Board:
7d 4d 3c
Equity Win Tie
MP2 39.68% 39.29% 0.39% KdQd
MP3 60.32% 59.92% 0.39% 77+, 44-33, AdKd, AdQd, AdJd, AdTd, Ad9d, Ad8d, Ad7d, Ad6d, Ad5d, Ad4d, Ad3d, Ad2d
pessimistic range, 0% fold equity.
(0.397 x $10.07) - (0.603 x $4.63)
$3.99 - $2.79 = $1.20
pretty easy jam.
Originally posted by randomdonk
Board:
7d 4d 3cEquity Win Tie
MP2 39.68% 39.29% 0.39% KdQd
MP3 60.32% 59.92% 0.39% 77+, 44-33, AdKd, AdQd, AdJd, AdTd, Ad9d, Ad8d, Ad7d, Ad6d, Ad5d, Ad4d, Ad3d, Ad2dpessimistic range, 0% fold equity.
(0.397 x $10.07) - (0.603 x $4.63)
$3.99 - $2.79 = $1.20pretty easy jam.
that 10.07 number is wrong should be half that is net.
if does happen to have nut flush draws i'm boned, but again I doubt he shows up with them.
turn is kind of an awkward spot (which we avoid jamming otf btw) since we only need a few worse FDs and/or 1 pair hands in his range to call it off...
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
I showed a proof that if he has 88-JJ or equivalent my play is better
Well yeah sure if he has one of those specific 24 combos of hands AND donkbets the flop AND shoves the turn when he hits a diamond lower than his pair when he has a diamond in his hand but otherwise check AND if the turn is not a diamond he shoves, then your maths is totally right.
Anyone can make some convoluted assumptions about ranges and back it up with some ridiculous maths justified by specific, baseless actions.
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
that 10.07 number is wrong should be half that is net.
no, it's not. when all in, 39.7% of the time u win the whole pot ($10.07).
oh yeah pot is actually 9.65 after rake. so u actually win 21bb every time u jam, not 24 ♦
Originally posted by randomdonk
oh yeah pot is actually 9.65 after rake. so u actually win 21bb every time u jam, not 24 ♦
no the point is your net win is (10-5), not 10
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
Originally posted by randomdonk
oh yeah pot is actually 9.65 after rake. so u actually win 21bb every time u jam, not 24 ♦no the point is your net win is (10-5), not 10
It is calculated with the actual pot we win. The money that is in the pot is not our money anymore.
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
I showed a proof that if he has 88-JJ or equivalent my play is better (based on the assumptions I made, which were probably correct given that he had 75o), and you challenge the assumption that he has as weak as 88-JJ even though he had 75o. Your entire argument is based on a joke read that the player is strong here and he's demonstrably not. Show me some hands from your own database where player donks pot with nuts. It doesn't happen and if you say it does I don't believe you, so show me the receipts.
I would say your argument that he can have 88-JJ is based on the result of this hand, not on population reads. And btw, 75o has more equity here than JJ, so basically he is donking with a better hand than 88-JJ so we can not assume that he will do the same with a worse hand like JJ.
You should respect more the pot donk on flop. If it was of lesser size it could be attacked...
Originally posted by la55i
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
Originally posted by randomdonk
oh yeah pot is actually 9.65 after rake. so u actually win 21bb every time u jam, not 24 ♦no the point is your net win is (10-5), not 10
It is calculated with the actual pot we win. The money that is in the pot is not our money anymore.
Well surely I can't make the decision to jam if all my money is already in the pot.
Originally posted by NothingIsForSho
I showed a proof that if he has 88-JJ or equivalent my play is better (based on the assumptions I made, which were probably correct given that he had 75o), and you challenge the assumption that he has as weak as 88-JJ even though he had 75o. Your entire argument is based on a joke read that the player is strong here and he's demonstrably not. Show me some hands from your own database where player donks pot with nuts. It doesn't happen and if you say it does I don't believe you, so show me the receipts.
You have a lot to learn.
Also, why did you post the hand in the first place when you have the "unquestionably proven" answer? Reread the thread and note that everyone says "call" except you.
I did not say the player is necessarily strong, I said he has equity. Here he has top pair with a gutshot (if we are going to be result-orientingly wise after the event (which is easy enough), this is another one of your misconceptions, what he actually held is largely irrelevant). This is probably a favorite versus your hand, need Equilab to confirm or refute, close anyway. This is pretty much the weakest you can expect to see unless the guy hates money.
Like CPallo said, you are either a tiny favorite or a huge dog, and "putting someone on a hand" is just so so silly (another thing you have to learn). You need to put him on a range. Even if your read is 90% correct, the 10% you are off will invalidate your "proof" entirely because it is so close - and nobody is even close to be 90% correct. Add to that that you make predictions (with 100% certainty) about his future reactions.
You said that you didn't want to discuss pre-flop. Whether you like it or not, here's a piece of advice: KQ, whether suited or not, is one of the worst hands to 3-bet a UTG raiser with. Raising J♦:T♦: or even 7♦:6♦: is better. Can you see why?
You really have a lot to learn.
Originally posted by YohanN7
You said that you didn't want to discuss pre-flop. Whether you like it or not, here's a piece of advice: KQ, whether suited or not, is one of the worst hands to 3-bet a UTG raiser with. Raising J♦:T♦: or even 7♦:6♦: is better. Can you see why?
I'm not sure I agree with that, KQ has blockers to KK/QQ/AK. I mean, it's too strong to 3bet bluff but if you're going to do it...
Originally posted by MJPerry
Originally posted by YohanN7
You said that you didn't want to discuss pre-flop. Whether you like it or not, here's a piece of advice: KQ, whether suited or not, is one of the worst hands to 3-bet a UTG raiser with. Raising J♦:T♦: or even 7♦:6♦: is better. Can you see why?I'm not sure I agree with that, KQ has blockers to KK/QQ/AK. I mean, it's too strong to 3bet bluff but if you're going to do it...
Are you happy if you hit a K or a Q? You will often be dominated, but you will rarely (never vs tight UTG) dominate UTG. It is very hard to win a big pot. You can steal the small ones with J♦:T♦: or 7♦:6♦: just as easily + you can make nut hands with these on boards that might not seem as dangerous to your opponent.
And about blockers; When I play, say, 7♦:6♦: in this spot with a raise (requires deep stacks, more than 100bb), I really don't mind him having AA/KK. Blockers are undoubtedly good in deciding whether to go AI or bluff, but I'm talking about situations where I expect a call (if he folds, it is just a bonus).
If he doesn't fold right away on the flop (now we have KQ and hit), we can't think much more about our blockers, since more reliable information (he called) is available.
Obviously it's not a value 3bet.
I agree with YohanN7. If it was blind battles and we are oop (SB) I think we can merge our range and 3bet KQs since villain often makes a mistake and cold calls with worse hands but since we are IP and vs UTG I wouldn't 3bet KQs. It is too strong to 3bet as a bluff. And what YohanN7 said about JTs and 76s is true imo.
Originally posted by MJPerry
Obviously it's not a value 3bet.
Me? Value-3bet?
I am primarily a small-pot thief and a big-pot-hogger if the opponents and/or cards allow me:D
The Artist Formerly Known as PokerStrategy.com's Online Editor 
