Party 10/20: KQo SB vs. CO steal

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Okay, he may have:

Calling hands:
15 combos of AQ (discounting AQ [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img])
15 combos of A8
15 combos of A4
15 combos of T9 (he will raise but that's not really relevant)
30 combos of pocket pairs 33, 55-77, TT (discounting 22 for unlikely preflop raise and potential cap of TT preflop)


Folding hands:
10 combos of AT (really 15, but I think it is a possible he would fold on the flop, discounting it to 10).
9 combos of KQ
He would fold KT on the flop.

So somehow I guess you were right (and I wrong). He will fold a bit more often than 1/7 (appx. 1/6). If we knew he would bluff when checked to I guess a bet-fold is correct functioning as a bluff protection (protecting our pot equity since we can't call with KQ but bet with it (very marginal situation [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])) ; but as others point out I think he won't bluff very often and a check-fold is correct.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, he may have:

Calling hands:
15 combos of AQ (discounting AQ [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img])
15 combos of A8
15 combos of A4
15 combos of T9 (he will raise but that's not really relevant)
30 combos of pocket pairs 33, 55-77, TT (discounting 22 for unlikely preflop raise and potential cap of TT preflop)


Folding hands:
10 combos of AT (really 15, but I think it is a possible he would fold on the flop, discounting it to 10).
9 combos of KQ
He would fold KT on the flop.

So somehow I guess you were right (and I wrong). He will fold a bit more often than 1/7 (appx. 1/6). If we knew he would bluff when checked to I guess a bet-fold is correct functioning as a bluff protection (protecting our pot equity since we can't call with KQ but bet with it (very marginal situation [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])) ; but as others point out I think he won't bluff very often and a check-fold is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for doing this. You could probably tweak your ranges slightly, but I think regardless we are going to come out with a bet. The PPs need to be discounted a bit, as many fold on the flop. He MIGHT call with AT, which needs to be factored in also (I dunno, 15% of the time?). KT never ever peels on the flop? Maybe not, but maybe 10%? A4 and A8 never raise the flop? Those probably need to be discounted a bit also. Anyways, I don't really want you to make all these adjustments, but just keep them in mind the next time you do an analysis like this. Most hands in your range arn't ever 100%, and although there are tons of hands which are 0%, you also have to allow for some with inbetween percentages.

I think this is a valuble method for certain situations, and we could all learn a lot by using it sometimes.

[Victor]

i just pokerstoved for a likely range given the action and you are at like 19% equity. so you should????

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
i just pokerstoved for a likely range given the action and you are at like 19% equity. so you should????

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean 19% equity on the end when all the cards are out and before anyone has acted.

I think the way that this info. can be used (in theory) to figure out the decisions here depends on how often villain wil bet his wnning hands compared to how often he will bluff with his losers.

Let's say the villain has the better hand 80% of the time as you say. Well, he may not valuebet all the time here depending on his holdings. Similarly, villain may bluff a busted draw a certain percentage of the time but not all the time. Assume villain will value bet with the top 75% of the hands that beat Hero but will only bluff 1/3 of the time that villain knows he is beat and can only win by bluffing. Then when villain bets, the likelihood of him value betting a wining hand to bluffing is about 8.5 to 1 given my math and I think Hero should fold. However, if villain will bluff more than 50% of the time then Hero should fold given the value betting assumptions.

While the value betting and bluffing percentages I believe should be independent, it may, as a practical matter, be OK to assume that anyone willing to bluff a significant protion of the time will also vlaue bet pretty reliably. Thus perhaps one should assume that most better hands are being bet and focus on how often you think villain bluffs. Here, if villain bets 100% of his winning hands for value than the breakven point for calling is when you thnk he will bluff more than about half his busted hands.

I'd check-call with a strong ace here no questions asked. You have to let this particular one go, though.

[ArturiusX]

I favour check-folding the turn.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd check-call with a strong ace here no questions asked. You have to let this particular one go, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

What practical difference is there between a strong ace and KQ here? This opponent is smart enough to check ace high behind on the river, so KQ beats a bluff as often as AK does. The only minute difference is that KQ splits with another KQ.

With him putting in a PFR I'd kind of expect the As to be out here some reasonable portion of the time. If you were the origional PFR I'd have said to go nuts. My judgement may be off, so I could be wrong.

I get double idiot points for not realizing that by and large he won't bet an ace here. Call call call.

[Spicymoose]

[ QUOTE ]
I get double idiot points for not realizing that by and large he won't bet an ace here. Call call call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am confused. Are you suggesting check/calling the river? I think that is awful.