[fivebyfive]

Hand 1 is kind of a rough one. We’re not ahead of much, maybe KT and 78 and maybe some spade draws (if the 9 is the first spade, this is even more unlikely)? Most of the hands that can call us on the turn beat us with this river. I’m folding. If I’m not folding, then I’m shoving rather than calling. But I much prefer folding.

Hand 2 is a clear call for me. We can beat anything besides the Kh and we have to find some calls without the nuts. We’re beating anything V is betting besides the Kh. Unless we see them as someone absolutely incapable of betting here without the nuts, we have to call. V can have hands like sets, straights that are betting for value and any assortment of random bluffs representing the Kh. I’m calling. I would never fold. Raising also doesn’t accomplish much, what is calling us when we do? The 9h?

[arw]

Hand 1

sets or quads — 33, 55, 99, TT, QQ — 13 combos

straights — KJ, J8 — 32 combos

two pair — 95, 93, 9Q, 53, 5Q, 3Q, T9, T5, T3, QT — 78 combos

pocket pairs — AA, KK, JJ, 88, 77, 66, 44, 22 — 6 combos each — 48 combos

top pair — AQ, KQ, QJ, Q8, Q7, Q6, Q4, Q2 — 12 combos each — 144 combos

worse kicker — KT, JT, T8, T7, T6, T4, T2 — 8 combos each — 56 combos

missed draws — AK, AJ, A8, K8, J7, 87, 76, 86, 64, 42 — 16 combos each — 160 combos

Some of these hands should be removed or weighted because of our opponents action. Our opponent limped from SB, called a raise PF, checked 953 flop, bet T turn, and bet Q river.

— I would argue that they rarely call PF out of position with Q3 or Q5, bet turn, and then get lucky on the river. This logic applies to other hands.

— I would argue that smaller pairs like 88 or 77 would never bet the turn with 3 over-cards on the board, out of position, and into the PF aggressor.

Before removing any of those hands, here is an estimate of where I’m at.

I can beat 246 combos

— 160 missed draws

— 56 worse kickers

— 30 smaller pocket pairs

I lose to 285 combos

— 13 sets or quads

— 32 straights

— 78 two pairs

— 18 larger pocket pairs (JJ, KK, AA)

— 144 top pair

I estimate to win 246 / 531 or 46.3%

___________________________________________

If I revise the list and remove specific holdings, we can make a better guess.

sets or quads — 33, 55 — 6 combos

(small sets are more likely than large sets, remove QQ, TT, and 99)

straights — KJ, J8 — 32 combos

(both of these hands are possible, the turn is favorable for both)

two pair — 95, 93, 9Q, 53, T9, T5, T3, QT — 60 combos

(flopped two-pairs are more likely than rivered two-pairs, remove Q3, Q5)

pocket pairs — — 0 combos

(the smallest pocket pairs 22, 44, 66, 77, 88 wouldn’t bet turn and river)

(I doubt my opponent will slow play a large pocket pair, remove AA, KK, JJ)

top pair — QJ, Q8 — 24 combos

(betting the turn with a Q implies a draw, remove Q2, Q4, Q6, Q7)

(strong Q’s are less likely to limp PF, remove AQ, KQ)

worse kicker — KT, JT, T8 — 50% of 24 combos = 12 combos

(remove T7, T6, T4, T2 because calling with them PF out of position is silly)

(I’m not convinced that KT, JT, or T8 will fire again on river, maybe remove 50%)

missed draws — AK, AJ, A8, K8, J7, 87, 76, 86, 64, 42 — 48 combos

(some players will fold the 42, 64, 76, and 86 pre-flop, some will call, maybe 25%)

(most players will raise AK, AJ and A8 pre-flop from the small blind, maybe 67%)

(K8 and J7 are possible for betting turn and bluffing river)

After the revision,

I can beat

— 48 missed draws and 12 worse kickers = 60 combos

I lose to:

— 24 top pair, 60 two pair, 32 straights, and 6 sets or quads = 122 combos

Thus, I win 60 / 182 or 33% of the time.

Amazing what revision and filtering can do 🙂

[fivebyfive]

This was an interesting discussion on the podcast. I did some solver work after the episode because I had such a different response from some of the other panelists. I think it comes down to river tendencies of population and how we think about those. So first of all, on the podcast the panel talked about a cbet here with AT, but it is pretty mixed; dividing 50/50 between checks and bets. In this specific field though, I would move more toward the cbet than toward equilibrium. I think we can get a better sense of the hand and fold out some hands that become pesky on runouts like the kind we get.

Regardless, when we do check, see the Ts and get bet into, this is a clear raise.

If we then node lock some calls instead with some of our better Tx, we get some interesting results. AT is a mix between a call and fold. I think it is interesting that the solver prefers a call when we are holding the As. I do not quite see why this is relevant. I don’t see many relevant blockers so I’m unclear why it prefers this holding? Wouldn’t we want V to have some of that missed Ax of spades when we make this call?

Anyway, we have around 27% equity with AT if my preflop assumptions are correct and V plays at Equilibrium. BUT, my argument is that the player pool at a place like Canterbury isn’t playing at Equilibrium in these spots. They check/call far more often than they go for thin value OOP. If we can remove some bluffs and some of the marginal value as leads on the river (hands like A2o and a decent number of spade combos (Ks2s etc), plus hands with thin value plus blockers to the nuts (like JTo, T8, J9), our equity plummets. My argument is that not enough of the player pool is leading on this river with bluffs or thin value that we beat, so even if we have the odds, I like the fold. If my assumption is wrong, we’re getting taken to the cleaners. At equilibrium, this is a call.

[fivebyfive]

This was an interesting discussion on the podcast. I did some solver work after the episode because I had such a different response from some of the other panelists. I think it comes down to river tendencies of population and how we think about those. So first of all, on the podcast the panel talked about a cbet here with AT, but it is pretty mixed; dividing 50/50 between checks and bets. In this specific field though, I would move more toward the cbet than toward equilibrium. I think we can get a better sense of the hand and fold out some hands that become pesky on runouts like the kind we get.

Regardless, when we do check, see the Ts and get bet into, this is a clear raise.

If we then node lock some calls instead with some of our better Tx, we get some interesting results. AT is a mix between a call and fold. I think it is interesting that the solver prefers a call when we are holding the As. I do not quite see why this is relevant. I don’t see many relevant blockers so I’m unclear why it prefers this holding? Wouldn’t we want V to have some of that missed Ax of spades when we make this call?

Anyway, we have around 27% equity with AT if my preflop assumptions are correct and V plays at Equilibrium. BUT, my argument is that the player pool at a place like Canterbury isn’t playing at Equilibrium in these spots. They check/call far more often than they go for thin value OOP. If we can remove some bluffs and some of the marginal value as leads on the river (hands like A2o and a decent number of spade combos (Ks2s etc), plus hands with thin value plus blockers to the nuts (like JTo, T8, J9), our equity plummets. My argument is that not enough of the player pool is leading on this river with bluffs or thin value that we beat, so even if we have the odds, I like the fold. If my assumption is wrong, we’re getting taken to the cleaners. At equilibrium, this is a call.

[jim]

Hi @ARW we just reviewed this hand on the Forums edition of the podcast actually! It will come out tomorrow so you can get some instant analysis but one thing we didn’t emphasize in the episode is that it feels like you are playing your HAND and not your RANGE when you check behind on these flops – what other hands would you prefer to express through a cbet here instead? Of course sometimes it’s best to play your hand instead f your range but the panel was advocating for a cbet when checked to in both hands.

Talk soon!

[arw]

Hand 1

— agree that raising to 3.5 PF is good

— for the c-bet, I do that a large % of the time when I’ve raised PF. Plan A was to take it down pre-flop. To be honest, my decision to check the flop was mostly PLAYER dependent and STACK dependent. This particular player scared me, why? He acted like a wildcard. He was comfortable, feeling good, and showed confidence. I watched him win big pots and both times, he was aggressive post-flop. In my mind, c-betting the flop with Ace high isn’t good against this type of player. If I c-bet, my range is pocket pairs and big cards, most of which missed this flop. Rob mentions that my opponent might be stabbing turn because he thinks I have AK based on my action. Totally Agree.

— @TaylorMaas mentions that Canterbury players are full of shit when you check the flop and attack weakness. Oh boy is that True!

— Yes, AT is likely ahead of the range my opponent has but I honestly expect my opponent to check-raise if he caught a piece, then I have to fold.

— I like @petvet about raising gets weaker T’s to call me.

— By calling the turn bet, I indeed was trapping and thought I had the best hand. With my stack size (~22 bb) after calling, I decided to give him rope and see how he plays river. If I were to raise, I would be risking some portion of my 22 bb by raising over a 4 bb bet. I could raise to 10 bb, 12 bb, or more but I would be committed in all cases. Weird stack size. As Chris mentions, there are some bad rivers (J, Q, K) for 12 bad outs…one of them actually hits. When it hit, I had to think of some Qx hands that would make sense to call PF and bet turn. On the 953TQ board, I couldn’t think of many besides QJ, QT, Q9, and Q8.

— @Jim the villain bet 8 bb on the river.

 

 

I called, the villain showed a weaker T4.

 

[fivebyfive]

This was an interesting discussion on the podcast. I did some solver work after the episode because I had such a different response from some of the other panelists. I think it comes down to river tendencies of population and how we think about those. So first of all, on the podcast the panel talked about a cbet here with AT, but it is pretty mixed; dividing 50/50 between checks and bets. In this specific field though, I would move more toward the cbet than toward equilibrium. I think we can get a better sense of the hand and fold out some hands that become pesky on runouts like the kind we get.

Regardless, when we do check, see the Ts and get bet into, this is a clear raise.

If we then node lock some calls instead with some of our better Tx, we get some interesting results. AT is a mix between a call and fold. I think it is interesting that the solver prefers a call when we are holding the As. I do not quite see why this is relevant. I don’t see many relevant blockers so I’m unclear why it prefers this holding? Wouldn’t we want V to have some of that missed Ax of spades when we make this call?

Anyway, we have around 27% equity with AT if my preflop assumptions are correct and V plays at Equilibrium. BUT, my argument is that the player pool at a place like Canterbury isn’t playing at Equilibrium in these spots. They check/call far more often than they go for thin value OOP. If we can remove some bluffs and some of the marginal value as leads on the river (hands like A2o and a decent number of spade combos (Ks2s etc), plus hands with thin value plus blockers to the nuts (like JTo, T8, J9), our equity plummets. My argument is that not enough of the player pool is leading on this river with bluffs or thin value that we beat, so even if we have the odds, I like the fold. If my assumption is wrong, we’re getting taken to the cleaners. At equilibrium, this is a call.