Flip the Cards Over

[thejameser]

couldn't this be a scenario where BB "lucked" into a +EV call? wouldn't he be just as likely to peel if he had 10s3c on a flop of A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] with the same action? probably so, and this time as circustance would have it he is drawing dead as he probably has on so many unprofitable calls before this one.

[damaniac]

I think that is the point. Here is a scenario where all of BB's outs are totally clean, and there are no horrible redraws against him. There is basically no scenario better than this. A lot of the time, his two pair may give someone else a better two pair, or he's still behind a set, or even when it doesn't make him a second best hand, it will give someone a flush draw or OESD. The problem is that while even the former examples may not happen too often, when they do he's going to lose 3 or 4 big bets. That really goes a long way to killing his implied odds.

And that isn't even factoring in getting 3-bet on the flop.

This happens quite a bit. It's like how a calling station is much harder to bluff than a TAG. His weakness is a strength against some plays. Obviously on the whole it is a big net negative, but it gives him some strategic advantages that a TAG doesn't have. Making the odd correct call like this is another example. A third might be the "loose flop call" that Nate the Great once posted about. Something that really good and bad players do, but not decent players.

The problem is that the bad player doesn't understand WHY something is good or bad, and will repeat an action that is correct in some circumstances in others where it isn't. Ideally as a good player you can learn when to apply the "good bad plays".

[mterry]

There should really be a notational distinction between 'correct' play(a la TOP), and the most likely estimate(mle? the 'right' play?) of correct play when there's imperfect information. By taking mle play as much as possible, good play comes close to 'correct' play more often than any other strategy. The donk that always calls will ocasionally beat the mle strategy (like this example) but it doesn't happen often enough to make his overall strategy not terrible.

I like this example of the distinction between correct play and the right play:
http://www.pokerstove.com/analysis/quad-jacks.php

[BigBrother]

Yeah, the BB who called this flop definitely found his situation to be much, much better than it was LIKELY to be.

I am trying to become the guy who bets less with 4%!

[chief444]

I'd call. Seems a bit better than breakeven. He's getting about 13.5:2 on the flop. That's guessing he gets one caller behind him on the flop and never 3-bet. When he catches a T AQ has 6 outs against him on the river. When he catches a 4 AQ has one out. So it's not much of a redraw. I think he'll win 3 BB's when he wins almost every time.

I didn't read any other responses and I'm not doing the actual EV equation. It's more complicated than it seems at first. If anyone does you need to include a turn call as well b/c he'll have the odds to call the turn if a blank falls. You also need to consider that there's some chance button will 3-bet a turn raise which is good. Small chance but definitely some. And then there's also the slight possibility that one of the other two will stubbornly and blindly call down. I see worse calldowns daily. That's also a bonus. Or they may at least both call the flop. Also good. There's also a possibility of a flop 3-bet. Again very slight. But I was just 3-bet on a AKQQ board by pocket 5's about 20 minutes ago. So it's there. Complications upon complications. But it definitely looks +EV.

Changing QQ to KK or whatever may actually sway it if you give AQ a better redraw. I think it would make it closer to breakeven anyway.