[Closed] [coaching-feedback] NL SSS Gold with xarry2 - wednesdays at 7pm CET

I never changed the schedule for my coaching last week I couldn't do it on wednesday. but this week and in future it will be as always: wednesday 19:00.
I'll talk to the admins to rearrange the schedule correctly.

cu

Adv SSS Coaching - 11/05

This week we'll deal with a hand illustrating a way to defend passively against steals. We are in the BB and the SB, who is a SSS player steals. We assume that he'll be doing this move with a very wide range. He knows we also play SSS and are therefore quite tight. There is no history between us. If you loosen up like in this hand be sure your opponent is on the aggressive side!

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)      
[tg]Hero$200:///////;SB$200:///////;[/tg]
5/10 No-Limit Hold'em (8 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9♥, 8♥
6 folds, SB raises $25,00, Hero calls $15.

In the SBvsBB steals I often like to defend passively - especially with these good odds. But even with a 3BB steal we could call sometimes. I prefer suited/connected hands which in addition should not be dominated very often. Domination is very important. It makes no sense to defend with A5s if our opponent just steals with AT+. Make sure you have a good imagination of your opponents stealing range in order to find out defending hands which aren't dominated very often. The looser he steals the looser we can defend. Even against tighter stealranges like 25% I like KJ+ QJ+ AT+ 87s-T9s and some medium PPs. You can get looser, definetely. But the looser you defend the more difficult it will get. Besides that we should sometimes just call monsters like AK or AA in order to balance our range.

Flop: ($50,00) 7♣, 3♦, Q♥ (2 players)
SB bets $26, Hero calls $26,00.

Often we want to raise the flop cbet - which is often nice. In this spot however I don't like the raise. We can't represent much - the board is dry and its just not neccessary to raise this Flop with TopPair+. Especially if our opponent is making 2nd barrels slowplaying a Queen gives us much more value usually. I have to add that postflop play, i.e. choosing the best lines will always depend on the level of thinking. So you could raise or call a non thinking player here - he won't see a difference besides that he gets raised or called. In this hand I assume he thinks. How would we play our monsters/good hands here? With a call. Thus we also play our bluff the same way. We call! The odds are nice, we can try to float and we have backdoordraws! which are always nice. (OESD with every 6 and T, backdoorflushdraw with every heart and gutshots with every J or 5.
In general you should not always try to make a move. Keep an eye on your image/history and of course on the board. E.g. I would easily give up on a AKT flop.

Turn: ($102,00) 6♣ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

The turn gives us an OESD and the SB checks to us. What to do now depends on your opponent and history. If you face a weaker player who steals often, cbets often but gives up on the turn quite often if he is unimproved betting is nice. However, if you recently had to show a bluff/float or your opponent gets tricky on the turn with checkraising his monsters or even semibluffs betting is not the best choice. A checkraise will force you to give up your equity. Only bet if a checkraise is unlikely or your opponent is weak! In this case I decided to check behind.
If the SB bets again we should usually give up our float. if he 2nd barrels very aggressive a bluffraise (All-In usually) is possible however only if we can create enough foldequity. meaning that the turnbet/turn potsize and remaining stacks give room for a move.
If you are unimproved on the turn a direct bet is often the only choice and getting checkraised isn't a prblem then. Nevertheless you could try a late float - which calling the flop but checking behind the turn as if you applied pot control. If your opponent checks again on the river this is a perfect spot to make the move - unless he is very tricky/passive he would try to valuebet many holdings on the river.

River: ($102,00) 4♣ (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets 60$ , SB folds.

Well, I try the late float and it works - which it really does very often Betsize should be of your usual valuebetting size. If SB bets into us we have to give up again unless we hit our straight. With a pair on the river a call is maybe possible but only with good reads and an aggressive opponent. To do that he really needs to bluff quite often in this spot. The river is btw a nice card since it makes the board scary and besides he has Top Pair+ it will be quite tough to call our bet.

To sum up, if you make a move consider that it should be authentic. Looking like a made hand. Which line you choose is different from situation to situation. But don't overdo bluffing. A good bluff needs the right spot. And don't try to play very weak hands that way - its maybe possible but very difficult!

Xarry's favourite cocktails (week 13)

You like Caribbean Rum, Amaretto, Limes and Ice? Then try this one: The Mai Tai

You need:

- 6 cl brown Rum
- 1.5 cl Triple Sec (Orange Liquor)
- 0.75 cl Cane Sugar Sirup
- 0.75 cl Almond Sirup
- 1 Lime
- Crushed Ice

The Mai Tai is originated in 1944 by Trader Vic who was a famous bartender at that time. He created this drink when 2 friends from Tahiti visited him. As he served it one said: "Mai Tai - Roa Ae". In Tahitian this means "Out of This World - The Best". Well, that was that. He named the drink "Mai Tai".
For more detailed information about the origin of the Mai Tai take a look at this: http://www.tradervics.com/mai-tai-1.html

Let's start with the recipe. I wrote 6cl brown Rum. Many bartenders would never use that description. In fact in many Bars use several different Rums to create an individual spirit of the drink. Of course mostly brown Carribean Rums but I have often seen gold rums, too. (like Havana Club 3 Years or Ron Varader 3 Years). I would say you can use every decent brown Rum. The more you're into the "Rum-Thing" the more you can vary here. Just be aware that every Island produces a rum with a totally different flavour. That's why you can greatly influence the flavour of the whole drink by using different Rums. For us I would just say this: take aged (at least 7 years) brown Rum if you like the Rum-Flavours. If you don't want to have them that intensive then use Golden Rum (about 3 years aged). To start with this is maybe the best choice. Btw, the drink will get a totally different colour, too.
Again I recommend to read the link above. It gives you much details to the Rum-choice.
Well, add the Rum(s) into a Boston Shaker as well as 1.5cl Triple Sec. This is a Orange Liquor from Curacao originally. Its a decent combination of orange bitters and sugar. Its quite similar to Cointreau btw. After that you add 0.75cl Sugar Sirup and 0.75cl almond Sirup (which makes it taste like Amaretto). Be careful with these ingredients. They can quickly overwhelm the other flavours. But as always the excact portions are up to you. Now take a lime, wash it and cut it into halves. If you have a lime squeezer then you can proceed with the halves. If not then cut them into eights and squeeze them by hand. (Rolling the limes with pressure before cutting them helps you if you have to do it by hand. there will be much more juice extracted). Well, press the lime and pour the juice into the shaker. I really recommend fresh Lime juice. It gives the drink the needed fruity and sour flavours. Usually you don't need the shells and the contained bitters in this drink. However I've seen bars serving the drink with lime shells. As you want. After adding all the ingredients into the shaker you fill it with much much ice. Crushed Ice is perfect but you can also use small ice cubes. Key point with shaking is always diluting the ice => more ice pieces => more surface => more dilution => maximum chilled drink. I would shake thouroughly while counting to 10. Try to vary the shaking time / ice amount in order to find your favourite dilution. Feel free to try the drink at that point. If there's something to balance then you should do it now. After that I pour the drink together with the remaining ice into a cocktail glass. If needed fill the glass up with crushed ice. As decoration you can add a branch of fresh mint (which some bartenders already add to the drink before shaking. This gives the drink another interesting flavour).

You see how different this drink can be made. The last one is maybe the version you know best - but its not the original. This last one is made with orange juice (or Pineapple Juice). Imo this ruins all the other flavours... and especially the Rum. But thats a matter of taste.

This thread is really interesting. Which winrate do you (or any good shortstack) get at nl100-nl200, and nl400-nl600-nl100.

Thanks.

thx

greatly depends on your skill. I would say at good winrates lie between 1 ptbb and 2 ptbb. if you play good 2-3ptBB is possible. even on higher limits like 400-600.

Adv SSS Coaching - 11/12

Let's start with an interesting question from yesterday's coaching:

"Do you always cbet if you have AK/AQ/AJ/KQ and are unimproved on the Flop?"

When I cbet I always consider the following points:

- whats the range of my opponent?
- do I have Foldequity?
- how many remaining Outs do I have?
- how does my opponent usually play against cbets?
- whats my Image/History?

Every good poker player will tell you that the key to success is not playing your own cards correctly but playing your opponents cards. Definetely we have to know which lines are good for a Top Pair or an OESD. But since every Top Pair/OESD is different - which is mainly due to our different opponents - in poker there is almost never a line which is always true. Only by reading our opponent correctly and giving him correct ranges we can find the best lines. Thus, for cbets, its the same. You first have to think about a range for your opponent. Using stats like VPIP or Fold to Flop Cbet is essential. Our estimated opponents range, his stats, the board and finally our own hand now determine our Foldequity. Cbets are mostly based on Foldequity. If my opponent folds in more than 65% to flop cbets I cbet very very often. He's just folding too much. Take into account how good you can represent a board and how good this board can hit your opponents range. As you know dry boards are nice for cbets but also scary boards.

Well, when shouldn't we cbet? There are 2 main points speaking for not cbetting. First if you don't have foldequity. Never bluff a calling station or on a board where you feel you're never gonna make your opponent fold. Second, don't cbet if you have decent remaining outs but have to fear a checkraise very often. If our opponent mostly check/calls cbets remaining outs are an addition bonus - if he does not fold we still can improve on the turn. However, if he check/raises this usually forces us to give up our hand (if we just have like 4-7 outs). In such spots I like to check behind. I can see the turn for free. If I hit an out I will often win the hand. And even if I don't hit I can still make a delayed cbet on the Turn if my opponents checks to me again.
Finally you should think about your own image. Have you been very aggressive before but never showed a legitimate hand? Did your opponent recently check/fold to all of your cbets? If this is the case you should also leave out some marginal cbets, especially if you have outs.

Finally let's make some examples:

Preflop: Hero: with Q♣, A♥
Hero raises, BB calls

Flop: 5♦, 6♥, K♠ (2 players)

Unless I face a showdown monkey I cbet very often here. The board creates foldequity. In addition I don't have to worry about getting check/raised. I don't have many remaining outs if my opponents holds a K.

Preflop: Hero: with Q♥, A♥
Hero raises, BB calls

Flop: 5♦, 6♥, K♠ (2 players)

Same spot, but we have additional outs. The backdoorflushdraw. Every hearts on the turn gives us a strong flushdraw. And we still have the Ace outs. usually about 4-5 outs here. If I face a player with a high check/raise% and a low fold to cbet% I sometimes checkbehind here. Nevertheless this board is creates much foldquity. Thus you have to weigh foldequity/check-raise% in order to find the best line.

Preflop: Hero: with Q♥, A♥
UTG calls, Hero raises on the Button, UTG calls

Flop: 5♦, 6♥, K♠ (2 players)

Same board but now we play against a UTG limp/caller. Even though we have the same remaining outs as before I would very often cbet here. UTG limp/calls very often are hands like lower to medium pockets. Unless they hit their set they will usually fold. And 77-TT may c/c. But then I have loads of outs against them. Besides that hands like a suited Ace or QJ-type hands also have a hard time continuing on this flop.

Preflop: Hero: with Q♥, A♥
UTG calls, Hero raises on the Button, UTG calls

Flop: 2♦, 6♥, 8♠ (2 players)

Unless my opponent plays pretty weak/passive this board is nice for a checkbehind. Many lower Pockets and suited connectors won't fold to a cbet. There is no overcard on the flop which scares them. Besides that some more aggressive players won't just check/call a PP here but will check/raise a hand like 55, 77 and of course 99/TT. We can check behind and have our A/Q/hearts outs. But even a K is a nice scarecard for us in order to give a delayed cbet more strenght.

Preflop: Hero: with Q♥, A♥
UTG calls, Hero raises on the Button, UTG calls

Flop: 7♦, 8♥, 8♠ (2 players)

In this last example we have hidden outs. We have the Q and the A usually. Besides that, if our opponent holds 22-66 every 7 is an additional out for us. Wether to cbet here or not really depends on the opponent. Again I'm more inclined to cbet if I face a passive player. Again if we get check/called we could 2nd barrel many turns: a Q, an A, every heart, every 7 and every K.

Originally posted by Gerv
Hi Xarry2, I got a question for you in my mind while playing.

Last coaching , you told the players that you tend to Reraise preflop to 2.5x his original raise instead of 3x. This to let the bad players call with worser hands or 4-bet you.

My question is regarding this:
Is it wise that if you have a 19bb stack, and Villain openraise 4bb, that you reraise to 10bb or shove it all-in immediately?

Also if you have a 21bb stack, should you go all-in immediately while reraising or do it 2.5x accordingly? (4bb openraise)

Do you do this 2.5x reraise only to bad players or do you balance it and apply this as well to solid TAG players and stuff?

Can you tell me a bit more about this new preflop strategy, I would like to discuss some things or 2 with you about this as it is very interesting about Risk/Reward ratio of this.

- Gerv

this would be very interesting.

Can you tell me your thoughts about 2.5-Reraising vs All In Push, xarry

ty

hi

I'm from spanish community

I play SSS.

POKER + DRINKS ♦

I'm barman too. And I love play poker.

I read this post and is AMAZING

PD: my english is not good,

@colo81: thanks! I find it amazing, too unfortunately we can't do both things at the same time. well, we could.... ♦

@ gerv+wuusaa:

well, I started to think about this play when I dealt with preflop 4betting as a bigstack. some years ago many players did just 4bet directly all-in. they raise to 4BB, maybe get a 16BB 3bet but push directly all-in as a 4bet. the 3bettor gets pot odds of: 16BB+100BB / 84BB ~ 1.4:1. these odds aren't very good. therefore he will (if he plays correctly) just call with pretty strong hands (unless he knows the 4bettor pushes all-in pretty loose). The result is, that the 4bettor will maybe get the 16Bb more often, but has to risk his whole stack - and will maybe (in average) be behind against the tigth calling range. the result is usually, that the 3bettor can 3bet pretty light, but a 4bet-all-in strategy is (usually) only profitable with hands like JJ+/AK and sometimes AQ/TT+. of course poker, especially on shorthanded tables would be pretty boring with these nitty 4beeting ranges. and in reality you see a much much looser range.
why?
since they don't just 4bet all-in but 4bet like ~2.5 times or less the 3bet. these 4bets are much cheaper and enable the player to still fold if the 3bettor pushes (5bets all-in). other advantages are that it gets possible to 4bet bluff / fold to a push and that your opponent may know of this and will thus push with much much weaker hands than he would call against a direct push. the result is, that if 4betted/4betted bluffed correctly, you will receive a much higher payout with your monsters and will increase the pressure you put on your opponents. and besides that, which is basically my key point: you give them more opportunities to make a bad play. he can not just play call or fold but he can also decide to push. and usually players push many weak hands that they would otherwise fold.

basically, thats the basis. I know that a SSSP can't fully use these concepts. mainly due to the small stacksize it is usually not possible to play 3bet/fold since the usual 3times-the-raise-3bet already commits us. even with 2.5 times its often not possible. and currently I don't want to go into detail with bluffreraises. I'm currently using them rarely but I don't think my 3bet-bluff-strategy is matured enough to teach it to others. but in the end I plan to include 3betbluffs as SSSP.
but the point is that I nevertheless give my opponent more chances to make a fault. he will maybe call with weak hands (which is imo the only critical point, especially if I have a bigger stack and are OOP. I think if this is the case you shouldn't reraise, too small. otherwise the opponent gets very decent pot odds and can, especially in position make profitable plays against us). but usually its not a problem if he calls me with worse hands. The pot on the flop will be so big that you are almost always commited anyway. which is imo most important however, is the fact that my opponent can still push over my smaller raise (i'll come to raisesize/remaining stack ratios, when to push directly ect. soon). don't underestimate this. this hurts many bigstacks at a very weak point. honestly I play BSS and it is just so tempting to push with a low pocket or a suited connector if this little shortie is just ruining my isolation raise or semibluff :). bigstacks like to bully and don't want to get bullied. I have to admit that I myself sometimes fall into this trap if a shortie just 3bets small and gives me some room/foldequity for a loose push. I pushed a suited connector against a shortie with like 24BB stack who just 3betted my 3bb raise to 7.5BB. I didn't want to belive he has a hand... but he had it... and I lost. with a hand I would never call against a direct push or a reraise not giving me room for foldequity with a push.
so, lets now say some things about practice. if I make a smaller reraise I usually take 2.5 times the initial raise. if i'm in position and maybe have a smaller stack left but still want to give room for moves I maybe reraise like 2.2x-2.4x. If I'm OOP i'm a bit more careful. I usually never raise less than 2.5 times the raise OOP. In addition I sometimes reraise more. like 2.5-3x the raise. always depending on my position, my opponent!!! and my stack!!!. to and to answer to balancing question: I adapt to every single opponent I face. Is he more likely to move with a push I make my raises a bit smaller, if he'smore likely to just call I make them a bit bigger than 2.5.
However, in the spot you mention gerv, with 4bb raise and 19BB stack its close. 10BB small reraise and 9BB stack left. does this really create room for foldequity? I don't think so. only bad players will push with looser hands here. but any thinking player will see that if he pushes we get pot odds of more than 3:1 which definetely commits us with almost any holding (maybe 72o not...). thats why I usually push directly If my small reraise would be more than 50% of my stack. of course I sometimes use 40% or 60%. always depending on my position and opponent. if i'm OOP or face a player where I can't induce loose pushes I push a bit earlier, like with 40-45%. with like 55%-60% I maybe start pushing if I'm IP and face a player who really loves to push over my raises, no matter how much I have left.

I hope I answered some questions. But since I'm currently developing this strategy I'm really happy for feedback and suggestions!

Adv SSS Coaching - 11/19

First I want to advertise my Equity Video Since there are always questions about preflop equity during coachings I think posting the link here will help all of you. The video deals with the basics and some advanced concepts of preflop play according to equity - imo the first things you should learn when you plan to "advance" your basic SSS.

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/2319

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)      
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;CO$1262,25:295/21/6///19//;SB$1060,25:494/14/10///31//;Hero$125:///////;UTG$821,50:650/31/11///50//;[/tg]
5/10 No-Limit Hold'em (10 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9♦, A♦
UTG calls $10,00, 5 folds, CO calls $10,00, BU folds, SB calls $5,00, Hero raises to $125,00 (All-In), UTG calls $115,00, 2 folds.

Flop: ($270,00) 4♦, 4♥, J♥
Turn: ($270,00) Q♥
River: ($270,00) 3♣

Final Pot: $270,00

In this hand i decided to loosen up greatly. Why? By using the information I get through the stats I concluded: my A9s is quite often the best hand or ~equal to the best other hands.
A9s is definetely not a standard raise, especially not OOP. but let's take a closer look at the opponents and try to give them ranges.

UTG:

If you play against limpers you should know that UTG limpers usually have the tightest range and in addition often include pretty strong hands you don't expect. Limping 1st in is almost never a good play and usually players who do that in early position either are bad/loose, weak and passive or are trapping. Be careful if you try to raise against tight/passive limpers. They will often hold monsters and plan to trap or are simply too passive to raise hands like JJ or AK. Fortunately nothing of the mentioned problems is likely for UTG. With a 31 VP$IP and an 11 PFR we can first be quite sure that he's limping with a loose range (difference between VP$IP and PFR is high). And second we can assume that he usually raises his good/strong hands here - except he's on a trap. Well, if he is we'll take a note and observe him closer in future when he limps UTG. If you see him making traps often when he limps UTG then simply get tighter and just raise your premium hands.
For those of you who use other stats: take a look at the limp% in early position. Also consider the early position Raise 1st in%. Our UTG had limp% of 8% and Raise 1st in of 12%. Now it is up to us to give him a range. With 12 Raise 1st in he usually raises most of his premium hands and adds some deception raises maybe:

he raises ~:
99+, AJ, KQ plus some deception raises which can range from 22-88 or 54s-T9s. As sum we get around 12-13% which suits to our stats from him. But be aware that these are jsut estimations and can always be modified by notes/reads and changing stats!

he limps ~:
some of the hands like 22-88 or 54s-T9s will sometimes also be a limp. In addition I assume offsuited connectors, low suited Aces, and some broadways like KJ or QJ. Overall you see: usually none of his limping hands dominates our A9s. Sometimes he'll be trapping maybe. But imo that can be ignored aslong as we don't have good reads.

=> Besides some rare traps UTG hold worse hands than ours or hands where we flip (22-88), however with good equity.

CO:

CO is a totally different player. He is rather loose/passive. If he limped UTG we usually have to be more careful since his only 6 PFR hints at more stronger hands he just limps UTG (I think of 99-JJ or AT-AQ). Now that he's however overlimping! in the CO we can also be sure he's not posing a problem for our A9s. Why? Well, even though his 9PFR indicates that he's quite passive we can conclude through the 19 ATS that he's getting looser in late position. Thus his overlimp, instead of isolating the UTG limper, shows weakness usually.
I would say he holds also many lower PPs like 22-88, maybe sometimes 99/TT but mostly not higher ones. Besides that many suited/offsuited connectors, suited aces (A2s-A9s maybe). Broadways like KT or QJ will also be realistic.

=> Again only some rare hands pose problems for our A9s. maybe 99 or TT or AT maybe. But with 21% VP$IP he'll be limping so many weaker hands that the few beating us get easily compensated.

SB:

Why is the SB weak? Just take a look at the pot odds. He gets 7:1 for a complete. With such pot odds he'll have a big range, too. With a PFR of 10% he's also not too passive.

=> Again we face a weak and big range. besides AT or 99 I don't expect to ever see hands bothering us.

Well, thats why I raise my hand. Since I have only 11.5BB left I decide to push directly. Every normal raise would be more than half of our stack.
Finally I want to add two things:

- sometimes we'll get a call by a hand we didn't expect. Our estimations can never be perfect. But as I said before this will easily get compensated by some bad calls our Opponents make. They'll call with KJ or QJ or maybe A5s where we are much ahead.
- Getting called by a pocket pair where we are little behind usually gets compensated through the deadmoney from the limpers who fold to our push. I'll calculate that quickly, assuming to play against UTG who calls our raise with 88, all others fold:

Our Equity against 88 is 45.7% and we can win a pot of 125$ from UTG, 10$ from CO, 10$ from SB and 10$ from the BB.

EV = 0.457*155$ - 0.543*115$ = +8.39$

Try to use the stats/reads you have to make similar conclusions. You will find out many non-SHC hands which are worth raising, even against limpers.

Btw, I told you of all my favourite Cocktails now I have to try new ones! But sooner or later I'll present some again. If you know good ones jsut post them here!

Adv SSS Coaching - 11/26

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)        
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;Hero$222:///////;UTG+2$600:///////;[/tg]
3/6 No-Limit Hold'em (10 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is CO with A♠, J♥
2 folds, UTG+2 calls $6,00, 3 folds, Hero raises to $30,00, 3 folds, UTG+2 calls $24,00.

Flop: ($69,00) 8♣, K♠, Q♠ (2 players)
UTG+2 checks, Hero checks.

Turn: ($69,00) 6♣ (2 players)
UTG+2 bets $49,50, Hero folds.

Final Pot: $118,50

UTG+2 plays 36/7, checkraise flop 14% which is pretty high.

What I want to explain with this hand: When are checkbehinds instead of cbets appropriate?

Basically you have to ask yourself if checking behind can give you a higher EV than the cbet. This is usually the case when:

- you don't have enough foldequity on the flop with your cbet
- you have remaining outs and will often improve your hand on the turn
- you face an opponent who does not only c/c but c/raise very often against cbets
- you're table image is very aggressive and you recently lost your credit by constantly making cbets but giving up after you get action

Imo these are the most important points. The first one is pretty clear, if we try to cbet against a calling station or on a board which perfectly hits our opponents range a cbet is often -EV or marginally +EV. Then checking has a higher EV since we still can improve. Thus, the more outs we have the EV of a check behind increases. However it only gets bigger than the Cbet-EV if the foldequity is quite low.
Linked with that is the c/raise likelyness. If our opponent just plays c/c against cbets we can combine both EVs: the EV of the Flop cbet and in addition, if we get called, the EV of improving our hand on the turn. Besides that many players play c/c Flop, check Turn. Therfeore we have the option to check behind the turn to see a free River. Well, if a checkraise on the flop is very likely all these boni get useless since we usually have to give up our remaining outs to a checkraise. Of course we can sometimes go broke because of pot odds.
Ok, the last point is not very frequent but neverhtless a reason to adapt your cbetting-lines.

Let's apply this to the hand above:

Usually we can count like 7 outs. Our 3 Ace outs and 4 Ten outs. Besides that we have a backdoorflushdraw.
Thus: we have considerable remaining outs!
If we take a look at the opponent we at once see he's on the looser side Thus his limp/calling range will be very big. Its not easy to put him on accurate hands but it usually ranges from low to medium PPs, Suited Aces/Kings/Queens, suited connectors/gappers, broadways... Overall I think the board is not the best for a cbet. Imo since he limps so loose our cbet gets a valuebet-character which speaks for cbetting. however I just don't think I can create enough foldequity to make the cbet-EV high enough. In addition he won't play c/c all the time which means: if I cbet an he checkraises I have to give up my hand. In this case its especially hurting us since we have a big stack left and can't call according to odds and outs. This big stack however gives us much more implieds if we check behind and hit on the turn. These factors imo speak for a check behind since it has a higher EV than the cbet.
On the turn we have to give up since none of our outs/draws arrived.

Finally, with which stacksize on the Flop should we nevertheless cbet?

Why does our stacksize influence the optimal line? Well, the smaller our stack is the less implied odds we have in case of a turnhit. This greatly reduces the EV of checking behind. And on the other hand, the smaller our stack gets the more often we can play cbet/call. We use the EV of the cbet and also our remaining equity.

As played it looks like that:

Flop Pot is 69$ and we would cbet around 45$ (2/3PS). Thus we get pot odds for a flopcheckraise of: 69$+45$+192$ / 147$ = 2.1:1
(we would need at least 2.6:1 if we count all of our 7 outs)

You see why we have to give up against a checkraise.
Another scenario with a smaller stack. lets assume 150$ starting stack, so 120$ on the flop left

Pot odds: 69$+45$+120$ / 75$ = 3.1:1

Now we can go broke profitable. I would say with less than 150$ we should cbet/call or push with less than 90$. With more than 150$ we maybe still get odds like 2.8:1 but its getting pretty marginal again. On the other hand the implied odds rise. Thus with more than 150$ I would rather play check behind.

Adv SSS Coaching - 12/03

Hello guys!

This week will be about an interesting situation for a preflop push. When I played the hand my first thought was: easy fold.
However we discussed the hand afterwards in the coaching channel and I think its worth analyzing the hand again.

The situation was the following:

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)       
[tg]Hero$124:///////;BU$1,055:///////;[/tg]
5/10 No-Limit Hold'em (10 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is SB with T♦, 4♦
7 folds, BU calls, Hero ???

BU plays ~31/20. Basically way too loose preflop. Limping pretty much, however making limp/reraises with many hands. That's why I would either give him a hand which wants to see the flop cheaply but is afraid of a reraise/push from me. Or he wants to induce the raise/push from me by limping on the BU which is a very weak play usually. Medium strong hands aren't in his range usually since he's that aggressive. He'll steal with pretty much first in on the BU. When I played the hand I have to admit I didn't think that much about it. I just took a look at my hand and thought: even though he's making a very strange/weak play I can't push that hand.

I think a first way to analyze the situation is to consider different breakeven EV's depending on different preflop Foldequities and postflop Equities in call-case. I will include the BB FE, too. I assume 90% FE for the SB. Thus the total preflop FE will consist of BU*SB FE. I'll calculate the following always solving for the postflop breakeven Equity (EQ):

1) BU FE 90%, SB 90% => Total FE = 0.81%

2) 80%, 90% => 72%

3) 70%, 90% => 63%

4) 60%, 90% => 54%

5) 50%, 90% => 45%

1) EV = 0 = FE*25$ + (1-FE)[EQ*(119$ + 15$) - (1-EQ)*(119$)] = 0.81*25$ + 0.19[253$*EQ - 119$] = 20.25$ + 48,07$*EQ -22.61$

=> EQ = 2.36$/48.07$ = ~4,9%

2) EV = 0 = 0.72*25$ + 0.28[253$*EQ - 119$] = 18$ + 70,84$*EQ -33.32$

=> EQ = 15.32$/70,84$ = ~21.6%

3) EV = 0 = 0.63*25$ + 0.37[253$*EQ - 119$] = 15.75$ + 93.61$*EQ -44.03$

=> EQ = 28.28$/93.61$ = ~30.2%

4) EV = 0 = 0.54*25$ + 0.46[253$*EQ - 119$] = 13.5$ + 116.38$*EQ -54.74$

=> EQ = 41.24$/116.38$ = ~35.4%

5) EV = 0 = 0.45*25$ + 0.55[253$*EQ - 119$] = 11.25$ + 139.15$*EQ -65.45$

=> EQ = 54.20$/139.15$ = ~39%

Astonishingly we can push with any2 in 1). Even in 2) I think against halfway loose and not too tricky BU-limping ranges any2 is possible. In 3) - which is imo pretty likely - our breakeven Equity is 30.2%. Now we have to apply some requirements to our pushing range. It is pretty hard to create a accurate range for a BU openlimp. I tried this one:
TT+,66-22,AQs+,Q8s,J9s,T8s-T7s,96s+,85s+,74s+,64s+,54s,AQo+,K9o,Q9o,J9o,T8o,97o+,86o+,75o+,65o
I don't think its important to get an exact one. It should only include some monsters which can stand behind the limp but mostly specualtive and weak hands.
Against this range! from a pretty loose but not passive player! (not against any BU-Limp!) we could push any2 suited, any pair, any 8x offsuited+ or better! and 74o+, 54o+. Below its getting pretty close and there's still rake and our estimations can still be too unaccurate. I didn't expect that.
In 4) we could push about: any Pair, 54s+, 64s+, 74s+, any 8x suited+, 76o+, 85o+, and any 9x offsuited+.
Finally in 5) we could push about: any pair, 76s+, 85s+, 94s+, any Tx suited+, 87o+, 96o+, T4o+, and any Jx offsuited+.

Please don't take these ranges to close. I also always tried to leave 1-2% safety margin equity in order to compensate for rake, false estiamtions... . But they clearly illustrate that we can greatly loosen up in this spot. T4s would be a push Definetely I don't like to push with much bigger stacks. With even smaller stacks or deadmoney its getting even more profitable.

I wan't to end with the EV of our T4s against the estimated range in case 3):

EV = 0.63*25$ + 0.37[253$*0.452 - 119$] = ~14$

Well, thats nice :). 1.4BB is a decent EV. Thanks aaltvater for the proposal!

Thanks aaltvater for the proposal!

old people can also have good ideas

well, i think bu will call more then 50% against our push. especially when he saw us pushing that loose.
at the moment i see some callingsizes round about 15-25% of total when i am pushing or raising from the blinds.

I agree. According to his stats we can assume he's pretty loose. I think we can still push pretty loose but should then focus on "value" hands which dominate his callingrange.

Adv SSS Coaching - 12/12

Holdem Manager No-Limit Hold'em, $600.00 (HH Converter by Kreatief & Marple08)

SB ($644.00)
BB ($996.35)
MP1 ($151.80)
MP2 ($380.55)
MP3 ($887.85)
CO ($144.00) _________ (Hero)
BTN ($741.00)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A♥, J♥
3 folds, Hero raises to $18.00, BTN calls $18.00, SB calls $15.00, 1 folds,

Flop: 2♥, A♠, 4♥ ( $60 )
SB checks, Hero checks, BTN bets $21.00, 1 folds, Hero raises to $126.00, BTN calls $105.00,

Turn: K♥ ( $312 )

River: 5♠ ( $312 )

BU: 14/11, SB: 15/12

Both coldcallers are regulars with rather TAGgy stats. I assume they will call me with a pretty tight range mostly consisting out of pockets, some good suited connectors like T9s or some monsters trapping me.
This flop is almost perfect for me. BUT: if I cbet against 2 players here, they can put me on a pretty strong range. Ax, Flushdraw, set 22/44 and maybe some medium to strong pockets like TT-KK. Thus I think I will scare many weaker hands out of the pot if I cbet. On the other hand a check from me looks very authentic => I want to give up my hand. I'm pretty sure my opponents are going to take a shot at the pot - with many many weak hands they would otherwise fold. And even if they don't I have nothing to fear on this flop and can still make action on the turn.
As I assumed BU makes a bet. Its a bit small but I think we should nevertheless c/raise the flop all-in. Against very aggressive and somehow "blind" opponents (who don't see that if we play c/c there must be something wrong :)) c/c Flop, c/r Turn All-In could be an alternative. But only against such a small bet.

Summary:

- cbetting monsters is important to balance your weak cbets
- nevertheless we can also mix up our play if we check as preflopagressor
- thus many weaker hands will give us value
- we get a bit less readable

Holdem Manager No-Limit Hold'em, $600.00 (HH Converter by Kreatief & Marple08)

MP1 ($567.00)
MP2 ($800.00)
MP3 ($93.00)
CO ($888.15)
BTN ($133.50) ________ (Hero)
SB ($594.00)
BB ($143.55)
UTG+2 ($948.70)

Preflop: Hero is BTN with A♥, 4♥
5 folds, Hero raises to $15.00, SB calls $12.00, BB raises to $137.55, Hero calls $118.50, 1 folds,

Flop: 5♣, K♣, T♣ ( $292.05 )

Turn: 7♥ ( $292.05 )

River: 6♠ ( $292.05 )

What's the first thing we do in such a spot?

Calculating the Pot Odds

The effective stack of BB is 133.50$! We don't have more so we can't win more.

15$+15$+133.50$/118.50$ = 1.38:1 which equals 42% breakeven equity

BB is a very aggressive Shortstack: GTDMysterY, playing 15/13 and defending in the BB 12% call, 25% 3bet. Since he gets a perfect squeeze spot I assume a very wide range for his push.

I would give him: 22+,A8s+,KJs+,QTs+,J9s+,T8s+,97s+,87s,76s,65s,ATo+,KJo+,QJo,JTo,T9o

it could still be way looser. like any suited connector/1gapper/broadway

Against the estimated range we have 45% equity. Thus we can call profitably. However we have to be careful. Especially with such a big stack/small stealraise we really ned a loose squeezing range to make a profitable call! (in the end he showed KTo )

Hand 1)
I think I will play c/R but not with an AI. Make this a big difference. What is the advantage of an AI here?

Hand 2)

I wouldnt call in this spot. Because I also dont resteal KTo against a stealer and a limper. Of course I am loose in the Blinds but not that loose. Perhaps it could be a mistake by dont restealing KTo. Because there is a lot of dead money and you also steal very loose.

KTs is a easy one. But KTo is often dominated by our callingrange and has no additional value like FD value.
With your given range its an nice call. I would think he will be a bit tighter. But you seemed to be right. Perhaps you have the better read of him.

Do you think KTo or lets say KJo, 22-44, JTo, T9o is a good hand to resteal/squeeze here?
I think against someones calling range we are definetly behind. So we have often less then 40% EQ.

@ hand 1:

I see the possibility of making a smaller checkraise. However imo such a small checkraise (which basically does commit us unless we are on a pure bluff) looks much stronger than a direct push.
Whats your checkraising size here?

@ hand 2:

the opponent in this hand is definetely one of the loosest regular-shorties I know on Titan. That's why I don't give him credit. I have seen him making a squeeze with K4o before.
But that doesn't mean I like this play. I would say the range you can squeeze really depends on the single situation. stacksize, stealingrange, callingrange...

My BU range is very loose in this spot. I just risk 15$ to win 9$ so I need 62.5% fold equity. I will however consider the playability of my steal hands since I assume I will get called more often than usual (small stealraisesize, looseness of my opponent)

let's assume 40%
22+,A2s+,K7s+,Q8s+,J9s+,T8s+,97s+,86s+,75s+,64s+,54s,A2o+,K9o+,Q9o+,J9o+,T8o+,98o,87o,76o

I will maybe fold ~50% of my stealing range.

I will maybe call this: 22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A5o+,KTo+,QJo

Thus BB's EV (assuming SB always folds) is this with 3$ rake:

22: EV = 0.5*36$ + 0.5[0.432*(21$+133.50$-3$) - 0.568*127.50$] = 14.5$

T9o: EV = 0.5*36$ + 0.5[0.368*(21$+133.50$-3$) - 0.632*127.50$] =5.6$

KTo/KJo/JTo are better than T9o. If the ranges i assumed are practicable the squeezing range I gave him in hand 2 is realistic. if I then include the information that there can be some very freaky hands in his range I think my decision to call - exactly against this player and with the knowledge that its pretty swingy - is correct.

If you want you can examine the same hand with different foldequities, like 40% or 60%. as well as with different stealing ranges. the results will vary greatly.

thx for your feedback!

Adv SSS Coaching - 12/17

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)         
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;BU$1563.33:///////;[/tg]
5/10 No-Limit Hold'em (10 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is BB with J♣, T♠
7 folds, BU raises to $30,00, SB calls $25,00, Hero raises to $190,00 (All-In), BU calls $-30,00, SB folds.

Final Pot: $220,00

BU: 26/14, about 300 Hands
SB: 15/9, 250 Hands

He seems to be rather aggressive. Especially if I'm (tight SS ♦) in the BB he'll probably steal with a very wide range. The SB is rather weak/tight. This also speeks for a loose stealing range. I'll try to calculate some different scenarios.
assumed BU steal range 40%:

75% FE, 10% callingrange:

EV = 0.75*70$ + 0.3[0.314*(40$+180$) - 0.686*180$] = 36.2$

60% FE, 16% callingrange:

EV = 0.6*70$ + 0.4[0.332*(40$+180$) - 0.668*180$] = 23.1$

50% FE, 20% callingrange:

EV = 0.5*70$ + 0.5[0.354*(40$+180$) - 0.646*180$] = 15.8$

40% FE, 24% callingrange:

EV = 0.40*70$ + 0.6[0.37*(40$+180$) - 0.63*180$] = 8.8$

usually this squeeze stays profitable. however JTo is one of the weakes hands I would squeeze here.
consider that fold equity is very important for a good profit with this semi-speculative hand.

Some basic rules:

- speculative hands like suited connectors/low PPs often need much fold equity to be profitable
- if we have a tight calling range then, they'll often run better than e.g. A5o
- if you face a looser calling range then rather focus on value hands to squeeze with. e.g. Ax, Broadways, medium to high pockets.

Other important factors:

- stacksize between 16-20BB is nice for a squeeze (we don't risk too much but create FE)
- always consider the stealing range. speculative squeezes (which are swingy!) are only possible against pretty loose ranges and with FE
- the coldcaller(s) should not be tight/passive. else we could often run into strong hands which we didn't expect.

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)      
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;Hero$76:///////;CO$395,40:///////;MP3$833,54:///////;[/tg]
2/4 No-Limit Hold'em (9 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with A♠, A♥
2 folds, Hero raises to $14,00, MP2 folds, MP3 calls $14,00, CO calls $14,00, 3 folds.

Flop: ($48,00) Q♣, 4♥, 6♦ (3 players)
Hero checks, MP3 bets $34,20, CO folds, Hero raises to $62,00 (All-In), MP3 calls $27,80.

Turn: ($172,00) 7♣
River: ($172,00) J♥

Final Pot: $172,00

As in last weeks review I want to draw your attention to a spot where we should sometimes throw in a checkraise instead of a cbet. The board is perfect for that. Its rather dry. So even if they check behind a freecard does not bother me very much. Nevertheless you should consider: its not about trapping someone here with Aces which may look cool. Its about to maximize your profit.
If I face loose/passive players I usually achieve the most value with betting directly. However, if I face thinking players or rather tight/aggressive opponents the c/raise is a nice alternative. It will convey: we are UI with maybe AK (if we cbet against two here they can put us easily on AQ, QQ+, sometimes 99-JJ). This will lead our opponents to bets with much weaker hands - maybe even oure bluffs - which they would fold to a direct cbet from us. The result: more profit for us.

Adv SSS Coaching - 01/07

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)       
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;Hero$155,00:///////;UTG+2$831,00:///////;[/tg]
5,00/10,00 No-Limit Hold'em (9 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is BU with 8♦, 8♣
UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 calls $10,00, 4 folds, Hero raises to $45,00, 2 folds, UTG+2 calls $35,00.

Flop: ($105,00) 7♥, K♣, 3♥ (2 players)
UTG+2 checks, Hero bets $110,00 (All-In), UTG+2 calls $110,00.

Turn: ($325,00) K♦
River: ($325,00) 4♦

Final Pot: $325,00

UTG+2: 32/9, Raise 1st in in EP 11%, Limp in EP 17%, donkbet flop 32%

In this hand we get a nice spot for an isolation raise. UTG+2 limps loose and is not too passive. In addition we have position and a hand which is usually quite ahead against the limping range of our opponent.
Besides that the flop play with our stacksize will mostly be pretty easy. I f he checks we push, if he donkbets we either call/raise or fold. What to do in the second case is determined by pot odds, the board and our opponents range (of course reads/history can also be a nice help). The pot odds for an all-in are 215/110 = 1.95:1 which equals around 34% break even equity. Well, whats could be our opponent's range?

He can have Top Pair, middle/bottom pair, set/slowplayed monster, flushdraw, low to medium pocket pair and a bluff. Now we have to evaluate how often each of these hand types will stand behind a donkbet. This varies from opponent to opponent.

Let's try this for UTG+2:

40% Top Pair
15% Middle/bottom pair
10% set/monster
10% flushdraw
15% low to medium pocket
10% bluff

Our equity:

vs Top Pair: ~8%
vs Middle/bottom pair: ~78%
vs set/monster: ~7%
vs flushdraw: ~45-60%
vs low to medium pocket: ~60%
vs bluff: ~70-80%

Definetley my estimations are quite rough but the will help to understand such situations much better. You can also vary each parameter and see how the result develops.
Now we only have to multiply the hand likelyness with the equity and sum up:

0.4*0.08 + 0.15*0.78 + 0.1*0.07 + 0.1*0.525 + 0.15*0.6 + 0.1*0.75 = 37.35%

If our estimations are realistic we can make a call here. Nevertheless the whole result can change if we just change on parameter.
In this hand UTG+2 is a player who donkbets rather frequently. Therefore I think the ranges I assumed are realistic.
however if you maybe change the board into K79ss the whole hand may change completely. We now have two overcards which makes playing pockets pretty hard. Take into account how board, opponent, your hand, reads/notes influence each other before makeing your decision.

I thought of something else like xarry's favourite cocktails. it's definetley not comparable and maybe nothing new. but from now on I'd like to post my favourite songs for every week. I'm not always up to date - so you will find some rather old ones, too. And I hope I'm not gonna focus on the same genres all the time. In order to stay legal I'll just post some youtube links. so please excuse if the quality isn't very decent sometimes.
Btw, if you're interested in music anyway. Take a look at hypem.com - imo the best site for finding the music you want. and all of the songs I post here usually.

Xarry's favourite songs (Week 1)

1) MGMT - Kids (Soulwax Nite Version Remix)

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=jb1jBn0uEOc

The original version on Oracular Spectacular is already amazing. Soulwax - imo the best electronic live act and remix producers, if you ever have the chance to see them live give it a try, even if you don't like electro that much. their live sets are really rockin - turn the song into something more powerful and dancable. Nevertheless I also love the original

2) Electric Six - Synthesizer

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=cnsq9XtpmEk

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=o4D2nlCJkuc

Already a bit older but I like the 80's synths combined with catchy lyrics. Take a look at the 2nd vid, too. Pretty nice work imo.

3) Soko - I'll kill her

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=fL0v1VslTYI

I'm francophile. and love pop.

Adv SSS Coaching - 01/14

Yesterdays coaching was full of interesting questions and discussions. Therefore I'm going to pick out a very interesting one:

"i am playing nl400, my opponents always (~70%) make minraises, how do you change your range against these people. and more important, how is your betsize against them? mine is 2,5*"

By default I treat a minraise like a normal raise. There are other opinions about that. However according to my experience (on Party/Titan NL 200 - 1000) its not correct to treat them as limps. Too often there are monsters or good made hands standing behind these raises.
But: this is only by default. As soon as I get other information or simply see that a certain players constantly minraises I'll change my strategies. Calling is usually not a profitable alternative for us Shortstacks. Thats why I will simply increase the reraising range against aggressive/loose minraisers. With which range I do that always depends on the players PFR in the specific position.
Let's now deal with the reraising size. Usually we reraise 3x and you suggest 2.5x. By default I wouldn't use any of both. I like to reraise 3.5x which is usualyl ~potsize. If I reraise smaller I'll give my opponents too decent pot-odds. E.g. a 2.5x reraise results in pot odds of: 2BB+5BB+1.5BB/3BB = 2.83:1 which equals about 26% break even equity. My opponent can make a cheap call for a look at the flop. And in addition he has implied odds. Well, if he plays fit or fold on the flop its not a big problem for me - I make profit. I'll often take the pot with my cbet. But key is: we can make it more difficult for him with a bigger raise. Thus he'll make more faults and this directly results in more profit for us.
Btw, please don't push directly against minraises. You risk your whole stack for just a minraise and maybe the blinds. You'll have much FE -definetely. But if your opponent calls you're often much behind and will often loose you're whole stack. Thats why you should always try to make normal reraises. Thus your opponent can still push/call/fold which is one possibility more compared to a direct push from us where he can only call/fold. More possibilities usually result in more faults and more profit again.
When it comes to finding the optimal reraising size you have to evaluate your opponent. If he's inclined to call reraises often then increase the reraising size. Maybe up to 4 or 4.5x. If he also calls your higher reraises you simply get more value. Against opponents who hardly ever call your reraise but more often choose to fold or push you don't need to make such big reraises. Then 3x or sometimes even 2.5x is appropriate. If the anyway don't call the total amount of your raise is rather unimportant. But the action is the same: they get reraised. Another decent advantage of small reraises is that you can include some bluff/semibluff reraises just based on foldequity, However you have to be careful when using this. Its not possible to do this against many players and as soon as you once have to show a bluff your credit will be gone. With the small reraise you also give you're opponent the chance to push over your reraise - he sees more FE and will maybe start pushing speculative hands or simply hands he usually folds against a normal sized reraise.
Try to figure out to which type the players you face belong and experiment with the different raise sizes and evaluate their reactions.

Xarry's favourite songs (Week 2)

1) Justice - We are your friends (Reprise)

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=n0rlakg2990

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ULXI5oq4C_E

live version from A Cross The Universe

2) Tag Team - Whoomp! There it is!

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=BnrLloO7nFQ

Whoomp! There it is!

3) Vampire Weekend - A Punk

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=_XC2mqcMMGQ

if you like that song check out the album: Mansard Roof which was one of my album-highlights in 2008.

I'd like to say thanks to Xarry2 for consistently maintaining such an interesting and thought provoking thread.

I would like to add a bit more to Xarry2's coaching post of 12/03. In particular I would like to draw attention to the modelling of FE as outlined below.

Originally posted by xarry2
Adv SSS Coaching - 12/03

1) EV = 0 = FE*25$ + (1-FE)[EQ*(119$ + 15$) - (1-EQ)*(119$)] = 0.81*25$ + 0.19[253$*EQ - 119$] = 20.25$ + 48,07$*EQ -22.61$

=> EQ = 2.36$/48.07$ = ~4,9%

2) EV = 0 = 0.72*25$ + 0.28[253$*EQ - 119$] = 18$ + 70,84$*EQ -33.32$

=> EQ = 15.32$/70,84$ = ~21.6%

3) EV = 0 = 0.63*25$ + 0.37[253$*EQ - 119$] = 15.75$ + 93.61$*EQ -44.03$

=> EQ = 28.28$/93.61$ = ~30.2%

4) EV = 0 = 0.54*25$ + 0.46[253$*EQ - 119$] = 13.5$ + 116.38$*EQ -54.74$

=> EQ = 41.24$/116.38$ = ~35.4%

5) EV = 0 = 0.45*25$ + 0.55[253$*EQ - 119$] = 11.25$ + 139.15$*EQ -65.45$

=> EQ = 54.20$/139.15$ = ~39%

What this model yields is the EQ we need when called to be able play T4s assuming that villain folds a certain % of the time. The model implicitly assumes that our required EQ remains constant for whatever our FE happens to be. This would only be true if villain used a random means of deciding whether or not to call our shove (ie. villain calls/folds his entire range). In practice, most villain's use their cards to decide whether or not to call (ie. [mathspeak] EQ=f(FE) [/mathspeak]).

In order to quantify such a difference (amongst other things) I have produced the following graph.

As Xarry2 has already mentioned hand ranges for BU are always hard to guess and for convenience I have assumed the following.

33-22,A8s-A2s,K9s-K7s,Q9s-Q8s,JTs-J8s,T9s-T8s,98s-97s,87s-86s,76s-75s,65s-64s,54s,K9o-K8o,Q9o,J9o.

The top line uses Xarry2's model as given above (using my hand-range). Villain is equally capable of folding any part of his hand range a certain % of the time. Rake is 5% with a $3 cap in NL1000.

The middle line shows how our EV is affected if villain folds out his trashy hands first. I have not optimized villain's calling range versus our holding. Once again rake is 5% with a $3 cap in NL1000.

The bottom line shows how rake would skew the middle line if we were playing <=nl200.

Where the FE is <5% or >95% there is a slight error (0.1BB ish) in these graphs.