SSHE p.148: Continuing with marginal hands

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
If I think unimproved sevens might be good, I'm stuck calling a reraise, calling the turn, and calling the river,

[/ QUOTE ]


You most certainly are NOT stuck calling all of these later streets (depending on the subsequent action).


And I agree with the others about the likelihood of getting 3-bet. This was the first thing that stodd out to me about your post also.....you really shouldn't be too afraid of getting 3-bet here.
If a club or T comes and it gets bet and raised then you can strongly consider getting out.

The point is to not be OVERLY afraid of losing and to realistically assess the chances that your hand may actually be best.
By 'realistic' this might be synonymous with 'optimistic' for weak-tight players who typically assume that someone out there must have a higher pair than what you have.


If YOU are getting aggressive and taking control of most of the hands you think you can win then your opponents will be even less likely to want to 3-bet you.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In addition, I'm curious how you're making a "modest living" at 3/6 by playing weak-tight poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really really bad opponents. Cherry-picking the loosest Pacific 3/6 tables at good times of day, playing on Cryptologic when there's a full moon over London, playing at a small site even looser than Pacific, etc. Party 3/6 is generally too tight for me...


[/ QUOTE ]

I incorrectly assumed that you were playing Party 2/4 and 3/6 games, with the latter games often being a little too tight and a little too tricky for one to make a living playing weak-tight poker.

[gmanko]

This is a bit after the fact, but I was rereading SSHE myself and wondering about this hand. I ran it through pokerstove vs 5 random hands and various plausible situations, and in all cases except for 5 random hands you have less than 16.67% pot equity, and in some cases you would rather have a random hand than the middle-pair poor kicker you do have.

About the only thing a raise would be able to knock out is a gutshot or hands you already have beat. This pot is pretty big but it isn't all that huge yet, and you have either a small advantage or a big disadvantage.

I would definitely have to fold here, the negative implied odds are tremendous here. Even in a very loose/passive game people occasionally checkraise, and even a weak ten will often call a raise. You could even improve on the turn and get rivered. A flush or straight card come come and someone could bluff you off the best hand.

In fact, I vote raising here the WORST PLAY EVER, even worse than capping it with 72o preflop when your opponents show you KK and AA respectively before you act.

Fold and be done with it! Ita Fac.

PokerStove Results:

>>> vs. 5 random hands:
A SMALL ADVANTAGE
3,331,817 games 61.620 secs 54,070 games/sec

Board: Th 7c 5c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 18.7062 % [ 00.17 00.02 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 16.2560 % [ 00.15 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 3: 16.2633 % [ 00.15 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 16.2627 % [ 00.15 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 16.2469 % [ 00.15 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 16.2649 % [ 00.15 00.01 ] { random }

>>>> vs AhTs (or other ten 64.5% probability) and 4 random hands
WORSE THAN A RANDOM HAND

66,943,992 games 1017.390 secs 65,799 games/sec

Board: Th 7c 5c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 13.2459 % [ 00.12 00.01 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 33.0888 % [ 00.33 00.01 ] { AhTs }
Hand 3: 13.4210 % [ 00.13 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 13.4078 % [ 00.13 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 13.4220 % [ 00.13 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 13.4145 % [ 00.13 00.01 ] { random }

>>>> vs As7s (or other 7 with a better kicker 21.5% probability)
and 4 random hands
MUCH WORSE THAN A RANDOM HAND

1,555,891 games 23.350 secs 66,633 games/sec

Board: Th 7c 5c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 07.7869 % [ 00.07 00.01 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 23.3614 % [ 00.23 00.01 ] { Ah7s }
Hand 3: 17.2317 % [ 00.16 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 17.1519 % [ 00.16 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 17.2069 % [ 00.16 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 17.2611 % [ 00.17 00.01 ] { random }


>>>> vs QcJc (or other 1-card flush draw 25% to 50% probability @ 5-10%% per opponent) and 4 random hands
BETTER THAN A RANDOM HAND, BUT WORSE THAN BEING AGAINST 5 RANDOM HANDS

3,157,442 games 47.180 secs 66,923 games/sec

Board: Th 7c 5c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 15.5513 % [ 00.14 00.01 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 41.7834 % [ 00.42 00.00 ] { QcJc }
Hand 3: 10.6545 % [ 00.10 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 10.6599 % [ 00.10 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 10.6696 % [ 00.10 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 10.6812 % [ 00.10 00.01 ] { random }


>>>>> vs 8h9s (or other 1-card straight draw 12.5% - 25% probability @ 2.5-5% per opponent) and 4 random hands
AGAIN, BETTER THAN A RANDOM HAND, BUT WORSE THAN BEING AGAINST 5 RANDOM HANDS

1,481,114 games 22.030 secs 67,231 games/sec

Board: Th 7c 5c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 15.5302 % [ 00.14 00.02 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 27.6038 % [ 00.26 00.01 ] { 9s8h }
Hand 3: 14.2195 % [ 00.14 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 4: 14.2330 % [ 00.14 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 14.2057 % [ 00.14 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 14.2078 % [ 00.14 00.01 ] { random }

>>>> vs AhTs and QJc (or other T and flush draw)
YET AGAIN, BETTER THAN A RANDOM HAND, BUT WORSE THAN BEING AGAINST 5 RANDOM HANDS

3,686,533 games 42.240 secs 87,275 games/sec

Board: Th 7c 5c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 11.2048 % [ 00.11 00.01 ] { 8d7d }
Hand 2: 20.3560 % [ 00.20 00.00 ] { AhTs }
Hand 3: 44.2151 % [ 00.44 00.00 ] { QcJc }
Hand 4: 08.0690 % [ 00.08 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 5: 08.0663 % [ 00.08 00.01 ] { random }
Hand 6: 08.0888 % [ 00.08 00.01 ] { random }

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played 15000 or 20000 hands over the last two months, mostly 2/4 and 3/6 with a little 1/2 and 5/10, and the sample size is getting a little large to attribute it just to luck. My winnings are somewhere above $4000 over that period

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. If my math is right that's 5BB/100 hands at 2/4 over a reasonably large sample of hands. Are you available for lessons?

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I ran it through pokerstove vs 5 random hands and various plausible situations, and in all cases except for 5 random hands you have less than 16.67% pot equity, and in some cases you would rather have a random hand than the middle-pair poor kicker you do have

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly why you need to raise in this position. There's a decent chance you have the best hand right now, but there's very little chance you won't get outdrawn before the showdown.

Assume your bet knocks out everybody but one or two opponents. Run 1 or 2 random hands through pokerstove and see the equity then. I'm pretty sure you'll have enough equity to justify the raise.

[ErrantNight]

[ QUOTE ]
It's quite likely that the bettor reraises, or that someone in the middle was waiting to checkraise and will now reraise,

[/ QUOTE ]

this isn't true.

it's possible that both these things could happen... and if you're up against mad laggy opposition sure, you should fear this more... but in general... this is not the case.

the point of the raise is that you're more likely to fold people then run into check/3-bets, that the button is auto-betting and quite likely doesn't have a piece of this flop, and therefore that you'll be headsup with the better hand and at least a reasonable, if not great, draw.

[ErrantNight]

methinks he overstates. and he plays a good portion of this on pacific, right? the one table max pacific?

either that or he's not really that weak tight... but he seems to likewise feel that the people at "his" tables are somehow different then the people we all play against... with the note that he doesn't play on a party skin, where the games sound noticeably different...

but whatever, it's not important what we make of all this, although i wish he'd just asked the question and skipped the unnecessary background...

[RustedCorpse]

[ QUOTE ]
I've played 15000 or 20000 hands over the last two months, mostly 2/4 and 3/6 with a little 1/2 and 5/10, and the sample size is getting a little large to attribute it just to luck. My winnings are somewhere above $4000 over that period

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe one tabling he gets the "Uber Read". Those stats are insane bro.

You're not going to get three bet here too often, it's a pretty ragged board, and I know that if I had AK on the button on that board I'm betting, and so is about 90% of the players when it's checked to them. I think you're seeing monsters in the closet.

Take shots at ragged boards once inawhile, that's generally the best way to learn when and how to do it. When I first started "firing" at pots, I woudl often call down if it's heads up, just to get a feel for what happens when etc. (Many will say this is bad, and costly(it is), but it beats it into your brain housing group better if you see how people play hands more and more.)

[MaxPower]

gmanko,

When you raise and knock out those random hands, your pot equity goes up dramatically. It doesn't have to work everytime, but if it works some of the time it will be profitable.

Also, in every example you tested your opponent has you dominated or has a great draw. That is not going to be the case most of the time.

Ed Miller is certainly correct in this example. Your suggestion to fold the flop is just horrible.

[MaxPower]

Welcome to the forum Kyle.

I think you should read the following two articles:

Discussing Small Stakes Holdem: Part 1 by Jim Brier

Responding to Jim Brier by Ed Miller