@pzhon: sorry, I'm still not convinced. I think I brought up a fair number of new points in my last post, and yes, I repeated the old ones, cause I didn't get a proper counterargument (as I partially did in Dawnfall's latest post) against them. I agree on the opponents not being the best of the best, however it's a pretty bold claim that their gambling habit means they have absolutely no idea of what's going on, they don't think, just randomly click buttons. Also, if you don't expect them to rule out certain hands in your range, how do you expect them to read your check on the turn as a tricky c/r attempt? I believe this is incoherent. Also, some of your arguments are clearly results-oriented.
Now as you could see in my previous posts, I don't think that this type of pre-emptive exploitation (aka "in my experience") is a good way to start off any kind of theory discussion. I understand, that as a mostly NL player it's difficult to switch mindsets, tho even NL tends to go towards theoratically more sound strategies nowadays. What I'm trying to say at the end of the day is that even if you think it's a good exploitative adjustment against a certain group of players, go ahead and tell us that you think it's an awful play theoratically, but given that [...] it's good now. As a teacher it's important not to just preach the correct action, but the correct thought process as well.
And about the critisism and reviews: I'd be the happiest person if PokerStrategy indeed would have anyone QA-ing LHE content, however, except for Boomer (who AFAIK has different tasks assigned to) there is absolutely no LHE experts in the Education Departement. (Well, it was the case when I worked there, and given the way things are going, I wouldn't expect them to have got one now.) So who you're expecting a review from? Also, accepting review from an authority, but not from an actual midstakes player, coach, ex-HJ and ex-video producer who plays the game every day seems like a bit of a defensive move IMO.
@Dawn: I think I wasn't clear, sorry about that. Although I believe you have some theoratical leaks, you're still a great asset to the English LHE community, and I think we all appreciate what you do. The quoted comment was harsh, I admit, but was mostly meant to pzhon. The rant above about the responsibility of staff was also aimed mostly at others. Also, about the articles...♦ I meant that users reading PS articles are misinformed by the articles themselves, resulting in plays like this. (I have no doubt that the article on "When to raise for value with draws" was a great inspiration for both OP and pzhon. One of my most "beloved" articles.) Once again, sorry about the misunderstanding and for my harsh words.
Your argument about the pot being big is definitely a valid point on not expecting herofolds from the opponents. However, it also makes people more SD-oriented with thin (and sometimes not that thin) valuehands as well, resulting in us missing implied odds when we hit our draw. But at the end of the day, the "relative" EV of a valueline will not account for the potsize all that much, we have our pot equity regardless of aggression.
I believe you're partially mistaken on the implied odds issue. I agree, that they're not going to be raising overpairs if the 3rd flush card comes, however if we don't cap, they probably will bet it, therefore 1 more BB goes in by us raising or c/raising the turn, if we hit. My argument about implied odds mostly relies on this.
Let's talk about numbers, cause there was a great dibate on how many outs we have in general (hopefully this will answer your question about the EVs of different lines):
- when the UTG player limp/raises pre, then bet/3bets the flop, I'd put him on around 99+, AcKc, AcQc - that sort of range. We can play around with these ranges, but I wouldn't expect a greatly different result.
- when BU suddenly raises in preflop limp/rr-d then limp/capped 6way pot, I'd assign a fair number of FDs, sets to him, maybe the odd overpair of TT (tho I believe he'd raise that pre, but who knows), also some top pair hands (say 98+), maybe 87s for the odd straightdraw. I can't really see him having anything else.
- for the other two players I assign a random range except for sets, two pairs, overpairs and strong top pairs (I'll leave FDs in tho, not sure if most would raise those or not). This will cause our equity to be somewhat higher, than in reality, cause of all the random junk in the presumed range, but won't be a huge factor overall, 1-2% tops.
So with these ranges:
Board: 9♣6♣4♥
Equity Win Tie
UTG player 33.04% 32.98% 0.07% { 99+, AcKc, AcQc }
BU 19.64% 19.45% 0.19% { TT-99, 66, 44, A9s, K9s, Q9s, J9s, T9s, 98s, 87s, KcQc, KcJc, QcJc, KcTc, QcTc, JcTc, Ac8c, Kc8c, Qc8c, Jc8c, Tc8c, Ac7c, Kc7c, Qc7c, Jc7c, 9c7c, Ac6c, Kc6c, 8c6c, 7c6c, Ac5c, 7c5c, 6c5c, Ac4c, 6c4c, 5c4c, Ac3c, Ac2c, A9o, K9o, Q9o, J9o, T9o, 98o }
HERO 31.69% 31.65% 0.04% { QcJc }
Random 1 7.82% 7.56% 0.25% { 88-77, 55, 33-22, ATs+, A8s-A2s, KTs+, K8s-K2s, QTs+, Q8s-Q2s, JTs, J8s-J2s, T8s-T2s, 97s+, 95s, 93s-92s, 82s+, 72s+, 65s, 63s-62s, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, ATo+, A8o-A2o, KTo+, K8o-K2o, QTo+, Q8o-Q2o, JTo, J8o-J2o, T8o-T2o, 97o+, 95o, 93o-92o, 82o+, 72o+, 65o, 63o-62o, 52o+, 42o+, 32o }
Random 2 7.81% 7.56% 0.25% { 88-77, 55, 33-22, ATs+, A8s-A2s, KTs+, K8s-K2s, QTs+, Q8s-Q2s, JTs, J8s-J2s, T8s-T2s, 97s+, 95s, 93s-92s, 82s+, 72s+, 65s, 63s-62s, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, ATo+, A8o-A2o, KTo+, K8o-K2o, QTo+, Q8o-Q2o, JTo, J8o-J2o, T8o-T2o, 97o+, 95o, 93o-92o, 82o+, 72o+, 65o, 63o-62o, 52o+, 42o+, 32o }
Ok, so we have ~30% equity in this case (more outs than I expected, that's for sure), which means a net EV of: 0.30*4SB - 0.70*1SB = 0.5SB.
Meaning it's a .25BB of immediate profit by capping. If we assume we only miss a BB from 2 players (UTG and BU will stick around for sure), it means that we have to lose implied odds in only 12.5% of the time to make coldcalling a better play. The question is if we think we can put in an extra bet (2 bets total) GIVEN that we hit the flush on the turn 12.5% of the time, when it wouldn't have gone in otherwise. In other terms, will they have top pair or overpair type of hands more than 12.5% of the time (that will bet/call the turn if we just call, but only call the turn if we cap). Looking at their distribution (e.g. UTG only has 3 combos of set and 2 combos of overflush, all the other 33 combos are overpairs) I think it's more than likely.
Disclaimer: the calculation above did not assume that we'll ever get punished by announcing our hand if we don't hit. It's just a simple straightforward value-line calculation.
I hope this was convincing that why I think the call/cap line is not as good even from a purely exploitative point of view.
PS: sorry for the countless times of editing this post, I actually looked at the wrong equity before, and had to re-write the last part.
