Re: Standard?
Despot,
I just wanted to note the following:
1. I agree with many of the substantive analytical points you made here.
2. At least to my "ears" your post veered into ad hominem attack territory. It might not have been intended that way but it sounded that way to me at least. Frankly, TT gave more of his thought proceess than many here do on these forums so I don't think he should be attacked per se for failing to do a Bayesian analysis (although I think doing one to show why you think he is wrong is, of course, very helpful).
3. With respect to your hand distributions and the decision at hand, you failed to take into account the effective odds that TT is getting to call down (5.25:1). Now you suggest that things are likely much worse than even your analysis (and I do agree with that), but if he was behind 113 (drawing live approx. 1/3 of the time) and behind 80 then this should be an easy call down (or at least turn call) given the pot odds, and assuming villain bets all the losers on the river. However, what makes this tricky is that villain may be bluffing/semi-bluffing on the turn with hands we beat but may not do so again on the river. Accordingly, we may need to look at this as separate turn and river decisions. Even if TT has correct odds to call a turn bet against villain's range given his immediate pot odds (which is not clear to me as I think he is a much bigger dog here than he believes), he may still need to fold to a river bet as a follow-through on the river by villain may cause us to further narrow the range of hand he has (increasing the ratio of hands that beat us to hands we beat) (see below).
I think things are much worse since unless BB is, in fact, a complete maniac (which I do not think has been establihed here) then there are VERY few hands TT beats on the river here. I tend to just fold the turn here as you suggest but I think one can make an argument for calling the turn (if you think BB is sufficiently LAGGY) give the possibility of being ahead and the live outs if you are not, but still folding the river (unless villain is a complete maniac).
BB has bet into the pf capper on a fairly drawless board and bet all the way. Given the way he has played it, TT's hand screams of overcards which he intedns to call all the way down with (or a monster slowplayed) and villain's river bet sure looks like it is for value and not a last bluff. Regardless of whether TT had correct odds to call the turn here, I think he is pretty much toast on the river (again, unless villain is much more maniacal than we have reason to believe).
|