A Big Sunday Fold and a Big Sunday Bluff

8 thoughts on “A Big Sunday Fold and a Big Sunday Bluff”

1. Sick fold in hand 1.

   You have 30% equity vs sets, 87s, and massive draws (56dd, T9dd, A7dd) – and if he’s never cold 3-betting flop with worse FDs than A7dd – it’s probably a correct fold.

2. At first I thought that fold was really close to slightly bad, but having thought about it for a few minutes I like it. A bet and a raise with 6 players on the flop has to be really strong and given that villain has position and profits from more money going into the pot on the flop when he has a draw, I’m not sure he’d 3b combo draws. I’m pretty sure I’d flat it personally and see what develops. So besides the fact that you’d have a hard time coming up with enough draws to outweigh the sets in his range anyway, I think you should discount the combo draws a bit. That makes it a clear fold. NH

3. I do not think 30% is any factor when making judgement to fold.
   30% is more about outcome.
   Equity is the factor but in different context.
   This is the “sweet” spot:
   MP1 hefty raise has special qualities in context 6-way flop with this board.
   “Bad” player MP1 dramatically narrows his range .His range is skewed to nuts.
   “Good player” MP1 realize the spot and see potential how his raise could dramatically change equity calculation done by HERO.
   My more general note is about equity.
   30% percent is just aggregate- very limited info for me when making decision.
   The gist of using equity in making decision is not about aggregate but distributions of equities and how they interact with my hand or my range.

   • 30% equity does matter. You have 30% equity against the top of his range, and we’re assuming that his cold 3-betting range here is the top of his range only.

     I also agree w/ christoph that draws should be discounted, but the point of 30% is – you’re -EV to call vs a range that includes all combo draws. It doesn’t really matter how his range is distributed if they’re all weighted equally and you’re -EV. The only reason this would be nay different is if we started discounted 88 or 77 which we obv wouldn’t.

     I certainly agree that different villains can utilize raises differently in different spots and force hero to adjust his range, but in this spot fact of the matter is hero’s entire range is very very strong, so it’s not like villain has a lot of room to maneuver.

     Early in a tournament I doubt anyone who you vaguely recognize as a reg is going to do anything besides play standard, because he’s got some random donk in the SB who bet out 6 way, and then a presumably competent player raising – and he prob doesn’t expect us to fold much of our raising range on this board (or expect SB to fold top pair+ if he’s some rando)

     • Sorry to clarify –

       30% equity does play a factor when deciding to fold. I just don’t think it’s fair to assume he wouldn’t raise a combo draw here when he’s an unknown.

       I don’t think its fair to discount them is all i’m saying – but even if you include them in your analysis of his range and come up w/ an equity distribution that makes jamming -EV, you don’t need to actually break down the distribution of his range.

       If we had 55% equity vs a range of draws and sets – then yes, we’d need to figure out what portion of his range to 3-b would actually be draws, and what would be sets.

       Here it doesn’t matter – even if he 3-bet every draw, you’re still not going to be in good shape.

       • If he he 3-bet “every” draw, then you would be in good shape, but I agree that he almost never 3-bets anything other than big combo draws and maybe Axdd (probably not though), but even those he might flat or even fold, same with 87s, and he’s probably always 3-betting 77 or 88. I had the same reaction as Christoph where at first I thought it was close but on close examination it’s a pretty clear fold.

     • Thanks Chris for your feedback.
       I will try to explain my point and my faulty logic.
       Equity is about distribution of probabilities.
       Distributions are complex creatures in strange shapes and sizes.
       Usually they are so complex that most people have problem to “visualize”.
       To describe and “visualize” distribution in statistics you use aggregates.
       The most popular aggregates used to describe distribution are median,mean,average,etc.
       Example:
       For some times of distribution median will be pinpoint indicator.
       For other distribution it will big mistake.
       Statisticians use many aggregates together to have better accuracy to describe distribution.
       In our case 30% is just ONE number ONE aggregate to describe distribution of probabilities.
       30% is just big approximation of how look this distribution looks.

       Example:
       On average shove will expand shover range in both directions- top(nuts) and bottom(air) .
       I say on average because you will have exception when shove helps you dramatically narrow shover range.(bad moves)
       Because usually shoving is skewed to nuts . Top of the range will expand more that bottom on average.
       Now lets calculate equity-“showdown” equity.You do not have fold equity.
       We take Poker Stove and calculate our equity against very wide opponent range and “Poker Shove” show us some result (30%) and tell us we are OK to fold.
       I do not believe 30% single-number descriptions tells you good story about such polarized range.I tell you could do better.

     • I did respond to your feedback in wrong place below

Comments are closed.