Originally posted by DarkLuxor
Hello guys,Violent discussion here
Is it correct to x/r that flop against a tight villain, but to x/c against a loose aggressive one?
(usually vs aggro players we don't have much FE so I tend to be on the passive side)
No, check-calling against any type of opponent is simply wrong.
Originally posted by DarkLuxor
Hello guys,Violent discussion here
Is it correct to x/r that flop against a tight villain, but to x/c against a loose aggressive one?
(usually vs aggro players we don't have much FE so I tend to be on the passive side
read Dawnfall and firsttsunami's answers 
they are the more correct ones.
http://i.imgur.com/MvKWM6x.png
@ YohaN7
Even versus a guy who blindly 3bets us in position with every crap hand?
@ Avataren
I have read through their answers and got an impression that both lines are viable
Was just curious if depending of our opponent we could choose one or another best line.
A big hole in the brain is needed to call with T3. Not a small one. A really big one, as Avataren's.
Lets try to look at this as objectivly as we can,math always is:)
22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q6s+, J7s+, T7s+, 97s+, 87s, A2o+, K6o+, Q8o+, J9o+, T9o, 98o ... the range i used for BU
9 splits vs 15%,looses to 3%,and beats 82%
T will improve us against about 45% of his range
3 improves us against about 45% of his range!
gives us 31% equity vs his range
Now lets assume the worst case scenario...lets say that our oponent will play perfectly,therefore we suffer huge reverse implied odds and have 0 implied odds. Lets do the math... pot after his flop bet is 5,4SB and we now invest 1SB to call...so 3,2BB
when 9 hits turn...
-15% of the time we win half (+1,6BB)
-3% of the time we loose(-2,5BB)
-82% of the time we win(+3,2BB)
---------------
total... +2,79BB
happens in 9%
when T hits...
- 55% we loose(-2,5BB)
- 45% we win(+3,2BB)
---------------
total.... +0,065BB
happens in ...6%
when 3 hits...
- 55% we loose(-2,5BB)
- 45% we win(+3,2BB)
---------------
total.... + 0,065BB
happens in... 6%
when hits...
- 31% we win(5,2BB)
- 69% we loose(2 BB)
--------------
total... + 0,232BB
happens in ... 21%
when nothing hits...
- 100% we loose(-0,5 BB)
------------
total .... -0,5BB
happens in... 58%
so together we get....
(0,09*2,79BB)+(0,06*0,065BB)+(0,06*0,065BB)+(0,21*0,232BB)-(0,58*0,5BB)= +0,017BB
Made a mistake first time... so even this is minorly +EV outcome,neglecting the fact that oponents will not play perfectly since they cant(they will loose at least a bit more when having a set vs straight,when they 3 barrel bluff,when they dont bet turn...
Also we havent looked at the river in each of those cases but since we looked at the worst scenario it can only benefit us...
I really had to do this...maybe made some mistakes somewhere,pls correct me if so but I think such factual analyses is a bit more constructive than blind accusation.
my 2 cent...
Originally posted by YohanN7
A big hole in the brain is needed to call with T3. Not a small one. A really big one, as Avataren's.
Im gonna find a mod to help me decide whether or not your going over the line again.
http://i.imgur.com/MvKWM6x.png
I have clearly been going over the line - again. I'll ban myself for a couple of days.
Wow, Dawnfall
You really nailed with that 0.017BB +EV. 
And I guess thats end of this thread!
Originally posted by gnananandan
Wow, Dawnfall
You really nailed with that 0.017BB +EV.
And I guess thats end of this thread!
You wish
Dawnfall, whom I respect, have pointed out the obvious fact that calculations are better than blind accusations. He is right. I was guilty of the latter (was drunk).
It suffices to point out that, even in the unrealistic scenario given, then there will be more bets going into the pot on occasion (on split when you both pay rake for additional bets). These bets are raked (with some 5%), so there goes your 1.7% of a BB.
It suffices to say, also and independently, that if the button elects to c-bet a tad less than 100%, then the range estimate (which I agree with otherwise) is off. There again, goes the calculation. Perhaps not the conclusion. We'll see.
I'll have more to say.
Quote: When we hit a 9, then (in the case we are beat) we lose 2.5BB.
This assumes, further, that not only the button is playing perfectly. So are we. In reality, we might be, at least, be tempted to profit the maximum (versus sets, draws) by 3-betting on the turn (or check-raising on the river) and following up on the river. (Would you find a river fold then?)
Seriously, you don't draw to a gutshot straight (ever) out of position getting 5.4:1 in order to check-call the rest of the way if you happen to hit the gutshot.
There is a similar remark (less relevant, but still relevant) when a T hits. Now you have a pair and a gutshot. Some players would automatically reraise unless you saw the opponents hole-cards.
EDIT: Amendment: Dawnfall's numbers have been used in many instances. I have not done my calculations in every detail because he's seemed to be accurate the first few.
In summary, Dawnfall's "worst case" isn't even close to a worst case analysis.
If you play (like, in practice, Dawnfall) in a rake-free environment, and are damned good, and the opponent has a little bit of a leak, then I buy Dawnfall's arguments.
If you are playing in a high-rake environment, and have suited trash, and aren't brilliant postflop, then fold it right away. Cheaper and better.
/***/
The rake isn't a puny little thing (percentage-wise). Five percent versus 0.5% makes a huge difference. Some hands are playable, others aren't. You'd be surprised with the difference between high and low rake if you cared to analyze it.
/**/
The assessment of anybody "playing extremely well" will apply to some extent in real life whenever either of the following conditions apply: That somebody has a draw or is in position. Position will win over draws period, because position wins when draws bust and position don't pay off if draws hit. I have tried to make this particular point as clear as I can.
True I did not include rake, I will make another calculation where I will extract 5% of every winning scenario and yes I do agree this factor is not neglectable.
Rest of your argument I dont understand...Can you please provide some math related calculations to disprove that we dont take the worst case example here. I think that I did it quite well...
When we call and improve to second best hand we will pay him max(that is 2,5BB)...here we are assuming that he will play perfectly and will be valuebetting every better hand!.
When we call and we improve we will win 0,5BB+pot and nothing more since again we are assuming he will stop investing money with second best hand. That seem trivially true that we took the worst scenario when we hit a pair on the turn.At the same time it seems trivial to me that he wont value bet every better hand when we hit a 3 for example or even when we hit T.
When we hit FD on turn I assumed that he will again bet every better hand as the worst case scenario(which is basically almost his entire range....again unrealistic as in reality he will check a portion of it. On the river then we will improve to 31% in which case we will gain 1 more bet(that he made on turn),when we dont improve we will loose 1,5 as we wont call river. I made it 2 since in some small % we will loose 2BB more when its flush over flush.
If we hit a straight I again took what I think is the worst case example since when we have the best hand I assumed we win just pot+1SB,when we split its a split and when we loose we loose max.
Pls provide some factual counter arguments to dissprove this. It would also be interesting to make an estimated calculation of a more reasonable scenario(where we dont take the worst scenario) and there this call become super easy imo.
Originally posted by Dawnfall26
True I did not include rake, I will make another calculation where I will extract 5% of every winning scenario and yes I do agree this factor is not neglectable.Rest of your argument I dont understand...Can you please provide some math related calculations to disprove that we dont take the worst case example here. I think that I did it quite well...
This is difficult, and is better subdivided. I'll try to make my point for some of the above mentioned this way: Just suppose for a moment that our flop call is not justified based on odds and outs alone.
Just suppose it. Then, if you do call on the flop, hit your out, then you would be wrong not to take maximum advantage of it. (I am appealing to basic game theory here.) It should be crystal clear that losing in this spot costs more than the cost of passively check-calling all the way and losing. Most people do mistakenly value bet, even against a perfectly playing opponent. You put the cost of losing the minimum into the equation. That is what's wrong.
Would you check-call all the way with a straight made on the turn? Perhaps, but I wouldn't even if I should.
But that is what my calculation proves.... that even if we just passivelly call our improved hands(even straight) and even if he plays perfectly we will hit our outs often enough to make it a proffitable call. I didnt assume we will win anything more than what is in the pot if we even improve to a better hand and always paying off if we improve to a second best hand. So if even such extreme scenario is about BE then its not even worth discussing any better outcome for us.
Imo the only thing that is debatable here is his preflop range and rake effect.
And I still have a feeling that you dont realise that even 3 or T are a pretty important outs for us. His range includes a lot of Ax,Kx,... which dont hit...in fact 3 or T will improves us against about 45% of the mentioned range.
Granted, you have a point. But you then have to assume that, in addition to the opponent playing perfectly, we are playing unnaturally.
The c-betting range and the rake are worth discussion as you say.
I may underestimate the value of hitting a 3 or a T, but I think you underestimate that we are out of position. If fireworks really breaks out, then he should usually have the upper hand.
I have seen a lot of instruction videos from here that talks about well over 30% equity to proceed beyond the flop. We are here talking about 28% at best.
You, and a few other good players may get away with it in a rake-free environment, but we at the micros don't. Even if you posted a graph with 100 000 hands where you end up winning, I wouldn't believe for a moment that the average fish is winning playing T3s.
[It is in my criteria for denominating a player a fish when they go too far with suited trash. I love having position on these. Besides, when I do play the hands myself, I'm marginally losing with them, so I'll certainly not play them until I have plugged bigger leaks I'm aware of. And, I'm not the player in the micro-section of PS with the biggest leaks, mind you! No trivial calls for fish here.]
If you make an equity call on the flop(you need cca 37% in a raised pot) that is if you intend to see a SD it has absolutely nothing to do with outs(well outs are included in the equity but anyway). Equity just states how often you will be good vs oponents range on the SD.
In this case calling is made just on outs...we dont intend to see SD unless we hit a card that we consider improves us. To call in such case we only need to have good enough odds and outs.
I dont understand what is natural/unnatural about any poker spot.
@Dawnfall
I should also say that I have learned a lot from this discussion. What I have seen as "easy" folds aren't that easy. Thank you for that.
EDIT: (Your post appeared before mine) Right, calling with the intention of seeing a SD or just one more card are different things.
