Proper Flop Decision, but WHY?

[Sloats]

Poker Academy Pro #3926 [Limit Table 2]

10 'player' table. 9 bots
UTG Limps
UTG+1 Raises
Fold to Hero in BB
Hero has KQo

The proper decision is for the Hero to call, by why? Please note that this was on Poker Academy, so assume that the other two players were making textbook decisions based on their call and raise from early position.

Can we discuss why calling is the right decision? The Hero would not be in position and due to the early raise, the Hero could assume to be dominated.

[zeropotential]

b/c your paying 1 bet to win 5.5
surely you're KQo will win more then the needed 18% of the time for this to be +EV

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
The proper decision is for the Hero to call, by why? Please note that this was on Poker Academy, so assume that the other two players were making textbook decisions based on their call and raise from early position.

[/ QUOTE ]

What textbook are they using? This is a very important question. Also important is how strong do they play postflop?

Using HPFAP:

UTG: Weak group 2 and group 3 hands because he didn't raise (AJs, TT, 99, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs, AQo) - maybe some group 4 hands, but I'll leave those out.
UTG+1: Group 1 and group 2 hands (AA-TT, AK, AQs, KQs, AJs)

I think calling is thin here because you are against "by the book" players. You'll find yourself dominated in many spots and you will flop a hand with basically no redraws. If you were suited, the flush redraw would give you more profitable semi-bluff check-raising opportunities and other chances to outplay the book players.

If you did a pokerstove thing, I think you would find KQo being in a bad spot. Maybe you would have the immediate odds to call, but reverse implied odds come in dramatically here.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we discuss why calling is the right decision? The Hero would not be in position and due to the early raise, the Hero could assume to be dominated.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a micro game, you simply cannot put such clarity into the preflop decisions of your opponents and this becomes a fairly easy call. This is because you cannot assume to be dominated. This is true because suddenly you can include a much wider range of hands, making the ratio of dominated to not-dominated hands tilt in your favor. Also, reverse implied odds have less of an effect because you are dominated less.

UTG can now have many more hands: Axs, KTs, Q8s, all pocket pairs...
UTG+1 can also have many hands: A7s, A9o, KJo, 77...

These ranges vary depending on how much credit you give them.

[Bodhi]

Because you only have to put in one small bet to possibly win 3.25 (or more if UTG calls). KQo has enough equity for calling to be profitable, regardless of position.

[Sloats]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The proper decision is for the Hero to call, by why? Please note that this was on Poker Academy, so assume that the other two players were making textbook decisions based on their call and raise from early position.

[/ QUOTE ]

What textbook are they using? This is a very important question. Also important is how strong do they play postflop?

Using HPFAP:

UTG: Weak group 2 and group 3 hands because he didn't raise (AJs, TT, 99, JTs, QJs, KJs, ATs, AQo) - maybe some group 4 hands, but I'll leave those out.
UTG+1: Group 1 and group 2 hands (AA-TT, AK, AQs, KQs, AJs)

I think calling is thin here because you are against "by the book" players. You'll find yourself dominated in many spots and you will flop a hand with basically no redraws. If you were suited, the flush redraw would give you more profitable semi-bluff check-raising opportunities and other chances to outplay the book players.

If you did a pokerstove thing, I think you would find KQo being in a bad spot. Maybe you would have the immediate odds to call, but reverse implied odds come in dramatically here.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Software references Sklansky so I believe that the 'by the book' reference HPFAP. The reason why I put this in Micro was not only because these were the lowest 'skilled' players but also because I found delving into the thought process of why it was a good call to be informative. Really thinking about it instead of just saying "Chris Daddy Cool would have called this" (or told me to call it).

I put the raiser on AJs, did some math, and found that I was 38%. Much better than the 5.5:1.

Heads up against the raiser:
AA 13% (6)
AKs 23% (3)
AKo 25% (8)
AQs 24% (3)
AJs 38% (4)
KK 8% (3)
QQ 31% (3)
JJ 43% (8)
TT 43% (8)

Looking at this, only Aces and Kings would put me too far behind.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Heads up against the raiser:
AA 13% (6)
AKs 23% (3)
AKo 25% (8)
AQs 24% (3)
AJs 38% (4)
KK 8% (3)
QQ 31% (3)
JJ 43% (8)
TT 43% (8)

Looking at this, only Aces and Kings would put me too far behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just ran it, except with the other player in the hand as well.

15,928,742 games 62.016 secs 256,848 games/sec
equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)
Hand 1: 28.4077 % [ 00.27 00.01 ] { TT-99, AJs-ATs, KJs, QJs, JTs, AQo }
Hand 2: 50.3806 % [ 00.48 00.02 ] { AA-TT, AKs-AJs, KQs, AKo }
Hand 3: 21.2117 % [ 00.20 00.01 ] { KcQd }

Now consider how it might get played out if

A) A king or queen falls and villain does not have a king or queen
B) A king or queen falls and villain *does* have a king or queen

This is the reverse implied odds situation I was referring to. That's why it's thin against good players (that 5% equity goes away fast when you find yourself dominated and it's hard to make it up when you're not dominated), but it's easy money against poor ones.