100/200 blind war
 

4 handed 100/200. Been playing mb 20 minutes and so far only a couple confrontations hu vs the bb and I've raised and he's called and folded the flop. He might have called once and I check/folded the turn but I forget exactly what had happened up to this point. Villain is a pretty good player. He's a tight/aggro player and isn't a pounder/lag/pealer high-limit type like a lot of others.

I open Q8o in the sb, he calls in the bb.

Flop 862r

I bet, he raises, I 3 bet he calls.

Turn J

I bet, he calls.

River 6

my plan?

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

Check-call. Standard, no?

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

bet/fold?

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

I would bet/call in that situation.

Even if he is taggish, I think you do get called by ace high type hands here on that board quite a bit.
He probably does not have a jack. He might well have a 2. If he has a jack he probably will not raise the river as he did not raise the turn.

If you check planning to call, he probably would not bluff. Thus you would give him a very clear value bet.

In rough numbers:
If you check/call you are probably ahead only 20% of the time.
If you bet and he calls, you are probably ahead 60% of the time. Say in 18% of the cases he hold a 6, then he raises and you'd call, so in 18% when you are behind, you lose an extra bet. Say he will also raise the river with a worse hand in 3% of the cases. Thus we might as well discount your value betting equity by 15%. So your value betting equity is 45%, still a lot better than check/call.

The extent by which bet/call is better than check/call using these numbers if quite big, so even if we adjust the number significantly, bet/calling should still be better than check/calling.

Edit: my analysis of opponents calling/raising range at the river is in my post below.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

I think check calling is ok, because he will likely value bet a good number hands that you beat(thinking you're gonna call with A high), and because bet-folding sucks.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
bet/fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely not. you cannot bet/fold here. period. if you do this you will have shots taken at you all the time, which is exactly what you dont want. if you bet you must call the raise. i think check calling is best because of the previous fact. if you check, he will bet any 8 and the 6. if you bet, he will call all 8s and raise any hand that now beats you and fold all worse hands.

lets do a little math though. lets say that combinatorically and stylistically its equally likely that he has an 8 or a 6. he will call with 8s and raise 6s if you bet. if youc heck he will bet both hands. i assume A8 would 3bet pf. K8 might just call so we'll leave it at that. i also assume K8 would probably raise the turn so the only 8s he has are lower ones. 6s, however, could have a larger range b/c he may not 3bet A6 and wouldn't necessarily raise K6 on the turn.

so in actuality, its slightly more likely imo that he has the 6 than the 8. but lets stick w/ 50/50 still.

situation 1: he has a 6 and you bet/call.

situation 2: he has an 8 and calls your bet.

situation 3: you check he bets the 8 and you win.

situation 4: you check and he bets the 6 and you lose.

so...

E[1+2]= -(2)*.5 + .5*1=-.5

E[3+4]= .5*1 - .5*1=0

given the above assumptions (you dont fold to the raise when you bet) it is never correct to bet. you can alter the probability that villian has an 8 to whatever as long as the probability he has a 6 is 1-Pr(villian has 8) or vice versa.

but if you can fold to the raise (and you are never wrong):

E[1+2]= .5*1-.5*1=0

E[3+4]= .5*1-.5*1=0

so it makes no difference if youc an fold to the raise. the results are always equal for bet/fold vs. check call. but if you can't fold to the raise, check calling is always better.

so even if you COULD fold to the raise, you need to be 100% sure you are beat when you fold every time to the raise and its still exactly even vs. check calling.

so check calling is clearly better given my above assumptions.

-Barron

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet/call in that situation.

Even if he is taggish, I think you do get called by ace high type hands here on that board quite a bit.
He probably does not have a jack. He might well have a 2. If he has a jack he probably will not raise the river as he did not raise the turn.

If you check planning to call, he probably would not bluff. Thus you would give him a very clear value bet.

In rough numbers:
If you check/call you are probably ahead only 20% of the time.
If you bet and he calls, you are probably ahead 60% of the time. Say in 18% of the cases he hold a 6, then he raises and you'd call, so in 18% when you are behind, you lose an extra bet. Say he will also raise the river with a worse hand in 3% of the cases. Thus we might as well discount your value betting equity by 15%. So your value betting equity is 45%, still a lot better than check/call.

The extent by which bet/call is better than check/call using these numbers if quite big, so even if we adjust the number significantly, bet/calling should still be better than check/calling.
Even adjusting these numbers

[/ QUOTE ]

i just did a numerical example that proved check calling is always better than bet/calling. my assumptions were very different though. i think you are giving BK's opponent way too little credit. i think its by far the most likely situation that BK's opponenet has an 8 or a 6 rather than a jack or a 2 or Ahigh. if villian DOES have a 2 though, bet calling is probably better, but if he never bluff raises the river then you will lose every single time you call the raise, not 80% as you suggested above.

so two numerical examples give exact opposite answers. i vote for check calling in this spot though b/c i give villian more credit.

Barron

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]


situation 1: he has a 6 and you bet/call.

situation 2: he has an 8 and calls your bet.

situation 3: you check he bets the 8 and you win.

situation 4: you check and he bets the 6 and you lose.

so...

E[1+2]= -(2)*.5 + .5*1=-.5

E[3+4]= .5*1 - .5*1=0


[/ QUOTE ]
nice post first of all, is E[1 + 2] the average equity of decisions 1 and 2?

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

Thanks for the input.

I think first of all, bet folding on this board is probably not right. Even "straightforward" oppoents here - if they raise - will probably raise with a worse hand often enough that we have to call. If that was not the case, bet/folding would be the best option here.

In my opinion, this rainbow ragged board is perfect ace high calldown territory. Even the tightest high stakes players will feel very very tempted to call down here. The way he played his hand is consistent with ace high. The same of course holds for any two.

The way he played his hand is less consistent with a J.

Finally, the 6 coming at the river makes it 33% less likely that he holds a 6 than a 2. So given that he does not fold the river we could put him on something like 15% A high, 15% J, 25% 2, 17,5% 6, 17,5% 8

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


situation 1: he has a 6 and you bet/call.

situation 2: he has an 8 and calls your bet.

situation 3: you check he bets the 8 and you win.

situation 4: you check and he bets the 6 and you lose.

so...

E[1+2]= -(2)*.5 + .5*1=-.5

E[3+4]= .5*1 - .5*1=0


[/ QUOTE ]
nice post first of all, is E[1 + 2] the average equity of decisions 1 and 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

each set of possibilities is composed of an 8 and a 6. each 1 is 50% so im combining them for simplicity

Barron

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

I don't get this bet/fold advice given all the time here. I see it all the time and peoople forget the fold part and call anyways, so in general it sucks. I can't see anything than check/call in this spot

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

if u check, it looks like you are prob calling, so i dont expect him to bluff here and i think youre a pretty big fav here to have the best hand, so i like betting and absolutely call a raise... checking just lets him check behind w/ a baby pair or Ahigh and i almost think a busted str8 is more likely to raise ruiver than bet if check to.
i say bet/call.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
if u check, it looks like you are prob calling, so i dont expect him to bluff here and i think youre a pretty big fav here to have the best hand, so i like betting and absolutely call a raise... checking just lets him check behind w/ a baby pair or Ahigh and i almost think a busted str8 is more likely to raise ruiver than bet if check to.
i say bet/call.
bet/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess the consensus is i give villian too much credit. i read BK's read as that he doesn't do that w/ Ahigh on the flop. wont peel with random hands and probably would just calll down w/ a 2.

if im wrong then bet/call is better.

Barron

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

i like check/call.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

i obviously dont disagree w/ your post as i realize you know much more than me; however could you please explain 1 "flaw" that seems to be in your logic?

If you bet; he needs to be bluffing >12% or so of the time for you to call; so if your bet/calling- he has a hand @ most 88% of the time correct? or would you be calling for metagame reasons? I never think about metagame b/c i dont play limit regularly; but i guess i shouldnt try n make these kinda folds?

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

dude, youll be getting 10:1... the vast majority of online 1/2 players are bluffing here 10% and folding is also bad 4 metagame, sure.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
i say bet/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bet/call is a win 1 bet/lose 2 prop and, unless you're right 7 out of 10 times, a long term loser. Getting a worse hand to fold or when a worse one raises you is what makes the river bet/call a clear winner. I'm not sure that would be the case here.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

you need to bet/call. bet because your kicker plays for your 8 and he may have an 8, plus he's calling with any other pair or A at least some of the time. call because the pot is pretty big and people do semi-random weird stuff in blind battles sometimes.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

You think he checks behind with an 8-smaller kicker? Or any pair for that matter?

By checking the river I think it would sure looks to villian like A or K high that will check call, so he's gonna value pretty much any pair.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
i obviously dont disagree w/ your post as i realize you know much more than me; however could you please explain 1 "flaw" that seems to be in your logic?

If you bet; he needs to be bluffing >12% or so of the time for you to call; so if your bet/calling- he has a hand @ most 88% of the time correct? or would you be calling for metagame reasons? I never think about metagame b/c i dont play limit regularly; but i guess i shouldnt try n make these kinda folds?

[/ QUOTE ]

sure. the cost of calling and being completely wrong in that he will never ever bluff is the difference between your expectation if he bluffs 8% or 12% or whatever and the expectation if he never bluffs multiplied by the cost of the bet.

the cost of folding in this spot in a blind war given the previous action 4handed 1/2 is much larger than the money you save by folding. you will face many more shots taken at you as you will have labelled yourself a folder. doing this, even the poor players or the normally semi-passive ones will cause all of the players to put you to tougher decisions than you would normally face forcing you into potentially larger mistakes than the X%*1bb mistake you'd make by calling.

this is the way i think about it and i could definately be wrong, but in high limit poker, id choose to play against an easy to read person rather than a decent playing maniac any day of the week.

Barron

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

"By checking the river I think it would sure looks to villian like A or K high that will check call, so he's gonna value pretty much any pair."

youre right. now that you mention it, checkraise/fold the river is a much better play.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

Brilliant.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
if u check, it looks like you are prob calling, so i dont expect him to bluff here and i think youre a pretty big fav here to have the best hand, so i like betting and absolutely call a raise... checking just lets him check behind w/ a baby pair or Ahigh and i almost think a busted str8 is more likely to raise ruiver than bet if check to.
i say bet/call.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

I'm serious, I think checkraising is awesome. Sometimes he'll fold a better hand, and sometimes he'll call with a worse one.

I don't think he will ever 3 bet a worse one.

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

Barron, if you are going to make assumptions like these, then you don't have to write out complicated mathematically formulas, the answer is painfully obvious.

Look, you assume

- he'll bet all hands he would have called with
- we cannot fold to a raise
- he always raises when he beats us
- he never raises a worse hand

Yea, no [censored]. Of course if you assume this stuff, then check call is the way to go. It's pretty obvious. The math doesn't add any weight to the argument, since the whole argument is about whether or not your assumptions are valid.

In fact though, a number of your assumptions are suspect. First of all, it makes no sense to assume that he will never raise a worse hand AND that we cannot fold to a raise.

Further, you have ignored all possibility that he has a 2 or an ace.

Personally, I'd bet because my hand is near the top of my range in quality. I expect him to call with a wide range of hands but I'd be concerned that he won't necessarily bet these hands. I'd call a raise for the same reason, because I don't have to hace a hand when I get here, so I call all the times that I do.

I do agree that if we can count on him to value bet the river aggressivley, then check-call starts to look nice.

good luck.
Eric

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
Barron, if you are going to make assumptions like these, then you don't have to write out complicated mathematically formulas, the answer is painfully obvious.

Look, you assume

- he'll bet all hands he would have called with
- we cannot fold to a raise
- he always raises when he beats us
- he never raises a worse hand

Yea, no [censored]. Of course if you assume this stuff, then check call is the way to go. It's pretty obvious. The math doesn't add any weight to the argument, since the whole argument is about whether or not your assumptions are valid.

In fact though, a number of your assumptions are suspect. First of all, it makes no sense to assume that he will never raise a worse hand AND that we cannot fold to a raise.

Further, you have ignored all possibility that he has a 2 or an ace.

Personally, I'd bet because my hand is near the top of my range in quality. I expect him to call with a wide range of hands but I'd be concerned that he won't necessarily bet these hands. I'd call a raise for the same reason, because I don't have to hace a hand when I get here, so I call all the times that I do.

I do agree that if we can count on him to value bet the river aggressivley, then check-call starts to look nice.

good luck.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]
i agree w/ e-dog (can we call u that?)

Re: 100/200 blind war
 

[ QUOTE ]
i agree w/ e-dog (can we call u that?)

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Great post.