3.5 bets cold to AKo

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
MUBS. The times you flop top pair and it's good will outweigh by a fair margin the number of times you flop top pair and it's no good. Why? It's a simple matter of needing lots of things to happen at once.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning this pot is also a matter of needing a lot of things to happen at once. First, you need to hit your hand. Second, you need someone to not have the hand you hit beaten already. Third, you need one of your five opponents not to hit the flop harder than you do. Fourth, you need to not get outdrawn when you hit and have the best hand.

[ QUOTE ]
This sort of scaling is a fundamental error in counting hands. You're drawing a false conclusion based on false assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I run into players all the time who won't even three-bet JJ or non-pair hands even when they obviously should (and I'm not so sure JJ is an obvious cap unless button is a good player who knows the reraiser is a LAG); there are just a lot of bad passive players out there. Most players know to reraise with QQ-AA. Since I'm assuming this is a complete stranger, I shift the probabilities toward those hands because almost everyone caps those hands, while fewer people raise the other hands.

In other words, villain A will never cap JJ and villain B will, but both will cap QQ, but I don't know which villain I'm playing against, therefore QQ is more likely.

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying KK is a muck preflop if it's already capped? This is an awful conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some ambiguity on my part; I meant it sucks for you and your AKo when button has KK. I'd need ridiculous reads to even consider folding kings preflop in a non-tournament situation.

[ QUOTE ]
This suggests another conceptual error. You do not turn down a profitable situation because you may not get Sklansky bucks out of it. Sklansky bucks refer to money you make when villains make FTOP errors...

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken and noted.

[ QUOTE ]
HyperLAG is one excellent reason to think it might get capped somewhere postflop. Also, your implied odds don't need to be very big because you're not starting with a tremendous deficit to make up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some pokerstove numbers, assuming UTG has 77+, ATs+, KJs+, AJo+, KJo+, and everyone else but you and the button have random hands:

Button has AA: below five percent
Button has KK: 14.5%
Button has AK: 11.4%
Button has QQ: over 21%
Button has AQs (wishful thinking IMO): around 20%

So yes, in the nightmare scenarios you are wading in with an equity disadvantage, and it's an enormous one when the hand in question is AA. This is why this situation is so unique, normally you have no reason to assume this stuff is going to happen.

No, it won't always be the nightmare scenarios, but since they do happen and we have specific reason to believe this might be one of them, you do need a lot in implied odds those times you win to make it up. Even in the best-case scenario your immediate preflop equity is less than five bets (counting the 3.5 you're putting in), so the implied odds will indeed have to make up for those times you flop your hand and it's no good, or miss it altogether.

[Aaron W.]

I have enjoyed the back-and-forth going on in this thread. It has been a while since a debate like this has popped up.

Sadly, though, this debate is quickly coming to an end because our experiences are leading us to very different conclusions about "average villain", which is really where the difficulty lies. Simply stated, you give "average villain" significantly more credit than I do.

[ QUOTE ]
I run into players all the time who won't even three-bet JJ or non-pair hands even when they obviously should (and I'm not so sure JJ is an obvious cap unless button is a good player who knows the reraiser is a LAG); there are just a lot of bad passive players out there. Most players know to reraise with QQ-AA. Since I'm assuming this is a complete stranger, I shift the probabilities toward those hands because almost everyone caps those hands, while fewer people raise the other hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I don't doubt this, you also run into players who would cap with hands that they shouldn't, like ATo. I would argue that you're biasing your "average villain" read by placing a higher emphasis on the passive players without properly taking the aggressive players into consideration. This isn't the sort of statment that comes with substantial "proof", as this is an intuition-level assertion. You cannot prove (without using a gigantically large sampling) that the average player will not generally cap JJ. To draw this conclusion, you need to give a wide range of villains JJ and at least a 3-betting opportunity and track their play accurately. This information is very difficult to obtain without having a lot of access and computing power.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, villain A will never cap JJ and villain B will, but both will cap QQ, but I don't know which villain I'm playing against, therefore QQ is more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I dispute your averaging method because your accounting method is inaccurate when you try to somehow include more aggressive players into the mix. Saying "QQ is more likely [than JJ]" is a perfectly acceptable assertion in a vacuum, but when you start trying to develop a relative scaling, the inclusion of aggressive players' hands wrecks everything. Here's what I mean. Suppose the following is accurate:

AA = Capped by 100% of players
KK = Capped by 100% of players
QQ = Capped by 100% of players
JJ = Capped by 75% of players
TT = Capped by 25% of players

AK = Capped by 100% of players
AQs = Capped by 25% of players

And everything else is never capped. If the action is capped preflop and no other information is available, what are the various probabilities of seeing each hand? Computing this isn't as hard as it may initially seem. Just treat it like there are 100 players and count the number of unique capping hands:

AA,KK,QQ = 100*6 = 600 ways each
JJ = 75*6 = 450 ways
TT = 25*6 = 150 ways
AK = 100*16 = 1600 ways
AQs = 25*4 = 100 ways
TOTAL = 2900

Then the various probabilities of seeing these hands are

AA,KK,QQ = 600/2900 = 20.7% each
JJ = 15.5%
TT = 5.2%
AK = 55.2%
AQs = 3.4%

So even in a scaled version of the same calculation, you *STILL* see AK about as often as you see AA-QQ. And there will *STILL* be the same effect of QQ rising in probability when you add the information that you have AK (though the precise change is different). There is *NO WAY* around it.

Let me turn things around on your equity argument. The preflop pot will be about 10 BB with 2 BB as your investment (4-5 ways capped plus extra bets floating around from blinds and call-folds). When you lose, you will lose an extra 3 BB postflop on average, and when you win you win an extra 8 BB postflop on average (multiway pot, lots of people peeling on the flop and turn).

When you flop your hand, lets say you've got 8-10 outs drawing against you. This means you get beat about 20% of the time. Instead of taking the 80% postflop equity, we'll take it down to 70% to include the times you get beat by some monster hand.

We'll give you 4-5 live outs on average going to the flop, giving you 25% to flop your hand.

Given all of this information, what's the EV of calling?

You miss your hand: 75% of the time you lose 2 BB.
You hit your hand and it holds: 25% of the time, 70% of the time you win 16 BB.
You hit your hand and you lose: 25% of the time, 30% of the time you lose 3 BB.

EV = .75*(-2) + (.25*.70)*(16) + (.25*.30)*(-5)
= -1.50 + 2.80 - .375
= .925

I'll be even more generous to your side. You win only 60% of the time you flop your hand, and you only win 14 BB:

EV = .75*(-2) + (.25*.60)*(14) + (.25*.40)*(-5)
= -1.50 + 2.1 - .5
= .1

Preflop play is not about preflop equity. It's almost entirely about the implied odds.

After reading your responses a few times, I suspect you're a NL player coming over to limit. That's just a guess.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm folding.

I also fold QQ in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding QQ is better than folding AKo because it flops hands with very few redraws... But QQ is worth a call in a 6-way pot because your implied odds are VERY VERY LARGE when you snag a queen, and you might surprise yourself by winning UI.

Don't forget -- YOU'VE ONLY GOT 30 FREAKING HANDS AS YOUR READ. This isn't some well established rock capping in position, it's a relative unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shoot me now dude. Folding QQ in this spot is far far far tougher then folding AKo. I would never fold QQ here. I wouldn't fold any pocket pair period.

The problem with AKo is that it has no implied odds. The chances of making a flush are piss poor. The chances of making a straight are piss poor. You will not get your fair share from kings down on an Axx board unless someone made trips. Even if you catch a Kxx flop you will still run into AA a big % of the time.

The odds that you flop top pair and a specific pair flops a set is low (about 3%) but it becomes significant when you put 3 pockets out there (~9%). The odds that you flop a set and someone else flops a set (again one specific pair) are roughly 100:1. Even if you put 3 other pockets out there, you will only see set over set about 3% of the time (and oftentimes you will have the best set).

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm folding.

I also fold QQ in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding QQ is better than folding AKo because it flops hands with very few redraws... But QQ is worth a call in a 6-way pot because your implied odds are VERY VERY LARGE when you snag a queen, and you might surprise yourself by winning UI.

Don't forget -- YOU'VE ONLY GOT 30 FREAKING HANDS AS YOUR READ. This isn't some well established rock capping in position, it's a relative unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shoot me now dude. Folding QQ in this spot is far far far tougher then folding AKo. I would never fold QQ here. I wouldn't fold any pocket pair period.

The problem with AKo is that it has no implied odds. The chances of making a flush are piss poor. The chances of making a straight are piss poor. You will not get your fair share from kings down on an Axx board unless someone made trips. Even if you catch a Kxx flop you will still run into AA a big % of the time.

The odds that you flop top pair and a specific pair flops a set is low (about 3%) but it becomes significant when you put 3 pockets out there (~9%). The odds that you flop a set and someone else flops a set (again one specific pair) are roughly 100:1. Even if you put 3 other pockets out there, you will only see set over set about 3% of the time (and oftentimes you will have the best set).

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I have no idea what I was thinking when I posted that. Even the redraw statement makes no sense to me right now. QQQ doesn't need redraws that often (and when it does, there are usually 10 good cards on going from the turn to the river).

I hope my AK call arguments aren't plagued by such absurdities.

[Xhad]

I'm too tired to read the bulk of this post, though I'll probably get to it tomorrow. I too have enjoyed this.

[ QUOTE ]
After reading your responses a few times, I suspect you're a NL player coming over to limit. That's just a guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I'm primarily a B&M player, and when I do play online it's usually tournaments unless I'm bonuswhoring. I meant to say at one point in my previous points that this might taint my read a little bit (as in maybe the calling station/LAG ratio is higher in the games I play than your typical party table), I guess I forgot or edited it out or something.

[AdamL]

You'd call here with 22? " I wouldn't fold any pocket pair period."

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
You'd call here with 22? " I wouldn't fold any pocket pair period."

[/ QUOTE ]

It's something like 5-ways at this point, right? You're only looking to make up something like 10 SB in EV... It's a challenge, but possible. We're looking to get a ton of callers on a relatively low, drawless board from one-pair hands or overcards that are chasing to a dead hand.

Our position sucks for this kind of thing, because we're going to have to play it slow in order to avoid facing the field with two cold bets. However, absolute position guarantees that we'll never see a street get checked through if we hit.

Edit: That's not all there is to it, of course... what we're REALLY looking for is to get multiple bets in on the turn, which makes it a lot easier to see how we could make up that 10SB faster. Again, we'd want to do this on a relatively drawless board, so that we weren't giving away 20% of all turn bets and 30% of all flop bets.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: That's not all there is to it, of course... what we're REALLY looking for is to get multiple bets in on the turn, which makes it a lot easier to see how we could make up that 10SB faster. Again, we'd want to do this on a relatively drawless board, so that we weren't giving away 20% of all turn bets and 30% of all flop bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arg... Sometimes I'm a little less than thorough in my analysis, sorry guys.

In a set vs FF situation, the FF doesn't quite have 35% equity because the set will sometimes fill up before or after they hit their flush... I'm not sure what the exact % is, but maybe 25% from the flop forward, and something less or more than that on the turn (hehe... keeping all my bases covered here. If you guys want to know for sure though, run it through pokerstove).

In this lovely situation (where the board pairs the turn) the FF thinks that they're against an overpair, and in actuality they're drawing dead. The ultimately lovely situation, of course, is where he hits his flush on the river after you fill. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[lufbradolly]

I'D fold in this spot. Now i'm gonna read the other replies and see how wrong i am.