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

Shouldnt we also consider how often the guy "fires the last barrel" ?

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldnt we also consider how often the guy "fires the last barrel" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely we should. Some opponents will also not automatically bet the turn. On each street, we must re-estimate his hand range given that he bet. Against an opponent who will autobet the flop and the turn, his estimated hand range is the same as his estimated preflop range.

My indication that we are getting 5.25:2 odds on a call down is somewhat incorrect because of the "firing the third barrel" problem. If we always call the river when we call the turn (probably not a good idea) and he only bets the river when we are behind, then I guess we are actually only getting 4.25:2 on a call down, which would require us to be ahead far more often on the turn (27.8% instead of the 22.2% that getting 5.25:2 requires).

Of course he will not actually play perfectly on the river as he will sometimes bet with worse hands and check with better hands. But we will also sometimes fold a better hand. This is all very inexact and highly dependent on our continual assessment of his hand range on each street given that he bet.

My speculation is that most of the potential +EV that I miss by incorrectly folding weak pairs on the turn is from situations in which I would call the turn and then he would check behind on the river with nothing and I win. Against an opponent who always fires the third barrel, then the analysis above would be dead on in my opinion.

Even if he plays perfectly the river, though, I think the preliminary conclusions are still staggering. Unless I'm making a mistake in my reasoning, even if he plays perfectly on the river thereby reducing our odds to 4.25:2 to call down, we should call down with any hand that we estimate has at least 27.8% chance of being ahead on the turn. That means calling the turn bet with 23 on an AT28 board intending to also call a river bet against an opponent who will autobet the turn.

This is so astonishing to me that I feel like I must still be missing something. I suspect the correct move may be to call the turn bet and usually fold if he follows through on the river.

What do you guys think?

Thanks,
Cartman

[witeknite]

If he will check behind on the river if he is behind aren't we getting 4.25:1? If we put in 2 than it has to be 5.25:2. Right?

Also, if you do a baysian analysis of the range of hands given I came up with 165 we are behind of the ~265 hands he could have (1325*.2). If he will always bet the flop and turn, thus giving zero information about his hand, than our hand looks better than your origanal estimate. This is with the hand range you gave and the board of AQ28.

WiteKnite

[Catt]

I'm interested in the critical technical analysis you're doing. Anecdotally / intuitively, I will call down a weak pair HU on all but the worst boards against opponent's range. The AQ2x board would probably find a fold from me if I somehow played with 32o; an AT73 board with me holding 78s will likely see a showdown. Pairs are big HU, even with an A on board and an open-raiser. Add in the times I see a SD without a river bet, and I feel pretty good about the approach.

[redbeard]

regarding the 4 as a blank on the river and the result is you win 21.2% of the time your "key assumption" i have to believe this to be correct. the 4 didn't help you at all and has very little chance of improving him so i would have to say this is a great assumption. my next question is the flop call on a AQ2 board. does poker stove indicate that this should be called? if not then we wouldn't even get to the turn question. i do understand what you are getting at though. i think that heads up i too often underestimate the value of even the smallest pair on a board that is ace high. this could revolutionize my game quite a bit. i look forward to hearing how everyone else weighs in on this.

[etizzle]

i assume you meant 55+?

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
i assume you meant 55+?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Thank you, I mistyped.

Cartman

[MicroBob]

First of all...I will never be heads-up against a PF raiser with 32o.

Second...if he is really an 'autobet flop' type of player then shouldn't you consider RAISING (or betting or C/R'ing depending on position) any pair on most flops?


After the flop raise then I think we can find hands where we can fold a pair on the more expensive streets.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all...I will never be heads-up against a PF raiser with 32o.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I just used this because it is the worst possible one pair non-pocket pair hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Second...if he is really an 'autobet flop' type of player then shouldn't you consider RAISING (or betting or C/R'ing depending on position) any pair on most flops?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I typically checkraise the flop with any pair on a Q hi board or less, but I think sometimes a passive line is best against an opponent who will raise the turn frequently enough to put me in a position where I hate to call but I hate to fold also with a weak pair.

Am I wrong about this?

Thanks,
Cartman

[Yads]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

Is my assumption above valid?


[/ QUOTE ]

Close, but I think with the above range, if he's behind on that board he likely has likely 8 outs, for the times he has a gutshot, open ender, flush draw to go along with his overs