TQs BB. Standard?
 

First hand so no reads.

BB with T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

5 Limpers, SB completes. I raise. All call

7 go to a flop of 14SB.

Board brings T [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Checked to UTG who bets. 1 fold, 4 calls and i peel one off.

6 go to the turn for 10BB

Turn card is the 6 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Checked to UTG who bets, UTG +1 raises, and the button calls. SB folds as do i.

Totally standard?

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Merry Christmas

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

I don't like raising this preflop. This is a situation that thrives on implied odds. There's a big field, which means you will most likely need a big hand to win. You want to hit a OESD or a flush draw (or ideally both at the same time). Why cut your implied odds in half by raising? Your odds of getting a flush or straight are much worse than the 6:1 you're getting from the other players who will call your raise.

The flop sucks. You probably don't have the best hand now, and what are you drawing towards? If you get another Q, someone else may get a straight (or a flush if it's Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]). I guess either T is a safe out, though you may still lose if someone catches a straight or flush on the river. Unfortunately, you're getting enormous odds now, so you have to chase your two-outter anyway.

If you didn't raise preflop, you'd be able to fold on the flop, which would be much better against a large field with a very marginal hand.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Grunch...

Why are we raising this preflop?

I would tend to check this here because our position on the flop is gonna suck.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

thanks for that nice analysis.

the counter argument, and the reason i raised is to push my pot equity which i feel is more than the 14.3% i need to make this a value raise.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Case in point:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 22.2148 % 21.04% 01.20% { QdTd }
Hand 2: 12.9288 % 11.90% 01.04% { random }
Hand 3: 12.9584 % 11.93% 01.05% { random }
Hand 4: 12.9768 % 11.94% 01.05% { random }
Hand 5: 12.9901 % 11.96% 01.04% { random }
Hand 6: 12.9789 % 11.95% 01.04% { random }
Hand 7: 12.9521 % 11.92% 01.04% { random }

Also, i feel a bloated pot here may even increase our postflop expectation as we are usually drawing to or close to the nuts and a big pot forces others to correctly call down.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Why didnt you bet the flop?

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for that nice analysis.

the counter argument, and the reason i raised is to push my pot equity which i feel is more than the 14.3% i need to make this a value raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think your equity in this situation is?

Edit: Okay, I see that you ran QTs vs a bunch of random hands. People don't limp with random hands, so what do you think your equity in THIS situation is?

--Dave.

Edit: I'm not going to complain too much if your hand ranges for them are a little different than mine, nor if you give everyone the same hand range, but let's get it fairly close to reasonable.

Edit: FWIW, I think that this may be worth raising preflop...

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

So you're saying that each of 5 limpers entered the pot with anything from 72o to pocket rockets? That's just making the stats say what you want there...

I just don't think you are gonna be in a good position on the flop to take advantage of pushing your slim equity edge preflop...there's no way it's quite as large as your stats create...

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The flop sucks... ...Unfortunately, you're getting enormous odds now, so you have to chase your two-outter anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to give hero more than two outs here. Read Small Stakes Holdem, by Ed Miller, to learn more.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

the point of that was:

first up this site in general the play is pretty bad, hands like 67o are certainly possible.

but what im showing is that i need 15% roughly to correctly value raise. If they are random im getting 22%. when we get a more accurate range for each player, i still think it would be around 18%

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Case in point:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 22.2148 % 21.04% 01.20% { QdTd }
Hand 2: 12.9288 % 11.90% 01.04% { random }
Hand 3: 12.9584 % 11.93% 01.05% { random }
Hand 4: 12.9768 % 11.94% 01.05% { random }
Hand 5: 12.9901 % 11.96% 01.04% { random }
Hand 6: 12.9789 % 11.95% 01.04% { random }
Hand 7: 12.9521 % 11.92% 01.04% { random }

Also, i feel a bloated pot here may even increase our postflop expectation as we are usually drawing to or close to the nuts and a big pot forces others to correctly call down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

edited to say that DeathDonkey (and maybe others) once posted that in a really loose good game like this it is probably never that big of a mistake to raise any suited broadway from any position. So I don't think it's that big of a deal. I just think that playing these types of hands OOP might negate our preflop equity edge enough where I don't know if a raise is really +EV.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

What are we looking at here, about 5 outs?

2 for the Ts
1.5 for the Qs
1.5 for the backdoor straight?

Perhaps discount another full out because of the flush potential?

4 outs on that board? Does that sound about right...

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
but what im showing is that i need 15% roughly to correctly value raise. If they are random im getting 22%. when we get a more accurate range for each player, i still think it would be around 18%

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I'm not even sure what % of hands villains would be needing to play before this was correct...

OOC, are all the players bad enough to play 76o or just a few?

Anyways, let's get a little closer to an accurate number please. (BTW, once you get there, I'm going to kick the snot out of it.)

Edit: but I won't do any of the things that I said I wouldn't do when I kick the snot out of it.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Who says were behind on the flop?

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Well I got about 19% and that was giving them Any two suited, any two paint cards, any two connecting cards, and any ace. That's a very wide range for all these limpers no matter how bad the players at the site are...

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 16.8630 % 15.69% 01.17% { QdTd }
Hand 2: 14.1779 % 13.05% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 3: 14.2672 % 13.13% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 4: 14.1690 % 13.04% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 5: 14.2151 % 13.07% 01.14% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 6: 14.1696 % 13.03% 01.14% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 7: 12.1382 % 11.41% 00.72% { random }


that is a razor thin value raise.

so i guess it comes down to whether raising will likely improve your relative situation postflop?

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

I most likely don't raise, and then I bet out to see what happens.

You have to bet that flop, even into 17 players, and just HOPE the guy UTG raises and everyone folds for two-cold so you can play this head's up. If it's two back to me, I'd think about folding.

I will have to wait until I get home to check the STOVE for a more real range to check the EV. With all limpers, I'd say ANY suited, and any pair, any Ace, and Any two broadway. Then I'd exclude, AA, KK, QQ, AKs, AK, and AQ.

By just going against RANDOM, you are giving your opponents too little credit not to play ANY TWO, and too much credit to be tricky with the top hands.

If the EV against that range is more than 14% or whatever, then I would guess a raise is in order.

Of course, your position sucks.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

I didn't say we're behind, but is our Ts likely to be favored to hold up on that board?

And the remark was "we have to give more than two outs," so if we are behind, what outs do we have to improve to a probable best hand? I was just doing some extra work on my outs calculations...

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

I see nothing wrong with the raise. You are raising for both you flush and straight potential. Unfortunately neither really materialized on the flop.

I see no problem with the way you played this.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are we looking at here, about 5 outs?

2 for the Ts
1.5 for the Qs
1.5 for the backdoor straight?

Perhaps discount another full out because of the flush potential?

4 outs on that board? Does that sound about right...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give us like 1.95 for the two tens, cause you know, ATo beats us here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'd give us 0.25 for the Qc and 0.80 for each of the other Q's: 1.85 outs... that's 3.8 outs.

I can't remember, but I think a BDS is 1 out. We may be splitting or "splitting by three" (is there a word for that?) the straight though, so I'd give us something like 0.65 for it rather than 1.

All-in-all, that's about 4.65 outs.

Turn: This is a good fold.

Flop: I think consensus on this board will be to bet. I'm not sure that it'd be correct to do so, though.

Edit: Warning: the numbers that I'm using are rough and not based on any real knowledge of poker probaiblity. Also, just want to say that I think post-flop play is probably very good.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Who says were behind on the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

OOC, what's the probability that one of them has a jack?

I _think_ that we'd find this out using a poisson distribution, but I'm not sure how to do that.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it would really depend on how bad the limpers are and how passive they are preflop. I'm too tired to even attempt to do any math right now, but if wanted to humor me I'd appreciate if you'd give it a shot.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 16.8630 % 15.69% 01.17% { QdTd }
Hand 2: 14.1779 % 13.05% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 3: 14.2672 % 13.13% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 4: 14.1690 % 13.04% 01.13% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 5: 14.2151 % 13.07% 01.14% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 6: 14.1696 % 13.03% 01.14% { 44+, A2s+, K2s+, Q4s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A3o+, K7o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T9o }
Hand 7: 12.1382 % 11.41% 00.72% { random }


that is a razor thin value raise.

so i guess it comes down to whether raising will likely improve your relative situation postflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

For purposes of argument, I actually like Schwartzy's number better.

However, let's say that we have a "pokerstove equity" of 19%...

Two things hurt here:

1) If we don't get to the river we aren't allowed to use that whole pokerstove equity, right, so we have to take a discount...

2) Being out of position sucks. Check your pokertracker for what your BB/100 is when you're UTG. If that number is negative, then you may want to reconsider raising here.

So, there's my snotkicking done with... I think we have to be a little more conservative when it comes to figuring out our actual equity in the hand than what pokerstove tells us.

We need to be able to make money post-flop with this hand in order to justify playing it. If your UTG bb/100 isn't very high, then you probably aren't going to be making money post-flop with this hand. Also, if your UTG VPIP is really low, then you're furthermore entering pots while UTG with hands much better than QTs, and _still_ losing money. Therefore a check here starts to make a lot more sense, but I'm not sure what the numbers would have to look like before you'd check rather than raise.

Edit: One thing is good though. We're also allowed to deny our opponents their pokerstove equity through betting into them and making them fold stuff like AK before the river, etc.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it would really depend on how bad the limpers are and how passive they are preflop. I'm too tired to even attempt to do any math right now, but if wanted to humor me I'd appreciate if you'd give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point here is that it probably doesn't happen too often, or our pokerstove equity would be much less than it currently says it is. Therefore we don't have to worry so much about that. Also, miller says that domination for suited hands doesn't matter as much in multiway pots.

--Dave.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

Nice hand.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think these numbers come close to estimating your preflop equtiy. Q10 is a hand that is easily dominated and if someone is limping with QJ or KQ or K10 it destroys your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often would you say that this would happen?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess it would really depend on how bad the limpers are and how passive they are preflop. I'm too tired to even attempt to do any math right now, but if wanted to humor me I'd appreciate if you'd give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point here is that it probably doesn't happen too often, or our pokerstove equity would be much less than it currently says it is. Therefore we don't have to worry so much about that. Also, miller says that domination for suited hands doesn't matter as much in multiway pots.

--Dave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but I do think that as the VPIP of the limpers goes down then our equity goes down as well. Even Eskimo's second equity calculation assumes 5 really really bad limpers. And I also agree that domination is not as big of an issue for a hand like this that plays well multi-way, but as a default, for me at least, it is big enough of an issue, combined with having to play the hand OOP (which you explained nicely below) that I don't raise preflop. But playing OOP is the overriding factor IMO as well.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember, but I think a BDS is 1 out. We may be splitting or "splitting by three" (is there a word for that?) the straight though, so I'd give us something like 0.65 for it rather than 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one misconception a lot of people have is that all backdoor straights are created equal (not saying you do David, just trying to point something out).

A quick way for doing backdoor straight estimates is figuring out how many outs give you how many outs.

Here, for example, we have:

4 Kings give us 8 outs
4 Aces give us 4 outs
4 8's give us 4 outs
4 9's give us 8 outs

Then multiply them together and divide by 47 to give us a very close approximation. 32+16+16+32 = 96/47 = 2.04 backdoor straight outs.

Then you can reduce from there for splits, reverse implied odds, etc.

I think .65 is too low, I'd guess about twice that.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nice hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, a LONG time ago we had a discussion where I talked about checking AJo in the BB vs 6 limpers, and you said that since I had a PF pokerstove edge I should push it now. I said that I was commonly going to have to fold before the river and thus checking was correct, as my "actualized WTSD" was less than my pokerstove equity.

---

You say NH here, so I assume you mean the preflop too (I like the postflop personally).

OOC, why do you like the raise? I mean, I know you're good, so you're probably right, but if it's okay, I'd like to hear it. I'll take a guess:

Although our WTSD will be lower than our PFE (preflop equity), we're going to, more commonly than not, have opportunities to make +EV decisions postflop and allow our opponents to make -EV decisions. Because of the post-flop side of things making this a +EV hand, we should consider raising now.

I mean, this is probably as close as I can get to the correct answer right now. Any help is appreciated.

--Dave.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't remember, but I think a BDS is 1 out. We may be splitting or "splitting by three" (is there a word for that?) the straight though, so I'd give us something like 0.65 for it rather than 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think .65 is too low, I'd guess about twice that.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYI, I was using the number given to me on page 103 in SSHE (I had to look it up just to make sure before posting). I double-checked this with a pot-odds chart I made in excel, and it is indeed about 1 out. I'm cutting it down a bit because we win half the pot when we split, and we don't split all the time... I figure about 0.65 is a reasonable number here.

The page also shows the exact math behind it.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[23:53] Entity: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD
[23:53] Entity: w3e are drunk
[23:53] Entity: but I think I like the way he played htis
[23:55] jason_t: yeah of course
[23:55] jason_t: i don't get it
[23:55] Entity: don't get what?
[23:55] Entity: PF?
[23:55] Entity: flop?
[23:55] Entity: turn?
[23:55] jason_t: pf standard imo
[23:55] jason_t: flop standard imo
[23:55] jason_t: turn standard imo
[23:55] jason_t: yes
[23:55] jason_t: starndard
[23:55] jason_t: i don't get it
[23:55] Entity: pqoiwejf;lkj
[23:55] Entity: h8h8
[23:55] jason_t: wtf
[23:56] Entity: ahaha
[23:56] Entity: I think it's standard too
[23:56] jason_t: LOL
[23:56] jason_t: h8
[23:56] jason_t: 'er [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[23:53] Entity: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD
[23:53] Entity: w3e are drunk
[23:53] Entity: but I think I like the way he played htis
[23:55] jason_t: yeah of course
[23:55] jason_t: i don't get it
[23:55] Entity: don't get what?
[23:55] Entity: PF?
[23:55] Entity: flop?
[23:55] Entity: turn?
[23:55] jason_t: pf standard imo
[23:55] jason_t: flop standard imo
[23:55] jason_t: turn standard imo
[23:55] jason_t: yes
[23:55] jason_t: starndard
[23:55] jason_t: i don't get it
[23:55] Entity: pqoiwejf;lkj
[23:55] Entity: h8h8
[23:55] jason_t: wtf
[23:56] Entity: ahaha
[23:56] Entity: I think it's standard too
[23:56] jason_t: LOL
[23:56] jason_t: h8
[23:56] jason_t: 'er [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

h8.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
FYI, I was using the number given to me on page 103 in SSHE

[/ QUOTE ]

It says straights with no gaps are worth about the same as a flush draw. One-gappers are the ones worth 1 out, not this one.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[23:53] Entity: w3e are drunk

[/ QUOTE ]
OMG THANKS FOR THE SWEAT JASON

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

OOC?

btw, i think domination is fairly irrelevant here. we are playing this for straight and flush

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[23:53] Entity: w3e are drunk

[/ QUOTE ]
OMG THANKS FOR THE SWEAT JASON

[/ QUOTE ]

OMFG 3-BET THE TURN WITH MIDDLE SEX NEXT TIME.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

i just about pissed myself laughing at that chat log

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
IIRC, a LONG time ago we had a discussion where I talked about checking AJo in the BB vs 6 limpers, and you said that since I had a PF pokerstove edge I should push it now. I

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't raise AJo but I'd raise AJs and ATs and QTs and T9s and all sorts of suited hands. Your equity is better and you've got a better chance of realizing your full equity with a suited connector than you do with an offsuit broadway. Your RIE is a lot worse with AJo than with QTs.

Postflop it's pretty effing good, and if he can play like this postflop he can definitely raise this preflop. On a rainbow flop there's a chance I would lead (esp. with a BD diamond draw) but I don't hate a check at all.

Re: TQs BB. Standard?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[23:53] Entity: w3e are drunk

[/ QUOTE ]
OMG THANKS FOR THE SWEAT JASON

[/ QUOTE ]

Never trust jason_ twhen his answer is "raise."