB/100 winrate):
I had one pretty funny hand during my first Sunday session. A poker acquaintance of mine once mentioned how it really sucks when you misread your hand, and then have to try to bluff your way out of an ugly spot. Well, I had two tables on top of each other on my normal setup. At one, I had been dealt QQ and was waiting for the action to get around to me to raise. At the table directly beneath it there is an open minraise, followed by a 50/30/5/200 donkey in MP2 reraising it to $2, which then gets two callers behind. I think to myself this would be a great time to squeeze with QQ (I was on the button), and repop it to $8. In hindsight, I should have made it more like $10-$11 to go, but whatever. The real problem was, I didn't have QQ on this table, I had Q10. My pocket Queens were on the table directly above the one in question. Everyone except the donkey folds to my reraise, and I get what I would have wanted had I actually had QQ, a big pot heads up with a donk. Luckily, he bet weakly into a Kxx flop, and I just had to try to bluff him off it. The hand history is below:
Stacks:
MP2 (Donkey) with $71.00
BTN (Hero) with $113.15
Dealt to BTN (Hero):T♠ Q♥
Preflop:
1 players fold.
UTG+1 raises $0.50 to $1
MP1 raises $1 to $2
MP2 calls [$2]
1 players fold.
CO calls [$2]
Hero raises $6 to $8
3 players fold.
MP1 calls [$6]
2 players folded.
Total folds this street: 7
Potsize: $21.75
Flop:
K♠ 8♥ 2♠
MP1 bets [$4.50]
2 players fold.
Hero raises $8.50 to $13
Hero collected $29.30 from pot Hero: doesn't show hand
1 players folded.
Total folds this street: 1
What a mess. Hopefully I never forget which hand I have at which table again! I also misclick folded KK preflop during my Sunday session. Not my finest day.
Here's my Showdown EV graph ($375 total winnings, 4.4ptBB/100 winrate):
I had one pretty funny hand during my first Sunday session. A poker acquaintance of mine once mentioned how it really sucks when you misread your hand, and then have to try to bluff your way out of an ugly spot. Well, I had two tables on top of each other on my normal setup. At one, I had been dealt QQ and was waiting for the action to get around to me to raise. At the table directly beneath it there is an open minraise, followed by a 50/30/5/200 donkey in MP2 reraising it to $2, which then gets two callers behind. I think to myself this would be a great time to squeeze with QQ (I was on the button), and repop it to $8. In hindsight, I should have made it more like $10-$11 to go, but whatever. The real problem was, I didn't have QQ on this table, I had Q10. My pocket Queens were on the table directly above the one in question. Everyone except the donkey folds to my reraise, and I get what I would have wanted had I actually had QQ, a big pot heads up with a donk. Luckily, he bet weakly into a Kxx flop, and I just had to try to bluff him off it. The hand history is below:
Stacks:
MP2 (Donkey) with $71.00
BTN (Hero) with $113.15
Dealt to BTN (Hero):T♠ Q♥
Preflop:
1 players fold.
UTG+1 raises $0.50 to $1
MP1 raises $1 to $2
MP2 calls [$2]
1 players fold.
CO calls [$2]
Hero raises $6 to $8
3 players fold.
MP1 calls [$6]
2 players folded.
Total folds this street: 7
Potsize: $21.75
Flop:
K♠ 8♥ 2♠
MP1 bets [$4.50]
2 players fold.
Hero raises $8.50 to $13
Hero collected $29.30 from pot Hero: doesn't show hand
1 players folded.
Total folds this street: 1
What a mess. Hopefully I never forget which hand I have at which table again! I also misclick folded KK preflop during my Sunday session. Not my finest day.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Swings Are Fun - 1.1k Hand Thursday Session.
I played a quick session Thursday night, and experienced exactly why lots of folks can't handle NL compared to Limit - massive swings. I began running very very good, and was up four buyins ($200) in less than a half hour. I plateaued for a tiny bit, then ran good again, reaching a peak of +$300, before hitting a nasty string of cooler hands to drop my total winnings to $140 at the end of the session. In the past my session have typically fallen into the "hot", "cold", or "average" category, but this one has a clear turning point where "hot" turns to "cold" and never comes back.
That said, I ran $10 hot in showdown equity, but was -$10 in all-in luck, so from a Showdown EV perspective I ran almost exactly average. I think I definitely had a couple more heater hands during the "hot" section of my session than I had coolers during the "cold", which would explain my juicy 12.1 ptBB/100 winrate... though it sure would have been nice to maintain the 35+ ptBB/100 I was churning out over the first 800 hands.
Below is my EV graph:
There aren't any terribly interesting hand histories to post, although I believe I set my new "biggest pot won" record with quad 10s (flopped a set, rivered quads) versus some terribly played pocket aces. We were both 120BBs deep, and the villain bet all three streets, ending with a shove on the river. By the turn, there was basically nothing he beat that I would call his bet with, so when he shoved the river anyway I had a great laugh. I guess he probably wasn't thinking any higher than the first level, and AA as an overpair is a huge hand, am I right?
That said, I ran $10 hot in showdown equity, but was -$10 in all-in luck, so from a Showdown EV perspective I ran almost exactly average. I think I definitely had a couple more heater hands during the "hot" section of my session than I had coolers during the "cold", which would explain my juicy 12.1 ptBB/100 winrate... though it sure would have been nice to maintain the 35+ ptBB/100 I was churning out over the first 800 hands.
Below is my EV graph:
There aren't any terribly interesting hand histories to post, although I believe I set my new "biggest pot won" record with quad 10s (flopped a set, rivered quads) versus some terribly played pocket aces. We were both 120BBs deep, and the villain bet all three streets, ending with a shove on the river. By the turn, there was basically nothing he beat that I would call his bet with, so when he shoved the river anyway I had a great laugh. I guess he probably wasn't thinking any higher than the first level, and AA as an overpair is a huge hand, am I right?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
First 1.5k Hands at 50NL
I played a short session 10 tabling 50NL last night, and I won $40 despite running very bad. There seemed to be as many donkeys at 50NL as 25NL, so I'm happy about that. I think the regulars probably tend to be a little more TAG and less weak-tight, but that's ok. The real reason I was able to be up money on the session was due to a couple bluffs I ran that worked out. I'll post graphs from my session last night, and then move into analyzing the hand history from my biggest bluff.
Here's my EV graph, where my Sklansky Buck analysis has me unlucky to the tune of $80. Damn donkeys rivering two pair against TPTK...
All-in luck graph, that reinforces how bad I ran:
Here's the bluff I originally was pretty proud of, but in hindsight, not so much. The villian in this hand is a solid 14/11 TAG over 150 hands. I'm pretty certain he can lay down big hands when it's likely he's beat.
NL Texas Hold'em (0.25/0.50)
Game #16427114299, Table "Planckia" (9 Handed Max.)
--------------------
Seat #7 is the button
Preflop:
The Flop: [9d 2h 3d]
The Turn: [9d 2h 3d | Qd]
Hand Summary:
Here's why I played the hand the way I did. I'm not necessarily sure the hand as a whole is +EV, it is certainly quite complicated.
At any rate, lets start with the flop 3-bet. I make a standard raise from MP with 88, and get 3-bet by the CO. Because the bet was only three times my original bet (I always go to 3.5-4 times when 3-betting to deny people set odds) and I have a ~$60 effective stack, this is a marginal EV call for set value. Recall the 5/10 rule when set mining: if the bet is less than 5% of the effective stacks, clear call, if it's more than 10%, clear fold - in between is usually marginal and depends on the villian. The $4 bet was roughly 6.7% of the effective stacks so I figured it was a marginally +EV call, though folding certainly wouldn't be terrible either. Also, since our villian is a true TAG running 14/11, it's quite possible AQ is in his 3-betting range, which improves our EV against his range.
On the flop, lets assign him a 3-betting range of AQ+, JJ+. Against his range here, I have the following equity:
Hero: 46.003% 8h8d
Villian: 53.997% JJ+, AQs+, AQo+
That said, I'm not likely to extract more value out of AQ/AK unless he spikes a card, and will likely have to call bets on the turn/river to continue against overpairs. He bets weakly out on the flop, $7 into a ~$13 pot, and I decide to check-raise hoping to take down the pot right there, but unfortunately have him call. Lets look at the three options I have on the flop. I could fold, which is the safe play at this point, and isn't necessarily wrong. I could raise, as I did. Raising means risking $20-$25 to win the pot of $20, so the villian has to fold ~50% of the time for this to be profitable, assuming we are always way behind if he calls. The villian is very likely to fold AK/AQ unless they are suited diamonds, and quite possibly JJ, as all JJ beats on that board is a bluff. He is unlikely to fold QQ+. So, since AQ and AK are roughly twice as common as pocket pairs, and he folds 7/8ths of all AQ/AK combinations, and maybe 1/4 of his overpairs (perhaps JJ, but not QQ/KK/AA), he is folding roughly 56% of the time here, which leads me to believe the play is marginally +EV. Finally, lets consider the EV of calling and then leading the turn. I would need to commit $7 to call, which would make the pot $27, and then in order to bluff the turn, commit around another ~$20 assuming an A or K doesn't fall. A diamond falling also potentially allows the villian to fold QQ/KK or maybe even AA, assuming he doesn't hold the Q/K/A of diamonds. So it seems calling/leading turn requires us to commit slightly more money than raising the flop, but allows us to bail out if a turn falls that hits our villian's range. I'm really not certain if this is higher EV than raising, but I expect they are probably pretty close.
So, I raise the flop, unfortunately for me the villian calls, and the turn comes a Q of diamonds. This is an ok turn for me, because it completes the flush, and the NFD is certainly part of my range which would check-raise the flop. I've got roughly a 2/3rd pot size bet left behind, and my options here are obviously to either give up on the hand (check/fold) or shove. The villian needs to fold roughly 40% of the time for the shove to be +EV. I really wish I had a little more behind (to make it a 3/4 pot size bet or so) on the River here, since betting 2/3rds is giving the Villian decent odds to call.
That said, considering he called the flop lets revise Villian's range to be AKdd, JJ, QQ, KK, and AA. He is most definitely not folding AKdd (AQdd is impossible, as Qd is on the board), but these are a fairly small part of his range. He surely folds JJ, doesn't fold QQ, likely folds KK and maybe folds AA as well, unless he has the Ad. Given the board, there is one combination of AKdd, six of JJ, three of QQ, six of KK, and six of AA (3 with Ad, 3 without). Thus, in the best case scenario he folds 6 (JJ) + 6 (KK) + 3 (AA, no Ad) of the 22 total combinations, or roughly 68% of the combinations. In a perhaps more realistic scenario, where he calls with any AA and KxKd, he is folding 6 combinations of JJ and 3 of KK, or 9 of the possible 22 total combinations, which is 41%. Thus, this part of the bluff is possibly +EV. It's also very possible his range should be weighted away from JJ as he certainly might have folded it to the C/R on the flop, or may not even have 3-bet it in the first place - if this is a case, the turn shove is almost certainly spew. After thinking about it further, I think the latter is the case, but the possibility of the former certainly should bring it closer to neutral EV.
Overall, this was a tricky hand to play (I very possibly played it wrong) and equally tough to analyze, but I hope it helps my readers some. I really believe that the possible flop lines (c/f, c/r, b/f) are all pretty close to neutral EV, but that the turn shove is likely spewy.
Edit as of Jan 2nd, 2010: I played the hand above really bad and my analysis probably isn't great either. Please don't take it as gospel!
Here's my EV graph, where my Sklansky Buck analysis has me unlucky to the tune of $80. Damn donkeys rivering two pair against TPTK...
All-in luck graph, that reinforces how bad I ran:
Here's the bluff I originally was pretty proud of, but in hindsight, not so much. The villian in this hand is a solid 14/11 TAG over 150 hands. I'm pretty certain he can lay down big hands when it's likely he's beat.
NL Texas Hold'em (0.25/0.50)
Game #16427114299, Table "Planckia" (9 Handed Max.)
--------------------
Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: bobko9 ($30.45 in chips) Seat 2: TOPX ($49.50 in chips) Seat 3: Ronfar3 ($58.25 in chips) Seat 4: Zyplen ($49.60 in chips) Seat 5: ded0nArrivl ($48.75 in chips) Seat 6: hondizls ($67.75 in chips) Seat 7: northsider21 ($78.60 in chips) Seat 8: $$BRSNAP$$ ($66.70 in chips) Seat 9: bighippy ($35.10 in chips) $$BRSNAP$$ posts the small blind $0.25 bighippy posts the big blind $0.50 |
Preflop:
Ronfar3 has been dealt [8h 8d] bobko9 folds TOPX folds Ronfar3 raises $1.50 to $2 Zyplen folds ded0nArrivl folds hondizls raises $4 to $6 northsider21 folds $$BRSNAP$$ folds bighippy folds Ronfar3 calls $4 |
The Flop: [9d 2h 3d]
Ronfar3 checks hondizls bets $7 Ronfar3 raises $13 to $20 hondizls calls $13 |
The Turn: [9d 2h 3d | Qd]
Ronfar3 bets $32.25 and is *ALL-IN* hondizls folds Ronfar3 won $50.15 from pot Ronfar3 doesn't show hand |
Hand Summary:
The Final Board: [9d 2h 3d Qd] Ronfar3 won $50.15 Seat 6: hondizls folded on the Turn |
Here's why I played the hand the way I did. I'm not necessarily sure the hand as a whole is +EV, it is certainly quite complicated.
At any rate, lets start with the flop 3-bet. I make a standard raise from MP with 88, and get 3-bet by the CO. Because the bet was only three times my original bet (I always go to 3.5-4 times when 3-betting to deny people set odds) and I have a ~$60 effective stack, this is a marginal EV call for set value. Recall the 5/10 rule when set mining: if the bet is less than 5% of the effective stacks, clear call, if it's more than 10%, clear fold - in between is usually marginal and depends on the villian. The $4 bet was roughly 6.7% of the effective stacks so I figured it was a marginally +EV call, though folding certainly wouldn't be terrible either. Also, since our villian is a true TAG running 14/11, it's quite possible AQ is in his 3-betting range, which improves our EV against his range.
On the flop, lets assign him a 3-betting range of AQ+, JJ+. Against his range here, I have the following equity:
Hero: 46.003% 8h8d
Villian: 53.997% JJ+, AQs+, AQo+
That said, I'm not likely to extract more value out of AQ/AK unless he spikes a card, and will likely have to call bets on the turn/river to continue against overpairs. He bets weakly out on the flop, $7 into a ~$13 pot, and I decide to check-raise hoping to take down the pot right there, but unfortunately have him call. Lets look at the three options I have on the flop. I could fold, which is the safe play at this point, and isn't necessarily wrong. I could raise, as I did. Raising means risking $20-$25 to win the pot of $20, so the villian has to fold ~50% of the time for this to be profitable, assuming we are always way behind if he calls. The villian is very likely to fold AK/AQ unless they are suited diamonds, and quite possibly JJ, as all JJ beats on that board is a bluff. He is unlikely to fold QQ+. So, since AQ and AK are roughly twice as common as pocket pairs, and he folds 7/8ths of all AQ/AK combinations, and maybe 1/4 of his overpairs (perhaps JJ, but not QQ/KK/AA), he is folding roughly 56% of the time here, which leads me to believe the play is marginally +EV. Finally, lets consider the EV of calling and then leading the turn. I would need to commit $7 to call, which would make the pot $27, and then in order to bluff the turn, commit around another ~$20 assuming an A or K doesn't fall. A diamond falling also potentially allows the villian to fold QQ/KK or maybe even AA, assuming he doesn't hold the Q/K/A of diamonds. So it seems calling/leading turn requires us to commit slightly more money than raising the flop, but allows us to bail out if a turn falls that hits our villian's range. I'm really not certain if this is higher EV than raising, but I expect they are probably pretty close.
So, I raise the flop, unfortunately for me the villian calls, and the turn comes a Q of diamonds. This is an ok turn for me, because it completes the flush, and the NFD is certainly part of my range which would check-raise the flop. I've got roughly a 2/3rd pot size bet left behind, and my options here are obviously to either give up on the hand (check/fold) or shove. The villian needs to fold roughly 40% of the time for the shove to be +EV. I really wish I had a little more behind (to make it a 3/4 pot size bet or so) on the River here, since betting 2/3rds is giving the Villian decent odds to call.
That said, considering he called the flop lets revise Villian's range to be AKdd, JJ, QQ, KK, and AA. He is most definitely not folding AKdd (AQdd is impossible, as Qd is on the board), but these are a fairly small part of his range. He surely folds JJ, doesn't fold QQ, likely folds KK and maybe folds AA as well, unless he has the Ad. Given the board, there is one combination of AKdd, six of JJ, three of QQ, six of KK, and six of AA (3 with Ad, 3 without). Thus, in the best case scenario he folds 6 (JJ) + 6 (KK) + 3 (AA, no Ad) of the 22 total combinations, or roughly 68% of the combinations. In a perhaps more realistic scenario, where he calls with any AA and KxKd, he is folding 6 combinations of JJ and 3 of KK, or 9 of the possible 22 total combinations, which is 41%. Thus, this part of the bluff is possibly +EV. It's also very possible his range should be weighted away from JJ as he certainly might have folded it to the C/R on the flop, or may not even have 3-bet it in the first place - if this is a case, the turn shove is almost certainly spew. After thinking about it further, I think the latter is the case, but the possibility of the former certainly should bring it closer to neutral EV.
Overall, this was a tricky hand to play (I very possibly played it wrong) and equally tough to analyze, but I hope it helps my readers some. I really believe that the possible flop lines (c/f, c/r, b/f) are all pretty close to neutral EV, but that the turn shove is likely spewy.
Edit as of Jan 2nd, 2010: I played the hand above really bad and my analysis probably isn't great either. Please don't take it as gospel!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
