An AQ hand inspired from SS2

[AlmightyJay]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as folding this flop for one bet, I'd never advocate that. You have odds to draw for your outs, and you have the best position.

Our goal is to choose the play that has the maximum expected value in each situation. That's how we maximise profit. Now, folding has an expectation of 0. When you have enough odds to call for your outs, your expectation is greater than 0.

So, by mathematical definition, folding this flop for one bet means that you have not chosen the play that maximises your expectation. You have made an error. This is not in question; this is mathematical fact.

And it certainly matters if anyone calls between the bettor or not. Pot size changes, your equity changes, and your action will therefore change.

I think it's interesting to analyse these situations, but having done so, they seem like fairly clear errors to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting 7.5:1, if I counted correctly. You have at best three outs, and I doubt you can even count your overcards as a full 1.5 outs each with a field this large. You absolutely do not have odds to continue.

[VBM]

if i believe there is a reasonable chance that:
1. i may have a better hand than MP1 right now or that MP1 has a weakly made hand I can outdraw
2. if faced with calling 2, the other players in the hand will fold
3. MP1 *might* fold as well
4. if he calls, MP1 will likely check the turn allowing me to press or take a card (tho, the latter becomes increasingly rare in higher limits)

i would raise.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'll give an example of this.

The pot is 6 SB on the flop. Someone bets into you. You have a gutshot, no other draws. The pot is now 7:1.

Your odds of hitting that gutshot by the river is something like 6.5:1, but you still can't call, based on pot odds.

This is why I don't like Stove Equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.

This is a perfect example. Yes, PokerStove generates equity values. And yes, you cannot use equity as your single determinant in choosing your next action.

But, if you have the nut gutshot on a rainbow board, say KQ on an ATx board, and your call will close the action, you should definatly call. You aren't calling because you have enough equity though, you are calling for implied odds.


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Yeah, I wrote implied odds into my reply AS you were writing your response. Sorry bro.

And pokerstove is truly important if you're playing NLHE where you can push your stack. In that case, I guess you'd be looking at what kinds of hands would be folding to your push, how much money is already in the pot, what kinds of hands would be calling, and whether you were therefore getting correct odds to push. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It does, specifically if "6 players limp in".

But I think that the advice, if it is wrong, is not obviously so. It requires some thought and analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea in HEPFAP is more applicable when people are limping reasonable hands like 66, T9s, etc. When people at this limit are limping crap like J7o, you have too much equity preflop not to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

The equity given in my 5th post is fine even vs random hands, so the analysis that follows needs to be dealt with. "You have too much equity preflop" -- 22.5% roughly, which gains you about 1SB when you raise. Again, if the math is correct. But it is simply false that you give that 1SB up. You are putting it on hold, it isn't gone. You need to make it up somewhere, usually the flop. Can you? Sure, I think so. That you can debate. But other gains are mentioned as well, fwiw.

Hand 1: 22.4976 % [ 00.21 00.01 ] { AQo }
Hand 2: 12.8498 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 3: 12.8261 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 12.9865 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 12.9376 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 12.9586 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 7: 12.9439 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus H [censored] Christ!

(pardon my expression)

Are these guys looking at their cards?

Edit: I thought we'd already implicitly agreed not to use random cards after seeing the results of JTs' equity edge preflop against normal cards vs random cards...

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

The pot preflop after you raise is going to be about 15 SB, and you're *NOT* seeing the turn with overcards for 1 SB? That's a bigger mistake than not raising preflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious... how much bigger?

[flopwell]

raise PF, then take the free card that you will get on the flop.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It does, specifically if "6 players limp in".

But I think that the advice, if it is wrong, is not obviously so. It requires some thought and analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea in HEPFAP is more applicable when people are limping reasonable hands like 66, T9s, etc. When people at this limit are limping crap like J7o, you have too much equity preflop not to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

The equity given in my 5th post is fine even vs random hands, so the analysis that follows needs to be dealt with. "You have too much equity preflop" -- 22.5% roughly, which gains you about 1SB when you raise. Again, if the math is correct. But it is simply false that you give that 1SB up. You are putting it on hold, it isn't gone. You need to make it up somewhere, usually the flop. Can you? Sure, I think so. That you can debate. But other gains are mentioned as well, fwiw.

Hand 1: 22.4976 % [ 00.21 00.01 ] { AQo }
Hand 2: 12.8498 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 3: 12.8261 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 12.9865 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 12.9376 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 12.9586 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 7: 12.9439 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { random }

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus H [censored] Christ!

(pardon my expression)

Are these guys looking at their cards?

Edit: I thought we'd already implicitly agreed not to use random cards after seeing the results of JTs' equity edge preflop against normal cards vs random cards...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi,

One fellow said your equity was big against players playing junk. So I did a random hand analysis, which shows the equity being about 22.5%. The original analysis was done using a narrower range of hands, although TT was the best one (so that AQo would be the "best" hand). The equity was still about 21% or so.

Some people seem to have missed that there is a discussion going on entirely by making blanket statements or firing off the old cliches. Or just quoting them - LOL.

[AdamL]

Aye... I think you have something like 13% against two guys with pairs, one guy with an OESD and another 3 random. So a call on the flop would slide.

What worries me there is just reverse implied odds. When you hit your ace or queen, do you raise it? Raise and fold to a 3-bet?

Indeed, she might have been writing the book for players with keeping them out of trouble here in mind - even if it isn't strictly +EV. That is a possibility.

Although, at this point, I don't think the original idea of making back the lost SB on the flop has been dealt with enough to say it is a mistake not to raise preflop.

I believe in a raised pot you have some unfortunate things to deal with. Drawing dead, for one. For two, making your hand and being drawn out on. Three, paying reverse implied odds, lots of em. And finally, as far as I can see, the problem for many players of not wanting to fold in a huge pot.

One fellow suggests taking the free card on the flop when you don't hit, in a raised pot. Definitely. I don't think betting here does any good.

Maybe we should move on from that point. Take a look at the turn and river.

So far, the strongest line I see is waiting to raise the flop when you hit, and bailing when you don't (since the pot isn't huge anyhow.) Stops all kinds of problems from occuring post-flop, and I just don't see it being that hard to earn back the value lost preflop by not raising.

[Dave G.]

[ QUOTE ]
You're getting 7.5:1, if I counted correctly. You have at best three outs, and I doubt you can even count your overcards as a full 1.5 outs each with a field this large. You absolutely do not have odds to continue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think we can discount our overcards to 4 outs minimum, and I think even that is being a bit pessimistic. Even so, implied odds certainly mean we can continue. If we hit an A or Q, we will have the best pair, and the majority of the time the best hand on this (somewhat) drawless board. The only concern is being dominated.

1.5 outs for overcards are for situations where you can hit and you may not still have the best hand. On this board, I'm liking my hand a lot if a Q or A comes. And its worth repeating - our position increases the value of our hand, because if an A falls and it comes two bets to us, we can dump our hand, thus saving us some value when we ARE dominated.

We easily have enough odds to continue here. Folding for one bet is a mistake.