A shocking discovery..... shocking to me at least

[cartman]

This may be a little premature, but I have been doing some pokerstove research and it appears at least at this point that:

Heads up against a preflop raiser, we should essentially never fold a pair prior to the river for one bet assuming he will autobet the flop and the turn

Am I crazy?


Thanks,
Cartman

[Yarney]

Depends on the player, but with most aggressive players this is the case, depending on the board and how much paint is on it.

-Yarney

[___1___]

cartman,

Ummm...I really don't think so.

So, UTG+1 who is 20/14/4 raises and I call in the BB with T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Flop comes A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

We're calling down with this? Just one example but you get the picture...

Edit: My point is just that we can usually narrow an opponents range down to a point where calling down with a pair, regardless of whether opponent auto-bets flop and turn, is incorrect in many instances.

___1___

[Wynton]

I'm not sure I understand what you're positing.

If our opponent is autobetting, doesn't that mean, by definition, that he is often betting without a made hand? So are you just saying that the odds justify calling down because the chances are that the villain both started without a pair and failed to pair his hand?

[rory]

Nevermind.

[waffle]

1 is right. Here is a simple counterexample:

Coolguy52 only raises AA and KK pf and always bets the flop and the turn. He raises, you get involved in the pot somehow. I should never fold a pair? The PFR's range has to be factored in somehow. This is an extreme example, but there is a tipping point somewhere - 1's example is still on the fold side. How can we can say this as an absolute?

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
Heads up against a preflop raiser with a sufficiently large range of hands, we should essentially never fold a pair prior to the river for one bet assuming he will autobet the flop and the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

the interesting question IMO is how large is 'sufficiently large' before never folding a pair becomes correct

[cartman]

An AK board is one of the only exceptions I think. Maybe my methodology is flawed. See if this makes sense:

Assume opponents raising range from his specific position this hand is 20%. From that I estimated his range to be:
A8+, KT+, QJ, A3s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, 55.

I have 23.

To estimate the chances that I am ahead on the turn when the board is AQ28 for instance, I just entered a river card of a 4 which I thought was the ultimate blank. Pokerstove claims that if I showed down my 23 on the final board of AQ284, I would have the winner 21.2% of the time. So I think that is a reasonable estimate of how often I am ahead on the turn. (This is the key assumption to the entire endeavor in my opinion. Is it valid?)

Assuming he open-raised preflop, only I call in the big blind, and I check call the flop, then after he bets the turn the pot will contain 4.25BB. So if he bets the river (of course he won't always) I am getting 5.25:2 odds to call down. If I estimate that I have 5 outs when I'm behind and that he has 6 outs when I'm ahead, then I need to be ahead on the turn 22.2% of the time.

That's awfully close to the 21.2% estimate that I get from pokerstove. Changing the Q to a K in my example, plunges this figure to 15.7% and makes it a clear fold, but on an AQ or AJ board it looks like a toss up (pokerstove gives 21.2% for both) and on an AT (28.4%) or a KQ (32.7%) board it is a very clear call.

Is there a flaw in my method?

Is my assumption above valid?

What do you guys think?


Thanks,
Cartman

[cartman]

We of course reserve the right to fold if he bets again on the river. My point is that the evidence seems to indicate that we should not fold on the TURN.

Cartman

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
An AK board is one of the only exceptions I think. Maybe my methodology is flawed. See if this makes sense:

Assume opponents raising range from his specific position this hand is 20%. From that I estimated his range to be:
A8+, KT+, QJ, A3s+, K8s+, Q9s+, J9s+, 55.

I have 23.

To estimate the chances that I am ahead on the turn when the board is AQ28 for instance, I just entered a river card of a 4 which I thought was the ultimate blank. Pokerstove claims that if I showed down my 23 on the final board of AQ284, I would have the winner 21.2% of the time. So I think that is a reasonable estimate of how often I am ahead on the turn. (This is the key assumption to the entire endeavor in my opinion. Is it valid?)

Assuming he open-raised preflop, only I call in the big blind, and I check call the flop, then after he bets the turn the pot will contain 4.25BB. So if he bets the river (of course he won't always) I am getting 5.25:2 odds to call down. If I estimate that I have 5 outs when I'm behind and that he has 6 outs when I'm ahead, then I need to be ahead on the turn 22.2% of the time.

That's awfully close to the 21.2% estimate that I get from pokerstove. Changing the Q to a K in my example, plunges this figure to 15.7% and makes it a clear fold, but on an AQ or AJ board it looks like a toss up (pokerstove gives 21.2% for both) and on an AT (28.4%) or a KQ (32.7%) board it is a very clear call.

Is there a flaw in my method?

Is my assumption above valid?

What do you guys think?



[/ QUOTE ]

I do think the method and assumptions look pretty accurate. I'm just not sure if or how you can translate this methodology into real-life situations. Honestly, in your 23 example, how many people can bring themselves to call down in such a situation? I don't know if I could.

The person to really as about this is Peter_Rus. He's done similar analysis with regard to calling an open-raise out of the BB heads-up...

___1___