Unusual AKo hand, 30-60

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, I think it's very likely the first caller does not have an Ace.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yep. I think most will agree with this. By "agree" I mean if person X is to read hands, they'll guess HJ and Button have aces as their first guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said before, I think it's very likely the first caller does not have an Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that it's greater than 50% chance that HJ has an ace?

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for using math, really.

However, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I think you are saying (and I fully realize these are somewhat hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to understand your example)....

I'm beat 95% of the time both have aces.
Both have aces 80% of the time.

What's the 75% number representative of?

Thanks,

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't believe my hypothetical numbers. i posted them just to show how sure you can be that you are beat and have to call anyway.

the 75% represented the assumption that you lose 75% of the time if hijack or button doesn't have an ace. to make it perfectly clear: i don't think that your chances to win are quite as bad as my numbers suggest. it was just to show how far you can go with the assumptions and still have to call.

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said before, I think it's very likely the first caller does not have an Ace.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been following this discussion, and this was one sticking point for me as well. I thought about it some more. I agree that HJ is likely to call with hands worse than an ace here. But given the action, especially on the turn, shouldn't most of these hands be heavily discounted, if not outright eliminated, from the hand range?

Maybe the turn action is not black and white. I don't know how often UTG, or a typical player in this game, checks this turn planning to raise a big hand. Maybe HJ would check some non-ace hands that call the river, fearing this...otherwise, I would assume he value bets most or all non-ace hands that call this river.

If uncertainty exists, I guess it would support the call perspective to some estimable extent, but I'm not all that uncertain given the action. Unless my assumption is terrible (for this game, it may be), I don't see how HJ can have a worse hand to call with so often.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

even if you are beat with a probability of 95% if hijack and button have an ace each and they have aces with a chance of 80% and you are beat with 75% if they both have aces it is a call!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for using math, really.

However, I don't quite understand what you are saying.

I think you are saying (and I fully realize these are somewhat hypothetical numbers, but I'm just trying to understand your example)....

I'm beat 95% of the time both have aces.
Both have aces 80% of the time.

What's the 75% number representative of?

Thanks,

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't believe my hypothetical numbers. i posted them just to show how sure you can be that you are beat and have to call anyway.

the 75% represented the assumption that you lose 75% of the time if hijack or button doesn't have an ace. to make it perfectly clear: i don't think that your chances to win are quite as bad as my numbers suggest. it was just to show how far you can go with the assumptions and still have to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for clearing that up. I assumed that you didnt' have carte blanche faith in the numbers you presented, which is why I threw in the disclaimer in the first place.

However, if you do the math with 'your' numbers (in quotes because they aren't necessarily what you believe), I only lose 91% of the time. Since I'm getting 13:1, this would make it a call.

However, it doesn't take into account any probability to chop (most likely with the button). If I'm chopping at all, this means it's neutral EV or better to fold.

Again, this assumes the numbers presented, which are fictitious. However, I'm throwing this analysis out there to show just how close it is.

Whether you (by "you", I don't necessarily mean just jjacky, but anybody here) think it's an obvious call...you should rethink it.

At the very worst, it's immensely close.

[note that in my opinion, the 95% is about 95%, the 80% is more like 97%, and the 75% is probably about 80%]

Josh

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm not sure how I misjudged it. Are you saying that in your experience that when all draws miss on the river, UTGs bet into fields of 4 10% of the time?

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? He doesn't have to bluff 10% of the time for your call to be good. Of the three players in the pot, you only need 1 to be willing to play with less than top pair. After the turn gets checked through, ANY of these are possible:

- the bettor is bluffing
- the first, unknown, caller, is willing to call with less than top pair
- the second caller is is willing to call with less than top pair


Any time any of these events occur, your hand may be good. You're getting good odds on your call so it doesn't have to happen often for the call to be correct. So call.

You may argue that the 2nd caller having less than top pair is unlikely, and I'd agree. But the aggressive player taking a shot or the first unknown caller calling with a pair both seem perfectly plausible to me.

Additionally, to put UTG on a bigger hand than yours that doesn't contain an ace, you have to believe he checked two pair or a set on the turn despite having the lead. Of course, anything's possible, but it seems to me that most players bet hands this strong with many opponents and a rapidly growing pot, so you should discount this option significantly. Now it looks more likely that he just hit his ace, and the first caller simply has some pair he wants to showdown.

my 2 cents.
eric



PS. You wrote
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However, I think you misjudged this one. Both the bettor and the first caller can be ace-free, so there are plenty of hands that you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two sentences, and yet, they contradict each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

But these sentences are not contradictory at all. Perhaps if I'd have written that they both can have a hand without an ace that you beat, it would have been clearer?



PPS... did either caller have a hand that did not contain an ace? If the first unknown called with an underpair, the whole debate would crystalize and calling would be obviously correct.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
True, when the river came, I would have called utg. But before I had the chance, I had new information presented to me. Namely, the other two both had aces. UTG still thought he could win the hand. UTG could beat an ace. I chose to use this new information, information I didn't have when I planned on calling UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the whole key to the argument. You make two critical assumptions here that I, and I think most others, don't agree with.

1. Both callers have aces.

Personally, I find most online players to be way too loose, almost regardless of the stakes. The first guy especially is an unknown. Why don't you think he can call with a pair less than aces? I'm not saying it's necessarily a good call, just that people make that call all the time.


2. The bettor can beat an ace.

Even if we agree that both callers have an ace, you imply that becaues both callers have an ace, the bettor must be able to beat it. However, he didn't know when he bet that they were going to call, did he? Why can't he just think that everybody has an underpair and maybe he can steal this pot with a bet at the scare card? He is an aggressive player, right?

Put another way, which seems more likely to you, that he a) has flopped a set and got multiway passive action on his raise, but decided to check the turn anyways, or b) this aggressive player has taken the opportunity of the turn being checked through to stab at the pot? How can you feel so confident that he is not simply bluffing?


The key is, you use both of these assumptions to come to the conclussion that TPTK is no good. Despite the fact that every player in the hand has played their hand in a way to suggest that you beat them. Taken individually, who beats you? I think you'd have to agree that your hand against each individual hand is a favorite.

In light of that, the only way you can fold is if you rigidly stick to the assumption that everyone must have a made hand of at least top pair. Even more crazy, you have to believe that everyone has this hand despite the fact that 2 of your 3 opponents have made it pretty clear they are unlikely to have a hand that can beat top pair.

let's say the aggressive player will only bluff at the scare card 1 time in 20, but will also bet an ace. Remember that this is a guy who raises tons of hands preflop, but didn't raise this hand and also checked the turn with the lead. Isn't it possible he's bluffing? Let's also assume that the unknown will call with less than top pair 1 time in 20. Again note that this is an unknown who put in 1 raise, then called the flop and checked the turn. Can't he call with a weaker hand than top pair? Are these reasonable assumptions?

With these very strict assumptions, which give an aggressive player little room to bluff, and an unknown little room to call, one of these events will happen almost 10% of the time. You're getting 13:1. Sure, you'll chop sometimes, but then again, these 5% figures seem pretty conservative to me. If you think the bluffer will bluff less than this an the unknown will call less than this, then we simply have to agree to disagree.

-eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
He (UTG) may or may not have known that three people behind him had big aces. But if he's checking a very non-scary Ten, he's either passive or trapping. If he's passive, he ain't betting into a scary ace. If he's trapping, I should fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's another possibility. Let's look at the facts:

1. he raises 14% of hands, so he's pretty aggressive.
2. he didn't raise this hand, and he plays almost 40% of his hands. he didn't limp reraise. he's probably weak.
3. the flop contained a flush draw, and several open-ended and gutshot straight draws, and he raised.
4. the turn did not complete most draws, and he checked in a spot where he couldn't have much hope of winning with a bet
5. the river missed all draws, and he bet a scare card after a huge display of weakness on the turn


Are you telling me that this guy can't have a missed draw? Why do you think he has to be either passive or trapping on the turn?

-Eric

[elindauer]

Hi El Diablo,

I agree with your point that UTG doesn't know he's going to be called when he bets, and it's an important one. However, the callers do impact the range of hands UTG has. As the aces become more scare, it makes it more likely that he is either bluffing or has a monster. On this point, Josh's at-the-table analysis was excellent.

I just don't think it impacts the odds as much as he seems to think it does.


-eric

[jjacky]

that means you think the likelihood that UTG slowplayed 2 pair/set on the turn is over 92%.

do you think his possible slowplay is decent or even good, or do you think he simply is a complete donk (as i mentioned already, i think a slowplay on the turn would be absolutely horrific)?


and i am surprised (to say the least) that you are so convinced that both callers have aces. i agree with all those who pointed out that this event is not quite as unlikely as you think.