Is it worth it to draw????

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand 1: 22.6847 % [ 00.22 00.01 ] { QcJc }
Hand 2: 77.3153 % [ 00.76 00.01 ] { AA-88, AKs-ATs, KQs, AKo-ATo, KQo }

[/ QUOTE ]
Great Post. I'm struggling trying to get my arms around how Hand 1 is only a 3.5-1 underdog, with only a gutshot, a BDFD, and 6 other heavily discounted outs. Nonetheless, I may be forced to reverse my opinion on this play.

[ QUOTE ]
So according to pokerstove with >20% equity we could profitably call this flop getting only 4 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

p.s. I must point out this is faulty logic. You are getting 3.5-1 if you go to the river. You need about 7-1 to call just the turn. Of course you're getting that, so this doesn't change the conclusion of your post.

[runa]

Starting with no read do we assume they are solid? I agree that solid 3-betting standards are generally looser than my original statement, but there are also tons of passive preflop folks who only 3-bet with premium hands. What would be a good average range of hands we can put the villain on since its not a pure steal situation, and we seem to have no help in the VPIP, PFR read department?

[Aces_up07]

[ QUOTE ]
I think people are definitely overestimating the amount of time hero is drawing dead on this flop. I'd say it's negligible, 5% of the time or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did a little math...and while I may be way over my head here...I think its correct. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please let me know..just don't flame me, I'm just trying to learn a thing or two.

there are 11 ways he has a hand which you are drawing dead to (3 x aa, 1 x kk, 5 x ako and 1 x aks) ok? There are 84 different possible hands he could have(based on what you plugged into poker stove), counting six for a pair of queens, six for jacks..etc.

So if you are drawing dead 11 times out of 84, you are drawing dead 11/84 = 12% of the time? Isn't that 12% significant enough to cut down on those odds on the flop to make a flop call even, if not unprofitable?

[Munga30]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think people are definitely overestimating the amount of time hero is drawing dead on this flop. I'd say it's negligible, 5% of the time or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did a little math...and while I may be way over my head here...I think its correct. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, please let me know..just don't flame me, I'm just trying to learn a thing or two.

there are 11 ways he has a hand which you are drawing dead to (3 x aa, 1 x kk, 5 x ako and 1 x aks) ok? There are 84 different possible hands he could have(based on what you plugged into poker stove), counting six for a pair of queens, six for jacks..etc.

So if you are drawing dead 11 times out of 84, you are drawing dead 11/84 = 12% of the time? Isn't that 12% significant enough to cut down on those odds on the flop to make a flop call even, if not unprofitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

The pokerstove sim, above, accounts for those times hero is drawing dead, as those hands are part of the SB's possible range. So no, it wouldn't change that equity.

What you should be concerned about is putting in a lot of bets to draw, a lot of bets when you improve to a second best hand, and not getting paid (enough) when you improve to the best hand. Those will generally drag down the EV of the decision.

[Aces_up07]

thanks munga. I get it now. So it won't be worth it if you never realize that your flush is bad when you do make it, or if your opponent is not going to pay you off when you make your hand.

Other than that, its a good call because you'll win here approx 20 percent of the time.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Starting with no read do we assume they are solid? I agree that solid 3-betting standards are generally looser than my original statement, but there are also tons of passive preflop folks who only 3-bet with premium hands. What would be a good average range of hands we can put the villain on since its not a pure steal situation, and we seem to have no help in the VPIP, PFR read department?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at it from sort of a math perspective..

Lets say all hands are ranked from 1 to 100.

Lets say a solid's typical 3-betting hands = 95-100. (roughly 5% of hands, note: this assumes not a blind steal type situation, but normal 3-betting).

A fish's typical 3-betting hands are the same.

A LAGs 3 betting hands are maybe: 90-100.

A maniac's are 80-100.

A LP are like: 98-100.

So, the exact expected number of a typical 3-bet from an unknown =

(frquency of solid)*97.5 + (frquency of fish)*97.5 + (frquency of LAG)*95 + (frquency of maniac)*90 +
(frequency of LP)*99.

In this situation, really, only a solids change, because most of the others dont understand the idea of 3-betting to isolate, or that MP3 might be raising weakly. Lets say a solids 3-betting now equals a maniacs (20% of hands)

So, the new number is smaller than the old number, with the difference being:

(frquency of solid)*97.5 - (frquency of solid)*90.

It all depends on how frequently you expect a solid in your game.

So, its erroneous to assume that the 3-betting range changes to what ours does, because for many it doesnt. But, it is also erroneous to assume that it doesnt change at all.

[runa]

I agree with you here, but I suppose from my brief experiences at low limits the frequency of solids and maniacs are on the fringe, and a much higher frequency of the time a 3-bet is for value and not a re-steal. I agree that a good average estimate is probably somewhat looser than strictly premium, but I suppose that's why I'm asking. It sounds like a fairly difficult intial premise to define, and obviously much easier with real PT stats to work with. Nice analysis.

It probably is very likely that the flop call is probably close if not slightly profitable, and its pretty straightforward from this turn card on. Unfortunately as munga mentioned, the nature of the situation does mean that you have low implied odds for the times you do hit since you can't confidently guarantee or push a made hand every time, and that often (in other situations) turns a closer or even nearly unprofitable call into a clear call instead.