Home
(1 votes) 
February 5, 2015
Offline
No Limit Holdem Tournament PokerStars
9 Players
$10+$1
Blinds 150/300 9
UTG Palsgaard1 9,478
UTG+1 skrillme 12,131
MP1 rafhaelpkm 12,915
MP2 judgedredd13 18,514
MP3 Abilityup 14,256
CO Rastafashion 12,514
D rüdiger1958 7,269
SB KanYeROC 4,885
BB Hero 13,706
9 810 Hero is BB K 7
Palsgaard1 raises to 600, 2 folds, judgedredd13 calls 600, 4 folds, Hero calls 300
3 2,310 3 5 4
Hero checks, Palsgaard1 checks, judgedredd13 checks
3 2,310 5
Hero bets 1,155, Palsgaard1 calls 1,155, judgedredd13 folds
2 4,620 2
Hero goes all-in 11,911, Palsgaard1 goes all-in 7,683
Hey people,
Well I need some more therapy. BTW I like what they did with the HH, cutting out the results. Or has it always been like that?
It’s not really relevant here, I was fairly sure V had an ace. Well I obviously had very little S/D value on the final board with K high; I bet my gutshot on the turn OOP after being checked to on the flop. When the 2 falls on the river, I am sure V made his wheel. A little voice on the shoulder of my mind whispered “Riceman, I am the voice of experience! Listen to me! Rep the 6!”.
Well, I considered it. For sure I might well have played an open ended straight draw like this. Also, I figured V thought that I thought he had an ace. My shove with a 6 would put him in a tough spot, getting max value from his wheel.
So I shove. Since studying the first few videos in Andrew’s new series, I am trying to get more mathematically analytical in my approach. So, my overbet of the pot needs to work over half the time here to be +ev right?
I guess my question is…is it likely V will fold that much here, if we are sure he has an ace? It seems a little unlikely, although it is for his tournament life. He is a SN on Stars btw.
Thanks guys!
January 20, 2014
Offline
Yeah I think you’re right, I don’t think he is ever folding an Ace here.
Your pot odds question … Here is a general list of when your bet needs to work:
1/3 pot = 25% of the time
1/2 pot = 33% of the time
2/3 pot = 40% of the time
Full pot = 50% of the time
1.5 pot = 60% of the time
2x pot = 66% of the time
Here is how to figure it out. In the 1/3 pot bet. Lets say the pot is 300. You bet 100 to win a pot of 300. After you make your bet, you add your bet to the pot, 100+300=400. Now you take what villain has to call, 100 and divide it by the total pot, 400, to get 100/400, or 1/4, or 25% of the time your bet needs to work when you bet 1/3 pot.
Here’s another. 2x pot is 66% of the time. Pot is 300, you bet 600 to win a pot of 300. Add your bet to the pot, 600+300=900. Villain has to call 600 to win 900. Take what villain has to call, 600, and divide it by the total pot, 900, and you get 600/900, or 6/9, or 2/3, or 66% of the time your bet needs to work when you bet 2x pot.
Now, Sir Riceman, can you walk through your shove on the river and calculate what % of the time that bet needs to work? Follow the outline above and see what % you get 
February 5, 2015
Offline
Hey Steve…I have taken the liberty of calling you by your name, hope that is ok. I’m Mark btw…have an e-mailed transatlantic handshake…there!…I actually did do the handshake in real time).
Thanks for that info.
Up until now, I have simply relied on the fact that ICMizer, GTORB, HRCalculator and CREV are all hardwired into my subconscious, as well as a Casio scientific calculator for good measure. In game, at the speed of light, my inbuilt software gave me a result of 66.259728%.
I have relied on my hardwired software for years…possibly this is why my graph resembles the flight path of an aircraft crashing into the sea. Not a gentle glide after engine failure, we’re talking full on catastrophic structural failure and explosive decompression. If my graph was the trajectory of the plane, all the passengers would have been unconscious before they hit the sea.
So maybe I should pull the plug on my inbuilt software suite.
Also, having said that, if my guesstimate turns out to be accurate…or even too low, I will be annoyed with myself. I don’t think V will fold here that much with an ace. I will be surprised the action was approved by The Board. (The Board btw is the counsel in my head whose mandate is to give final approval on any poker action in-game).
I will get back soon with my answer!
Thanks again.
February 5, 2015
Offline
What a joke!
Maybe I should rely on that software suite after all! The Board, however, gets fired!
So…
Pot is 4620
Hero bets 7683 (effective).
Pot = 12303
Villain needs to call 7683/12303
which = 63.91124116%
So what do I do with this figure Steve…or anyone? Just decide whether I think it is likely V folds 64% of the time?
Or are there any equity calculations to do? Damn! I listened to Andrew’s Fold Equity video from his new series a few times. I remember him talking about this.
I listen to that guy for hours each day as I drive my truck round London. I honestly doubt there is anyone on this planet who listens to that guy as much as I do…and yet, I never seem to digest it all. Maybe I suffer from “Brokos Overload Syndrome”. I’ve heard it can be fatal! (joke).
C’mon though guys! At least acknowledge the piece of level 4 thinking in this hand!
Btw Steve, you say you don’t think V is “ever folding an ace” here. Do you mean ever? Or when being offered these precise odds? What % of the time, if any, do you expect a V fold?
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
Offline
I think you’re getting too caught up thinking about folding frequencies here, and not spending enough time thinking about whether this is a good spot to even have any kind of a bluffing range at all. When villain opens UTG, doesn’t c-bet a low flop multiway, but then calls when you lead out on the turn, what part of their range doesn’t contain an Ace? Villain can’t have much 6x or full houses but they also can’t really have overpairs or K high. Their range is very condensed to AT-AK at this point.
Most $11 villains are never going to fold an Ace here (and when I say that, I do genuinely mean never, to any sizing) since they’re going to consider it possible that you could do this with an Ace or a bluff (clubs/whatever else you decide to bluff, like K7) – or they’re just going to look at their hand and decide they have a straight so they can’t fold, if they’re really not thinking much.
I imagine it’s not a significant leak to completely eliminate your bluffing range here and just go with this same all-in sizing with all your 6x and boats on the river. I think the more interesting question in this spot is what we do when we have Ax or 5x. Ax is interesting because it blocks villain’s Ax, so we have to start thinking about whether there are some other hands besides Ax that they can have, and 5x is interesting because while we can’t really value-bet and get called by worse, we have to think pretty seriously about check-folding given the very low number of potential bluffs in villain’s range.
February 5, 2015
Offline
Hey Matt
I’m at work so can’t get into it too much, but for sure I put him on an ace. That is why I made the play…
He is a supernova on Stars, so probably is a Thinking player, and for the bluff to work for sure he has to put me on the nut straight.
January 20, 2014
Offline
Hey Mark. Nice to finally meet you, lol.
Ok so for the math, yes that is correct. 64% of the time when you make this bet, you need him to fold. If he folds more than 64% of the time, you make money. If he folds less than 64% of the time, you lose money. You just have to put him on a range of hands and guess which ones he is calling with and which ones he is folding. If it looks like he is folding more than 64% of his range, it was a good bet. If not, then it wasn’t.
I have to ditto what Matt said here. I play $10-$50 online MTTs, and I just can’t ever picture an $11 villain folding an ace here to any sizing, no matter how small or big you make it. When they have an ace here they are just always going to call. Folding 0% of the time. Yeah he’s a SN, but how often do you really have a six here? I think if you eliminate all bluffs here, and just make this move when you have an ace, a six, or a boat, you will make far more money than putting a bluff in here.
February 5, 2015
Offline
Thank you Steve.
Just curious… when people say “no V will fold in an $11 T if they have an ace”, does this mean in a $1000 T someone might fold? I am probably grasping at straws here (whatever that means!), but I wonder about the meaning. Or does it simply mean that $11 is not a lot of money so it is cheap to look me up? The play popped into my head at the time because I have been in v’s spot many times, and usually get beat when I call. It seemed viable at the time.
I guess what I am asking, is is the play just rubbish? Or might it work at significant stakes? To answer your question Steve, I guess I could have some 6’s here…
I can take the pain guys, so don’t hold back if you think this was a contender for “Donk Play Of The Year” award!
I certainly had my doubts about it, which is why I posted it here.
BTW Steve, love the podcast. Is it possible to download onto a phone? I can’t find the link…and to stream can be expensive.
Many thanks,
Mark.
February 14, 2013
Offline
@riceman; I think it will work at higher stakes. I’m not so sure this hand works great as a bluff on the turn since we’ll already have a ton of 6x and club draws but maybe 7x is okay to add in…
TPE Pro
August 25, 2012
Offline
With a busted flush draw out there people in $11 tournaments are just going to go “lol he could have clubs and bluff, I call” whenever they have an Ace. Depending on the player, a lot of better regs in higher stakes events will actually be considering your range and your bluffing frequencies in this spot, so in that respect it could be a better spot if you were playing higher stakes. Having said that, I’m not sure you want to be thinking too much about the buyin level – a specific read on your opponent would always be much more useful.
February 5, 2015
Offline
Well you see this interests me Matt.
I know people I respect in the game will tell me that “if you cannot beat the donks at the lower buy-in levels, you will definitely not succeed at higher stakes”.
But players are more predictable at higher stakes. For a thinking player, I am not sure that line of thinking is correct. A thinking player might be prone to out-levelling him/her self at lower buy-ins. Mathematically speaking even, a Nash shoving range will only be appropriate when complemented by an appropriate calling range. If the donk is calling too wide, then both he and the thinking player will lose out, the benefit being passed to the remaining players.
I understand why people say that if a player cannot beat very low stakes competition, then he will stand no chance at higher buy-ins, because it sounds logical.
I actually think this is a flawed piece of logic however.
Thoughts?
February 20, 2015
Offline
I think of it this way: Lower buy-ins have higher variance because V ranges are wider. EV is also higher because V ranges are wider. But it doesn’t mean variance and EV are the same thing.
September 29, 2014
Offline
Trust me riceman. There are others who listen to Brokos as much as you do. As for understanding and retension of what he says… thats hard 🙂
I do remember this Brokism (did I just coin that?):
“Bluffs are not for betting people off of hands they like.”
Equity, GTO, yadda yadda, if V likes his hand, whether or not it’s even a smart thing to like said hand, and prob isn’t folding, your bluff ain’t gonna work.
Love your threads!
February 5, 2015
Offline
Hey! Thanks man…
You actually cheered me up. I was pissed off and had just had an argument with a customer in Chinatown who told me…hmm I am not wishing to be racist here…Actually I don’t know what the hell he said! Bottom line was the lift was broken so I have to carry his delivery downstairs. So we had a kind of argument in sign language and grunts and facial expressions which he won…he gave me a look which told me “take crap downstairs or kick butt with kung fu kick!”.
I took it downstairs like a bitch.
Then I read your post and when I saw him again I gave him (Chinese accent):apology by way of hand signal ahhh! All was cool.
I sometimes fear I prattle on about all kinds of rubbish at TPE, at least you appreciate it!
I’m not sure about it being humanly possible to listen to Andrews content as much as I do. Obviously it is sterling stuff, but I particularly appreciate it because it is theory based and I can work and listen. Although honestly at the moment I am at a stage where I simply cannot take any more…I’m “burned out on Brokos”! So I’m having a few weeks off.
It may be a dangerous thing to encourage me though… One of my favourite hobbies is posting in these forums…
It’s a journey of discovery right? At the end of which are riches beyond our wildest dreams! TPE is much like a rainbow in that respect.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
18 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
sdmathis89
ne0x00
adrianvaida2525
Anteeater
Laggro
Philbro
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12007
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
