Calldown or fold

[krishanleong]

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, BB calls.

Flop: (4.40 SB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls.

Turn: (3.20 BB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises</font>, Hero calls.

Villian is 45/17/1.1/35 over 168 hands. I haven't seen him get too out of line. I thought this was an automatic calldown when I played it. Anyone disagree?

Krishan

[marand]

I would call it down except against a very tight or passive player.

[Wynton]

Krishan,

My gut intuition is to call, but frankly, I'm not comfortable with the lack of analysis behind my decision. You say the villain hasn't been out of line. I can't figure out which way that cuts here. With that image, seems like his play is reasonable whether he has the King or not. So I'm left with calling simply because I figure the odds are against anyone starting with a K in his hand, which sure seems like a silly way of making the decision.

Maybe I have trouble here because I'm not sure what the stats you cite are. I've been meaning to ask this for a while: when people here list several stats in a row as you did, what is the convention? Do the numbers usually refer to VP$P, preflop raise and aggression factor?

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
Do the numbers usually refer to VP$P, preflop raise and aggression factor?

[/ QUOTE ]

When someone lists 3, it's the 3 you refer to.

When I list 4, WTSD is included.

Krishan

[naphand]

But WtSD is almost meaningless unless you also consider the Won$@SD, otherwise you do not know if this player is running good or loose. If you are going to include one, you must include the other. Knowing what proportion of SDs a player wins along with his WtSD stat tells you a lot about his post-flop play.

[bpb]

I would fold to the turn check-raise.

1) That 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif isn't a scare card.

2) It doesn't put a 4-flush on the board, nor does it create any OESD for the opponents likely holdings (unless he called the flop with a gutshot 78). So it's unlikely he's checkraising on the basis of picking up a big draw.

3) You raised UTG. It's been my experience that players are far less likely to get out of line when playing in the blinds vs an UTG raise than a steal raise. Had you raised from the button or cutoff, I'd call this down easily.

4) You're getting 3:1 effective to call down. I don't think you're good often enough, even factoring in the extra bet when you spike a set on the river.


Given that board, this line screams strength from the BB. I'd have to wonder if TPTK would be good here, and your hand is far weaker than that.

[MrTeddyKGB]

[ QUOTE ]
But WtSD is almost meaningless unless you also consider the Won$@SD, otherwise you do not know if this player is running good or loose. If you are going to include one, you must include the other. Knowing what proportion of SDs a player wins along with his WtSD stat tells you a lot about his post-flop play

[/ QUOTE ]

could you expand on this a little if you need an example my stats for 30k hands are 36% wtsd 54% W$sd

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Although I call a bit too much, I do believe that almost anytime you are at 5/10 SH and pondering whether to call or fold, the correct action is to call. If you are really wavering, you probably have a greater than 20% chance that you are good. Most of the time this provides sufficient odds call (although not this tiem). Yes, he probably has at least two-pair, but i've often seen players at 5/10 SH make this same play with two hearts or 79o. Call him down.

Of

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
I would fold to the turn check-raise.

1) That 9 /images/graemlins/club.gif isn't a scare card.

2) It doesn't put a 4-flush on the board, nor does it create any OESD for the opponents likely holdings (unless he called the flop with a gutshot 78). So it's unlikely he's checkraising on the basis of picking up a big draw.

3) You raised UTG. It's been my experience that players are far less likely to get out of line when playing in the blinds vs an UTG raise than a steal raise. Had you raised from the button or cutoff, I'd call this down easily.

4) You're getting 3:1 effective to call down. I don't think you're good often enough, even factoring in the extra bet when you spike a set on the river.


Given that board, this line screams strength from the BB. I'd have to wonder if TPTK would be good here, and your hand is far weaker than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all this. I posted this hand as devils advocate. Thinking that your opponent might be bluffing because it a nice bluff board is no good. Average opponents, (Even somewhat good) don't think at this level. I think this was an easy fold on the turn. Luckily I spiked a Q on the river to take it down. Villian had KJ.

Krishan

[Girchuck]

What is your response here if you know that your opponent is bluffing close to a game-theoretical optimal percentage?
If he does that, it does not matter what you do. If he doesn't bluff at all, you fold. If he bluffs all the time you call. If your read isn't precise, but you think he might be bluffing less than optimal, you load the coin to land on fold more than on call, and then you flip the coin and do what the coin says. Makes you less exploitable.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your response here if you know that your opponent is bluffing close to a game-theoretical optimal percentage?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to discuss game theory, let me observe that QQ is far above average showdown value for a PFR facing this flop. If you are willing to fold QQ you must be willing to fold all worse hands. That looks like plenty to justify an always call-flop-and-bluff-turn strategy on Villain's part.

I think you need to start with the assumption that calling down with QQ is game-theory correct. Then selectively modify that idea by folding against opponents you expect to have a real hand.

[ QUOTE ]
then you flip the coin and do what the coin says. Makes you less exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Randomizing your play with QQ is not the way to go. Your opponent doesn't know that you have QQ. A much better approach to randomizing your play is to keep the best bluff catchers. For example you might decide to always calldown with QQ/JJ versus this opponent but always fold TT/88. That's much better than randomly folding half of QQ/JJ/TT/88 hands.

I am reluctant to fold QQ because it is the very best hand below a king. There will be lots of worse stuff for me to fold in this situation.

[Girchuck]

I am not at all advocating dropping this hand half the time.
Note that I said that one must load the coin, if one is to use it. How you load it is the very important detail and it is very subjective and opponent-dependent. The only reason to use it at all instead of always going with your read and always doing the same thing here, is to have a chance of noticing if your opponent is changing his strategy to adjust.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not at all advocating dropping this hand half the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't suggest that you said anything about 1/2. That number is part of my example.

[ QUOTE ]
Note that I said that one must load the coin, if one is to use it. How you load it is the very important detail and it is very subjective and opponent-dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I still object to the use of a randomizing device ("loaded coin"). Take into consideration everything you know and choose the worst made hand that you want to call down with against this opponent. Call all better hands and fold all worse ones. That will cause your play to appear random to your opponent because you fold a certain percentage of the time when he bluffs in this situation. If he could see your cards he would know when to try a bluff, but he cannot so every bluff is a risk for him.

What you don't want to do is sometimes fold QQ and sometimes call with TT. This type of randomization wouldn't be a problem if he always had a complete bluff or a monster, but that isn't at all the case. He may have JJ and he may have a hand that could improve to a pair of jacks. Make sure you win when that happens. Always keep the queens and fold the tens. Use your best bluff catchers to keep him honest and fold the worst ones.

[ QUOTE ]
The only reason to use it at all instead of always going with your read and always doing the same thing here, is to have a chance of noticing if your opponent is changing his strategy to adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]
The random chance of which pair you were dealt replaces the loaded coin. Adjust your calling percentage by changing the minimum hand you are willing to call with. This has the same effect on your opponent as modifying the load on the coin.

[Surfbullet]

Excellent post - thank you for this.

Surf

[naphand]

It should be self-evident.

The number of hands a player takes to SD is a function of the quality of his hands and his post-flop tightness/looseness. You have no real way to measure how tight/loose he is unless you can see how many of those SD he is winning.

For example, take two players with a WtSD 46%

(i) Player A has won 60% of SDs
(ii) Player B has won 33% of his SDs

It is obvious that Player A is getting good cards, hitting flops and making it to SD with legitimate hands. Player B is just a loose calling station who is calling with just about any part of the board.

There is a post by TJD (I think) that creates a Coefficient of SD, which is the two numbers multiplied (e.g. WtSD 35% and WS@SD 54% would be 0.35x0.54=0.189). I think a figure around 0.18-0.19 would be normal. Higher and you are running good, lower and you are running bad. Don't make these calculations on the fly though, just assess the stats you see.

Most players here are typically seeing around 35-38% of SD and W$@SD is typically 51-54%. It can vary a lot and many players have lower W$@SD figures due to their looser playing style. If you W$@SD is too high you could probably call down more, or get ot SD more often. This is the standard advice which you can find all over the forum and archives for SH.

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of hands a player takes to SD is a function of the quality of his hands and his post-flop tightness/looseness.

[/ QUOTE ]


like any stats posts, with so few hands its all meaningless,

[MAxx]

i agree, SOP AUTO call down for me in this spot. i would almost have to have an out standing read that my villain was an unimaginitive player that never raised with a worse hand.

i really enjoyed SW's post. his reason is reason enough, but i also see a fairly drawsy board from a BB player here. it would be entirely in a typical BB's holdings to have a flush draw or a straight draw here. i even see players with typically passive pt stats pull turn cr's heads up on hands like this often enough to justify a calldown, IMO.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
But WtSD is almost meaningless unless you also consider the Won$@SD, otherwise you do not know if this player is running good or loose. If you are going to include one, you must include the other. Knowing what proportion of SDs a player wins along with his WtSD stat tells you a lot about his post-flop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. First off it's true that W$ASD and WTSD are tied together. But I can evaluate WTSD within the context of VP$IP, PFR, and aggression enough to make a judgement read. I see lots of people with 40/8/1/42. Even if I don't have a ton of hands, seeing these numbers confirms the base understanding I have of this player type. Yes the stats aren't incredibly reliable but I have enough confidence in them. This stat grouping technique works both ways. If I see a 40/8/1/25 I probably won't give it quite as much weight without a ton of hands. I probably won't trust WTSD if I see a tag with 23/17/3/44 because it doesn't jive with the overall player type of a 23/17.

This kinda goes back to my extrapolating player types based on PT numbers which you also don't agree with. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif I'm not suggesting that anyone else adopt this style of PT read based play.

Krishan