Was this stupid or pointless?
 

2/4 NL
Im in BB with 500
UTG has around 260 to start the hand
Table has been lose in calling raises and bets around 1/2-2/3 the size of the pot

I get JQ hearts UTG makes it 10 to go 4 callers I call

Flop 5 9 10 2 hearts ( 9 and 10 of hearts)
I check figuring UTG will bet 30-40 and get 1 or 2 callers then i will cr the field huge hoping to take it down.

UTG bets 100 into the 60ish dollar pot- WTF
Well I didnt think much and shoved- basically I had my mind made up about the big c/r and did not take into acount his bet size or his stack. (For example if he had a fullstack and had to call 300 more when I went all in and I might have some fold equity over an overpair. Being he only had to call 150 more I think I had 0 equity.)

How bad was my play? Was it incredibly stupid or just increasing my varience?

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

It increases variance of course but you're ahead of alot of hands that would do this. Does him being UTG reduce the hands that he raises preflop with?

18,810 games 0.031 secs 606,774 games/sec

Board: 5c 9h Th
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 53.0569 % 52.77% 00.29% { QhJh }
Hand 2: 46.9431 % 46.66% 00.29% { JJ+, AhKh }

Would anybody really do this w/o any of these hands? I can't really think of any other hand range to put him on that would do this since all the broadway hearts are gone.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

What's stupid about putting your money in with the best hand-you're a favorite against anything but a set and only a small dog to that. Given the read you have on the table I don't see how you don't make this play.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

If he has KK it's a coinflip. If he has AA you're 56% to win. If he has 99 you're still 42% to win, so with all the dead money in the pot I think this is +EV.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

Well i think the best part about monster draws like this is having a lot of fold equity which I think went out the window here being he bet so much with so little left.
If he was deeper I think this play would be better b/c he may fold kings figuring I have a set and hes slaughted or hes barely ahead of a monster draw.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

A semibluff is a case in which you're trying to make a better hand fold while if he calls you can improve to the best hand.

In this case you have the best hand and he is drawing against you making your hand which means you theoritically make money even if you miss.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

I actually prefer putting him all-in because he's a short stack. If he had you covered, I wouldn't like it so much. I don't want to just shove all my money in and pray. I hate that. But since he doesn't have much left and with the dead money in the pot already, this is +EV. Against a big stack this might be pretty neutral EV.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

I'm trying to understand what you're saying but are you saying you check call this flop if it's deeper? If you c/r and he pushes are you folding?

If it's deeper it changes the hand considerably since he doesn't push when checked to and you actually do have folding equity vs. whatever he has assuming not a set.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a big stack this might be pretty neutral EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The numbers don't change because of the deeper stack it's just more variance.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

If we're deeper then Im check raising huge becuase I think I have fold equity.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to understand what you're saying but are you saying you check call this flop if it's deeper? If you c/r and he pushes are you folding?

If it's deeper it changes the hand considerably since he doesn't push when checked to and you actually do have folding equity vs. whatever he has assuming not a set.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a big stack this might be pretty neutral EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The numbers don't change because of the deeper stack it's just more variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

The dead money in the pot would be smaller relative to the amount of money you would have to put in (a lot). Thus the odds change. Pot odds. If there's $2 already in the pot and you have to put another $100 in on a 50/50 shot, I don't really like that. But if there's already $50 in the pot and I have to put another $100 in on a 50/50 shot, I like that. Pot odds.

And to the OP, you have very little fold equity anyway. The guy raised preflop, and overbets the pot on the flop. It looks a big overpair protecting against a draw heavy board, or someone who hit a set and is protecting against a draw heavy board. You would have to have a real good read on him that he's capable of laying down an overpair after putting that much money into the pot in order for you to think you have much fold equity.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to understand what you're saying but are you saying you check call this flop if it's deeper? If you c/r and he pushes are you folding?

If it's deeper it changes the hand considerably since he doesn't push when checked to and you actually do have folding equity vs. whatever he has assuming not a set.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a big stack this might be pretty neutral EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? The numbers don't change because of the deeper stack it's just more variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And against a deep stack, I c/c here. If he has an overpair, he'll often get spooked by your call of a big bet and give you a free river. If I hit on the turn, I play accordingly. If I don't hit, I fold the turn, unless he's giving me the right odds to call.

Against a short stack, I just put him in.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

I disagree because it's not a 50/50 shot, it's +ev not neutral. I disagree further because I dont want to check/call the flop. With such a draw heavy flop a decent player checks the turn almost never. Since he has position the OP has no implied odds. The only way you have odds is if the turn brings a heart or straightening card and the turn will likely go check/check and river will go bet/call and even then it's close because you have to bet enough to justify calling the flop and the pfr has to call and that's assuming he even has a hand to call with.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree because it's not a 50/50 shot, it's +ev not neutral. I disagree further because I dont want to check/call the flop. With such a draw heavy flop a decent player checks the turn almost never. Since he has position the OP has no implied odds. The only way you have odds is if the turn brings a heart or straightening card and the turn will likely go check/check and river will go bet/call and even then it's close because you have to bet enough to justify calling the flop and the pfr has to call and that's assuming he even has a hand to call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's got black aces, Hero is 56%.
If he's got black kings, Hero is 50%.
If he's got a set, Hero is 42%.

That looks pretty close to 50/50. I put black for everything, but that's best case. Obviously, if Villain has a heart that would reduce Hero's winning percentange.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree because it's not a 50/50 shot, it's +ev not neutral. I disagree further because I dont want to check/call the flop. With such a draw heavy flop a decent player checks the turn almost never. Since he has position the OP has no implied odds. The only way you have odds is if the turn brings a heart or straightening card and the turn will likely go check/check and river will go bet/call and even then it's close because you have to bet enough to justify calling the flop and the pfr has to call and that's assuming he even has a hand to call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you might be right that a c/c OOP might not be right here. Although, I think you highly underestimate the implied odds--just as you and OP highly overestimate fold equity IMO. That's the thing, people WILL call.

But I don't hate a c/f on the flop either. Yeah, you hit a big draw, but against Villain's hand range you're still only 50/50. On the flop, he's not giving you the odds to draw, so I don't mind folding to a deeper stack. But against a smaller stack with that much dead money in the pot, I'll push him in and take the 50/50.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree because it's not a 50/50 shot, it's +ev not neutral. I disagree further because I dont want to check/call the flop. With such a draw heavy flop a decent player checks the turn almost never. Since he has position the OP has no implied odds. The only way you have odds is if the turn brings a heart or straightening card and the turn will likely go check/check and river will go bet/call and even then it's close because you have to bet enough to justify calling the flop and the pfr has to call and that's assuming he even has a hand to call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's got black aces, Hero is 56%.
If he's got black kings, Hero is 50%.
If he's got a set, Hero is 42%.

That looks pretty close to 50/50. I put black for everything, but that's best case. Obviously, if Villain has a heart that would reduce Hero's winning percentange.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes you're right about those hands but your disregarding other hands that he can have which we have a better shot to beat. He's also not going to give away his hand if he's deeper stacked like he did in this hand either so you don't know that your Q or J is good or not.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

Being out of position I cant check call
I think this play would have been a lot better b/c Id have more FE against a deep stack
If he has a full stack maybe there is a 5-10% chance that he folds aces or kings in this spot. I dont mind the varience if it has a purpose. If he bet 40 instead of 100 and I pop it to 200 or so he might fold- but thats not what
happened.
He actually had a set of fives in this case. Not that the actual results matter but I wish he had aces or kings as my EV would be higher and turn and river were both jacks.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

Your line is fine and now you push of course even if he's probably gonna call you.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree because it's not a 50/50 shot, it's +ev not neutral. I disagree further because I dont want to check/call the flop. With such a draw heavy flop a decent player checks the turn almost never. Since he has position the OP has no implied odds. The only way you have odds is if the turn brings a heart or straightening card and the turn will likely go check/check and river will go bet/call and even then it's close because you have to bet enough to justify calling the flop and the pfr has to call and that's assuming he even has a hand to call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's got black aces, Hero is 56%.
If he's got black kings, Hero is 50%.
If he's got a set, Hero is 42%.

That looks pretty close to 50/50. I put black for everything, but that's best case. Obviously, if Villain has a heart that would reduce Hero's winning percentange.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes you're right about those hands but your disregarding other hands that he can have which we have a better shot to beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as? I think Villain has one of these hands 85-90% of the time here. He might have QQ or JJ, but that's pretty close to 50/50 also. I highly doubt that Villain is overbetting into a family pot with an unimproved A-K or A-Q. He might if he has A-K of hearts, but that Hero is in bad shape too. I just can't see Villain having a hand that is good for Hero.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

Including sets...but not 55

24,750 games 0.031 secs 798,387 games/sec

Board: 5c Th 9h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 50.4323 % 50.21% 00.22% { QhJh }
Hand 2: 49.5677 % 49.35% 00.22% { 99+, AhKh }

excluding the worst hand against you

23,760 games 0.005 secs 4,752,000 games/sec

Board: 5c Th 9h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 50.8712 % 50.64% 00.23% { QhJh }
Hand 2: 49.1288 % 48.90% 00.23% { 99+ }

Not much different.

Exclude a set and the worst hand, which ironically happens to be the least likely for villain to show.

17,820 games 0.005 secs 3,564,000 games/sec

Board: 5c Th 9h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 53.7879 % 53.48% 00.30% { QhJh }
Hand 2: 46.2121 % 45.91% 00.30% { JJ+ }

Total EV is around 2% and I really am too lazy to add and divide to get the right answer. So IMO the only reason not to push is because you don't like variance.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

part of our problem here is that you think villain will play just as badly if he's deeper stacked and I don't think he will push with a deeper stack therefore it's harder to really define his bet as anything more than a continuation bet. So I will just agree to disagree.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well i think the best part about monster draws like this is having a lot of fold equity which I think went out the window here being he bet so much with so little left.
If he was deeper I think this play would be better b/c he may fold kings figuring I have a set and hes slaughted or hes barely ahead of a monster draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. These kinds of plays are always better if the other guy might fold, which is doubtful here with all the money he put in already.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

Also, i'm not much for c/r with big hands/huge draws (like this one) but here you put 4 players in the middle of UTG and you after you check so I like the play.

If it was only you and UTG i like potting it and 3-bet all-in if he raises more.

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it was only you and UTG i like potting it and 3-bet all-in if he raises more. Or if it was an unraised pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

If it was heads up I would have did exactly what you said, but with so many callers I was hoping to get some dead money in the pot first

Re: Was this stupid or pointless?
 

You are ahead against an overpair. Your play is good.