$11 Bubble, need help determining hand ranges and doing EV calculation

[Gavagai]

3-handed, blinds 100/200, $11 Pokerstars.

CO: 2285
Hero: 1500
SB: 5660
BB: 4055

My image is ok I think; I have been moderately aggressive recently, but have shown down strong hands nearly every time, and have been generally tight throughout. Have recently pushed with AK and AQ and shown. Firstly, I would like to ask what people think is a reasonable calling range for SB and BB if I push after a fold from CO? Was not really paying attention enough to know anything more than that neither player is overly loose.

Anyway, the CO did fold, and I pushed Kc5c. Now, I need some help with my EV calculation! (this is my main concern)

According to Pokerstove, K5s has 37.6% equity against the range: [22+,A8s+,QJs,JTs,A9o+,KJo+,QJo] (is this a good range?).

Supposing that this is their calling range, and that only one of them will call, is the following correct?:

There are 1326 hand combinations, and this range represents 198 of them, or 15%. Given that I have two opponents, do I just double this to get the chance of being called? If this right, then these are the possibilities:

(a) 70% of the time, I win 300

(b) 11.28% of the time I win 1650 (it is actually either 1700 or 1600 depending on which blind calls)

(c) 18.72% I lose 1500

What is the expected value then? Is this way of working it out correct:

((70*300)+(11.28*1650)+(18.72*-1500))/100 = 381.3072 ?

Finally, is this a good or bad push?

Thanks,

Gavagai.

[tigerite]

Man I'm all ICM'd out today, but I can tell you for one thing it's not 1326 combinations as you already have the Kc and 5c, so it's 1225, and you should discount K's and 5's accordingly from the range.

[bluefeet]

Using your ranges you get a -.3$EV (needing 77+,AJo+,ATs+ for a +.5)

It's not unless we tighten them up to 66+,ATs+,AJo+, does K5s get there. They certainly won't be anywhere near this tight.

[ QUOTE ]
There are 1326 hand combinations, and this range represents 198 of them, or 15%. Given that I have two opponents, do I just double this to get the chance of being called?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. The probability that the SB will fold is 0.85 and the probability that the BB will fold is also 0.85, so the probability that they will both fold is 0.85 x 0.85 = 0.7225 => the probability of at least one call is 1 - 0.7225 = 0.2775. (The probability that both will call is 0.15 x 0.15 = 0.0225, leaving exactly one call 1 - 0.7225 - 0.0225 = 0.255.)

If you believe the BB will fold whenever the SB calls, then you'll get called 0.15 + 0.85x0.15 = 0.2775.

[tigerite]

That's not right either zabt actually.

The hands the SB folds affect the hands (to some extent at least) that the BB can hold to call with. They are not quite independent events and this has to be factored in.

[Gavagai]

can you explain to me how this is worked out pls?

True enough. I really just meant to address the "double it for two events". None of this is going to matter much -- 27% vs 30% isn't much, especially considering the ranges have been estimated. But, if you use the double it approach with wider calling ranges the difference could become absurd.

[bluefeet]

[ QUOTE ]
can you explain to me how this is worked out pls?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! um, no [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

i wish i could. i'm way too old and tired now to learn math that i should have been learning 20 years ago whilst impregnating my girlfriend and drinking beer faster than pat&mike's on 5th&janes could stock.

sngpt

[tigerite]

I would love to but the ICM calcs from earlier have left my brain more than a bit tired! This is why SNGPT exists [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] I believe it does a (very good) estimation of how much the ones to act will call with when SB folds some K's or A's or what have you and it's quite easy; I really should remember how it does it as I know but right now it'd mean digging out some stuff. It's got something to do with the call % compared to hold %, like hold % * call % and keeps doing that recursively if there's a 3rd person to act and so on.