100/200 blind war

[bicyclekick]

4 handed 100/200. Been playing mb 20 minutes and so far only a couple confrontations hu vs the bb and I've raised and he's called and folded the flop. He might have called once and I check/folded the turn but I forget exactly what had happened up to this point. Villain is a pretty good player. He's a tight/aggro player and isn't a pounder/lag/pealer high-limit type like a lot of others.

I open Q8o in the sb, he calls in the bb.

Flop 862r

I bet, he raises, I 3 bet he calls.

Turn J

I bet, he calls.

River 6

my plan?

[JimmyV]

Check-call. Standard, no?

[durrrr]

bet/fold?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
bet/fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

absolutely not. you cannot bet/fold here. period. if you do this you will have shots taken at you all the time, which is exactly what you dont want. if you bet you must call the raise. i think check calling is best because of the previous fact. if you check, he will bet any 8 and the 6. if you bet, he will call all 8s and raise any hand that now beats you and fold all worse hands.

lets do a little math though. lets say that combinatorically and stylistically its equally likely that he has an 8 or a 6. he will call with 8s and raise 6s if you bet. if youc heck he will bet both hands. i assume A8 would 3bet pf. K8 might just call so we'll leave it at that. i also assume K8 would probably raise the turn so the only 8s he has are lower ones. 6s, however, could have a larger range b/c he may not 3bet A6 and wouldn't necessarily raise K6 on the turn.

so in actuality, its slightly more likely imo that he has the 6 than the 8. but lets stick w/ 50/50 still.

situation 1: he has a 6 and you bet/call.

situation 2: he has an 8 and calls your bet.

situation 3: you check he bets the 8 and you win.

situation 4: you check and he bets the 6 and you lose.

so...

E[1+2]= -(2)*.5 + .5*1=-.5

E[3+4]= .5*1 - .5*1=0

given the above assumptions (you dont fold to the raise when you bet) it is never correct to bet. you can alter the probability that villian has an 8 to whatever as long as the probability he has a 6 is 1-Pr(villian has 8) or vice versa.

but if you can fold to the raise (and you are never wrong):

E[1+2]= .5*1-.5*1=0

E[3+4]= .5*1-.5*1=0

so it makes no difference if youc an fold to the raise. the results are always equal for bet/fold vs. check call. but if you can't fold to the raise, check calling is always better.

so even if you COULD fold to the raise, you need to be 100% sure you are beat when you fold every time to the raise and its still exactly even vs. check calling.

so check calling is clearly better given my above assumptions.

-Barron

[poker1O1]

[ QUOTE ]


situation 1: he has a 6 and you bet/call.

situation 2: he has an 8 and calls your bet.

situation 3: you check he bets the 8 and you win.

situation 4: you check and he bets the 6 and you lose.

so...

E[1+2]= -(2)*.5 + .5*1=-.5

E[3+4]= .5*1 - .5*1=0


[/ QUOTE ]
nice post first of all, is E[1 + 2] the average equity of decisions 1 and 2?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


situation 1: he has a 6 and you bet/call.

situation 2: he has an 8 and calls your bet.

situation 3: you check he bets the 8 and you win.

situation 4: you check and he bets the 6 and you lose.

so...

E[1+2]= -(2)*.5 + .5*1=-.5

E[3+4]= .5*1 - .5*1=0


[/ QUOTE ]
nice post first of all, is E[1 + 2] the average equity of decisions 1 and 2?

[/ QUOTE ]

each set of possibilities is composed of an 8 and a 6. each 1 is 50% so im combining them for simplicity

Barron

[durrrr]

i obviously dont disagree w/ your post as i realize you know much more than me; however could you please explain 1 "flaw" that seems to be in your logic?

If you bet; he needs to be bluffing >12% or so of the time for you to call; so if your bet/calling- he has a hand @ most 88% of the time correct? or would you be calling for metagame reasons? I never think about metagame b/c i dont play limit regularly; but i guess i shouldnt try n make these kinda folds?

[elindauer]

Barron, if you are going to make assumptions like these, then you don't have to write out complicated mathematically formulas, the answer is painfully obvious.

Look, you assume

- he'll bet all hands he would have called with
- we cannot fold to a raise
- he always raises when he beats us
- he never raises a worse hand

Yea, no [censored]. Of course if you assume this stuff, then check call is the way to go. It's pretty obvious. The math doesn't add any weight to the argument, since the whole argument is about whether or not your assumptions are valid.

In fact though, a number of your assumptions are suspect. First of all, it makes no sense to assume that he will never raise a worse hand AND that we cannot fold to a raise.

Further, you have ignored all possibility that he has a 2 or an ace.

Personally, I'd bet because my hand is near the top of my range in quality. I expect him to call with a wide range of hands but I'd be concerned that he won't necessarily bet these hands. I'd call a raise for the same reason, because I don't have to hace a hand when I get here, so I call all the times that I do.

I do agree that if we can count on him to value bet the river aggressivley, then check-call starts to look nice.

good luck.
Eric

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
Barron, if you are going to make assumptions like these, then you don't have to write out complicated mathematically formulas, the answer is painfully obvious.

Look, you assume

- he'll bet all hands he would have called with
- we cannot fold to a raise
- he always raises when he beats us
- he never raises a worse hand

Yea, no [censored]. Of course if you assume this stuff, then check call is the way to go. It's pretty obvious. The math doesn't add any weight to the argument, since the whole argument is about whether or not your assumptions are valid.

In fact though, a number of your assumptions are suspect. First of all, it makes no sense to assume that he will never raise a worse hand AND that we cannot fold to a raise.

Further, you have ignored all possibility that he has a 2 or an ace.

Personally, I'd bet because my hand is near the top of my range in quality. I expect him to call with a wide range of hands but I'd be concerned that he won't necessarily bet these hands. I'd call a raise for the same reason, because I don't have to hace a hand when I get here, so I call all the times that I do.

I do agree that if we can count on him to value bet the river aggressivley, then check-call starts to look nice.

good luck.
Eric

[/ QUOTE ]
i agree w/ e-dog (can we call u that?)

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree w/ e-dog (can we call u that?)

[/ QUOTE ]

No kidding. Great post.