KQ .5/1 hand

[dozer]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's some additional thoughts about my raise on the river; I sat down and figured out the math.

Assuming everything else in the hand plays out the same way, each time,

1) If he is bluffing with his bet, maybe 10% of the time i will win 12.75BB unimproved.
2) If he will fold to a raise, maybe 10% of the time, i will win 12.75BB.
3) Maybe 80% of the time he will win 12.75BB, including when he re-raises, which I would fold to.

So, in 10 times i will gain 25.50BB by wagering a total of 10 extra big bets on the river, which means i will have a net profit of 15.50BB by betting on the river. Again, let me know what you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see a lot of these types of calcualtions lately from people, and I really doubt any of you are making these calculations on the spot when making decisions at a table.

How about trying some common sense. Raising this river when it is multi-way with K-high at .50 1. where nobody folds is obviously chip spewing. There, no calculations needed.

[imported_adhoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a full EV calculation:

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for that analysis, that is really helpful. Here is what I take from it.

If my chance of winning is 5%, the pot would have to be greater than 19 bets for me to call; in this case that would be unprofitable so I should fold.

However, if my chance of winning is 10%, the pot would only have to be greater than 9.5 bets for me to call. (Which it would be in this case; it would be 9.75BB when it comes to me.) But to generalize I will stick with the 10 aproximation you used:

EV = .90(-1) + .1(10)
= -.90 + 1
= 0.10

I have not thought about EV calculations before using the system you outlined here, which is really interesting. However, I think your analysis of case 3 has some arithmetic mistakes; maybe I just dont understand what you mean, which I am sure is probably the case. But here is what I am thinking. Specifically, I don't see where you get the 7% and 3% numbers respectively; from your breakdown it looks like the formula should read

EV = .9(-2) + .05(11) + .05(10)
= -1.8 + .55 + .5
= -0.75

and I can see how and why this is unprofitable. After running the numbers, if it was the case I would win unimproved 10% of the time, it looks like this to me:

EV = .85(-2) + .1(11) + .05(10)
= -1.7 + 1.1 + 0.5
= -0.1

a basically just less than break-even play, but still unprofitable and I can see why this is worse than calling. If, however, my chances of winning unimproved are 11%, doesn't it become

EV = .84(-2) + .11(11) + .05(10)
= -1.68 + 1.21 +0.5
= 0.03

a barely profitable play, but I suppose, marginally worse than calling. Is this math correct?

All of this hinges on whether or not the KQ is likely to win more than 10% of the time. I guess I probably overestimated its strength, and see that what I did on the river was not the best decision, although it still looks pretty close to me, and not strictly unprofitable if I had a better than a 10% chance of winning and could fold some of the players.

As a general principle, I suppose all of this means you should call a bet for a pot of 10BB when you have a 10% chance of winning. What sort of hands are 10% likely to win unimproved against a moderate field of passive players if not something like KQ?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically, I don't see where you get the 7% and 3% numbers respectively; from your breakdown it looks like the formula should read

EV = .9(-2) + .05(11) + .05(10)
= -1.8 + .55 + .5
= -0.75


[/ QUOTE ]

I was afraid that might end up being confusing. Here it is as I wrote it out the first time:

[ QUOTE ]
Case 3: You raise

a) You get called by a better hand, or there is a raise and you fold. This happens x times out of 100. In both situations, you lose 2 BB.
b) You get called by a worse hand. This happens y times out 100 and you win 11 BB (only one more from villain, since you don't count your own bets as profit).
c) You win with no showdown. This is the last possibility, so it happens 1-x-y times out of 100. You win 10 BB.

Again, we estimate. Since we estimated that you have a 5% chance of having the best hand in the previous case, it must not change when we consider this case. But you fold out lots of those hands that you beat with your raise. So let's say y = 3. Let's say you fold out a better hand 5% of the time, so that 7% of the time you win with no showdown. This gives x = 90 and 1-x-y = 7

[/ QUOTE ]

There is something different going on here compared to the second case. There are two ways to win without a showdown. Villain can fold a better hand or villain can fold a worse hand.

Villain will fold a better hand 5% of the time, according to our estimate.

Villain will fold a worse hand to a raise very very often. So of the 5% that he has a worse hand, he may only call 3% of the time (which is very generous -- I think he'll call with a worse hand closer to .5% of the time because K-high is so weak). This means 2% of the time he's folding his worse hand and there is no showdown.

[ QUOTE ]

...

Is this math correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

Looks okay.

[ QUOTE ]
All of this hinges on whether or not the KQ is likely to win more than 10% of the time. I guess I probably overestimated its strength, and see that what I did on the river was not the best decision, although it still looks pretty close to me, and not strictly unprofitable if I had a better than a 10% chance of winning and could fold some of the players.

As a general principle, I suppose all of this means you should call a bet for a pot of 10BB when you have a 10% chance of winning. What sort of hands are 10% likely to win unimproved against a moderate field of passive players if not something like KQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

A medium pocket pair is a clear call, ace-high is very borderline... Reads help tremendously when assessing the value of your hand at the river. (If you call them passive, your hand strength needs to go up.)

[imported_adhoc]

[ QUOTE ]

With QK I figured I had 6 outs because the flop was ragged and checked to me. I would otherwise count it as 3 outs. With the backdoor straight worth 1.5 outs, I guessed I had 7.5 outs, similar to an open ender or flush draw; giving me something like 2 1/4 to 1 to make a hand by the river.



You are overestimating your outs just a little bit. You've got to knock down your overcard outs because of the flush draw and the large field. I'd give you about 5-6 outs here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Back to this part of the hand, if the board did not have two to a flush, would a bet in this situation be a profitable decision? If the flop is all small cards and the action is checked around to me, I will almost always bet on the flop if all three of these criteria are in place: I have the button, an unimproved AK or KQ, and any draw, even a backdoor one. Several posters said they did not like this bet, but it is something that I routinely do and it seems to me like a good move. Isn't it better to err on the side of aggression?

[silkyslim]

why did u raise the river again?

[imported_adhoc]

I did that as a bluff, but I see now that it is at best marginally worse than calling, and, in most situations, worse than folding. But I wanted to ask for more input on the bet I made on the flop.

[mlb3zr]

I think everyone's main problem with your flop bet is that there are way too many opponents, and the board is fairly coordinated. it's likely that at least a couple of them have enough of a piece to call one bet. and you don't really want a bunch of people sticking around when you have K high and a backdoor.