op, gs, bdfd,bdsd versus probable 2 pair shove

Nice hand reading, did he really have KT?

Hi,

usually when you flop a gutshot to go along with AA on boards where the are no straights or flushes possible in 3b pots you are never making a mistake stacking off.

Regards,

Skod

Originally posted by Skodljivec
Hi,

usually when you flop a gutshot to go along with AA on boards where the are no straights or flushes possible in 3b pots you are never making a mistake stacking off.

Regards,

Skod

well yes, but we are quite DEEP here?

The SPR is like 3,5. It's not that deep.

Regards,

Skod

lol the ante is a whole SB? that's ridiculous.

nh OP

Originally posted by kokot12345
Nice hand reading, did he really have KT?

yup

Uhm I don't know how you guys think this is some great move or some sort of soulread or whatever or never a mistake or even +EV for that matter and that this "wasn't so deep supposedly" SPR of 3,5 is plenty deep. Flop SPR PRE C-bet by Hero is smallest effective stack/floppot = 253/69= 3,67 SPR which equates to a break even stack off equity of 44%. I really don't know which function you use for calculating pot odds, but it is a mystery to me. Anyways, by your own account you have an average equity vs the (non-weighed) range you assigned to him of (KT**, KT4*, KQJT, KQT4,44**) which is 34,4% on the flop, which is nowhere near the 44% you need. If you calculate post Cbet SPR, you will get (253-46)/(69+46)= 207/115= 1,8, which equates to a break even equity of 39,1%, which you still don't have.

Imo this is a HUGE mistake from start to finish, max out raise with AA from OOP, then compounding it with a big Cbet OOP, after which you get raised, this guy has got you crushed, then given his range folding is still the preffered option after which you still stack off feeling potcommitted (which technically, you aren't as folding here is still +EV to stacking off), typical example of how NOT to play AA and I think you got superlucky with the board runout.

Hi,

after we get raised we need around 37% to brake even here. We have to cbet this board in the first place to protect our hand.

You are giving his range too thin as well. Hands like KT4 are non existant basically frequency wise, 44xx isn't often in their range either as people don't play 44xx often.

Also, you don't give single draw in his range, and this MP's range should be full of broadways and hands like KQJ, AQJ,QJ9 etc that he might jam as well.

Clear stackoff.

Regards,

Skod

Well after you get raised the call part of villains raise becomes part of the pot (making SPR now 207/151), or via pot odds you have to bet another 207 which is all you have behind after your cbet, so then it becomes 207 to win total pot of 575 (assuming villain will call it off 100% of time) which requires exactly 36% equity. Which you still don't have vs the range that OP assigned. You say oh well 44** is unlikely so we should take it out but he failed to put in KK**and TT** which should be part of a shoving range here, which would give us even less equity if we add these hands but delete 44, then it becomes 33%. So with 33% average equity vs this range, it is still a fold. Imo raise and Cbet is ok, but I don't like the sizing at all there on both streets. Typical example of betting 30 cents with 65% equity preflop and then another 253 cents with 35% equity max postflop which cannot be profitable.

Hi,

i put the range of villain on KT,KK,TT,AQJ,QJT,KJQ,QJ0,AKQJ and AKQ which is a very tight stackoff range vs someone who 3bets wider than AA, and our equity vs that range is 42%.

If hero only 3bets AA and never fold them postflop which is obviously bad on so many levels villains range might be tighter, but it's still around the necessary equity.

Regards,

Skod

If you tweak the range to what you think, then it becomes a different discussion, and obv if you create a stackoff range against which you have 42% you can stack off (I would not have argued with this obviously), it is just NOT what OP said he was very sure he was up against 2pair (+) and my answer to his question if he should still go all in vs the range that HE (not you Skod even if you disagree with it) assigned to villain is No. Apart from that, I have the strong impression (99% sure) villain knew exactly he was up against AA** and was able to play perfectly against this IP, which is bad for hero. Another discussion of course is taking the SPR post Cbet post raise, where the required break even stack off equity then becomes ever lower, but then you have to differentiate between if the going all in now after Cbet raise is still profitable (and like I said, with ever decreasing SPR here, going all-in becomes more of a necessity as the required BEEquity becomes lower, but not really +EV just +EV to folding) however, you should also look at the hand in total here and I think the play is wrong from start to finish, with the maxed out 3bet and then a pretty big pot OOP HU of already something like 35bb of which you would then Cbet arround 66% PSB, but then it goes very fast and you should ask yourself if this line doesn't put your hand face up (If I had ignored your cards and just had looked at your line, I would have said 90% sure AA**) and then after your Cbet raise, there is pretty much no way back anymore, and how nice is it then for villain to have top two and knowing which hand he is up against IP. I would always want to be villain here in this spot and more over, what hero did, is it really protecting your range, or is he isolating vs hands that have him beat, I tend to believe the latter. Overall, in PPT with PQL syntax, you can (I don't know the hand that villain had of course) but different hands vs AA** you can calculate until which SPR you can still call preflop 3 bet or 4bet with your type of hand, and a KT** without an ace here and say another broadway definitely falls into the category that if you can see hte flop with flop spr 3,6 and then still get your opponent with AA** to stack off, it is highly profitable.

Wall of text, hard to read ♦

You are basically saying that the OP knew he had KT and if he can stackoff with that right? Well if he "knew" villain had KT before villain did anything, then just c/c or c/f the flop obviously.

However hero can't possibly know that, so he should cbet.

On this flop our hand has 38% equity vs KT. You said before we need 36% to stackoff, so our stackoff is indeed correct here.

So i don't understand what the underlying question is, if you could point that out please

Skod

Haha ; ) ok well I will try keep it short. I wanted to say that if villain IP thought he was up against AA**, then calling a preflop 3bet with any KTB* type of hand will still be profitable if flatcalling will lead to a flop spr of 3,6 and player with AA** is still willing to stack off. So just from villains point of view IP.

The other thing I wanted to say is that yes you require 36% BE Equity now, but I was just trying to make the point of differentiating focusing on the now and the hand as a whole. A very black and white example would be you call 99 of 100 bb preflop and you go to the flop and somebody would ask: ok I only have a runner runner flush here or 5% equity, is calling off my last BB into a 200bb pot still "profitable"? Which shows my point of this play as a whole not being profitable, but perhaps calling the last 1bb is more profitable than folding seen in a vaccuum even though the hand is pure spew and not profitable seen as a whole. Same here, we could then also say ok what if villain Cbet 100% pot here and gets raised. Then you would have to say, ok calling it off here is even MORE "profitable" (as the SPR got lower with the 100% PSCBet vs 66% PSCBET) because after my full pot Cbet, I totally brought down the break even equity after villain raised me all in, and now calling it off becomes even "more profitable" which of course is not true; the only thing you do is making the threshold for HAVING to call it off lower, which is not the same as making the move more profitable. The only reason we came here at a 36% break even equity is because of the following scenario: max3bet OOP; 66% Cbet OOP, being put all in with villain being able to play perfectly against us IP. Ok, so then we come at the point where 36% is enough, but the bigger question overall is, should we have come to this point where call off 72% of our original stack with only 36% equity. That is why I like to always keep an eye out for initial flop SPR, post Cbet SPR and post Cbet+raise SPR and their corresponding BE stackoff equities to get a better view of correctness of play.

Lastly, my answer of having to fold in this spot was based on range given by OP and not any other range, see OP for range against which we have 34,4%.

That is all Skod! : ) Turned into a long post again : / hope you got my point this time.

Hi,

a few things to differentiate against. Defends in 3b pots are often profitable in plo. Keep in mind you obviously will not a) always 3bet AA, b) always go with it when you only flop an overpair.

Villain assuming we have AA can make a very big mistake. So if your question is would we bet/broke if we saw villains cards? Well definetly not. But we push an equity edge over most of his holdings, that's what makes a bet/stackoff correct.

Hero's op range he put villain on is obviously too narrow.

I hope we cleared things up now ♦

Regards,

Skod

Thanks Skod good discussion! : )