KJ - 2 hands

First hand: Good disciplined fold.

Second hand: Calling for odds and outs is not really okay since he has only $2 left.

First hand is fine. Second hand I would fold OTT. Villain is super short stack so there is not much implied odds when we hit and there is some reverse implied odds, like that Tc OTR, villain could have a flush there.

Second hand - Easy call OTT with nut flush and nut guts for 33% of pot with 66% of pot implied behind.

Calling that an "easy fold" because one of our straight draw outs and one of our flush draw outs (Qs) are a little bit dirty is funny. Vs our opponents range at this point our J outs are still good outs alot of the time, and heck we are still in front with the 3rd pair sometimes as well. That A is a fantastic barreling card for anyone who opened with something like 9cTc or 9sTs.

Folding OTT there with such equity is crazy.

Edit - and I didn't even factor in that the 183 hand read on the villain is a very solid "idiot" read. No folds here, no way, no how, nope, never, not a chance.

first hand, if u dont have information Ft3b , then u should sqzee other hands that no be pretty dominated.
second hand :i think vs a fish we have a ton of implied odds then u can call profitable, river is ok he has alot 2 pairs

Calling that an "easy fold" because one of our straight draw outs and one of our flush draw outs (Qs) are a little bit dirty is funny.

That is why no one said it was easy.

But let's get real. Villain opens, bets flop and then pots turn when second FD opens up. My best guess is he wants to protect his made hands. To be fair, I added those 9Ts with FD and some AcXc hands. Here is the range I constructed, please tell me what do you think about this:
JJ+,55,AQs,KTs,QJs,AcKc,Ts9s,Tc9c,Ac5c,Ac4c,Ac3c,Ac2c,AQo-AJo,KTo,QJo

With this range we really only get 29% and we need around 33%. I don't know how are you planning to get huge implied odds when playing against villain who has 37BB stack?

Villains stats and stack size implies that he is a fish, true. But very high vpip and low pfr + low 3bet% tells me that he doesn't open raise very weak hands. It also implies that villain might be quite passive and here he is betting very big.. It is not a bluff, that is for sure.

Yes, we have J outs but those are not good if villain has AA,JJ,QQ,55,KT. Even when he holds hands that we would beat with our trips he has equity against us.

Considering these factors I think you need pretty strong argumentation to justify you saying this is not a fold, never, no way, no how, not a chance.

I did some more calculations and it seems that calling is quite close so maybe villains stack is enough for us to get implied odds. Still this doesn't change my mind since I did not count in reverse implied odds, which are HUGE imo. We could easily face a cooler (FHvTRIPS, straight v flush etc..). That river card for example made a straight but villain can have a flush. + my range was kind of optimistic because I gave him so many flush draws...

The best you can get in terms of implied odds is nearly exactly 4:1 on a turn call. For this you need about 9 nut outs and a 100% guarantee that villain stacks off river. I don't see that 100% guarantee anywhere. Even when calculating we have 12 nut outs (which we do not have), we need a 75% guarantee that villain stacks off.In reality you will also split on a T some times and get fucked by a FH (on Q♠: ) or a flush (on T♣: ).

This is a close but trivial mathematical fold.

thanks for the advice.

But are we really supposed to think like this while playing 4 tables and a timebank of 30 sec ?

I mean : we can be supposed to think like this but how realistic is it ?

Originally posted by schelleXL
thanks for the advice.

But are we really supposed to think like this while playing 4 tables and a timebank of 30 sec ?

I mean : we can be supposed to think like this but how realistic is it ?

Well, you can't calculate that while playing. As Yohan said this was close but trivial mathematical fold.
The main point is that while playing you should think about villains range, your equity,implied odds and reverse implied odds (take into consideration villains small stack size) etc.. That is possible. The more you review your hands and think things through the easier it is to consider all of these factors very quickly while playing.

In this kind of situations, when in doubt, folding is ok.

First hand is ok.
Second hand, fold and call are pretty close. I prefer folding.

It isnt a mathematical fold. Your math is out.

If the villain brokes 100% OTR we are getting 4 to 1 on our call and only need about 20% equity.

If the villain brokes only half OTR we still average 3-1 and only need about 25%.

To put it in perspective we have 25% vs sets and 27% vs AcKc.

This is a very easy call OTT, IP, especially vs loose passive villain who is only folding bluffs OTR.

Edit - play the villain for a moment. The river comes Tc here completing all draws for us. You hold AA or QQ. Can you x-f?

Now you hold AQ or AJ. Can you x-f?

Be honest.

Now remember this villain is a loose passive and factor that in to your folds or calls. This villain would x-c that river with his Ac9c. Id offer 5 to 1 to bet on that.

Originally posted by Jaissica
It isnt a mathematical fold. Your math is out.

If the villain brokes 100% OTR we are getting 4 to 1 on our call and only need about 20% equity.

If the villain brokes only half OTR we still average 3-1 and only need about 25%.

To put it in perspective we have 25% vs sets and 27% vs AcKc.

This is a very easy call OTT, IP, especially vs loose passive villain who is only folding bluffs OTR.

Edit - play the villain for a moment. The river comes Tc here completing all draws for us. You hold AA or QQ. Can you x-f?

Now you hold AQ or AJ. Can you x-f?

Be honest.

Now remember this villain is a loose passive and factor that in to your folds or calls. This villain would x-c that river with his Ac9c. Id offer 5 to 1 to bet on that.

+1

We get really attractive odds here and someone with stats of 40, I would call here. We could face many 2P as well. I like calling down

Originally posted by Jaissica
It isnt a mathematical fold. Your math is out.

If the villain brokes 100% OTR we are getting 4 to 1 on our call and only need about 20% equity.

If the villain brokes only half OTR we still average 3-1 and only need about 25%.

To put it in perspective we have 25% vs sets and 27% vs AcKc.

This is a very easy call OTT, IP, especially vs loose passive villain who is only folding bluffs OTR.

Edit - play the villain for a moment. The river comes Tc here completing all draws for us. You hold AA or QQ. Can you x-f?

Now you hold AQ or AJ. Can you x-f?

Be honest.

Now remember this villain is a loose passive and factor that in to your folds or calls. This villain would x-c that river with his Ac9c. Id offer 5 to 1 to bet on that.

No dude, my math is rarely out, and not in particular this time. What may be out is my assessment that villain stacks off less than 75%.

You also completely forget that you will sometimes split and sometimes get fucked by nuts. You are also entirely sure that villain stacks off with A9 on a 4-straight 3-flush board.

It is sort of funny. When people make bad posts (including me) they vigorously defend their original viewpoint. "This is a very easy call". Lol. Not even admitting it is close.

Yeah ♦ I was gonna say that my math might be incorrect but I really trust Yohan's math here.

If the villain brokes 100% OTR we are getting 4 to 1 on our call and only need about 20% equity.

Dude we are talking about calling turn, we are not yet OTR. If we call here and see OTR we might get that 4 to 1. But when river is a blank, we have 4% equity against his range.

One thing that I do not understand is why people do not see those reverse implied odds. Any J and we might be fucked, same goes for K and any club.. Really our only clean outs are spades that does not pair the board.

Hmm..., 

... if the villain brokes 100% OTR we are getting 4 to 1 on our call and only need about 20% equity.

is actually correct. It is not the math that is disputed, it is the assessment about villain stacking off every time and, as you point out, the impurity of the outs.

Only two of the outs are dirty, of course, and both against mutually exclusive segments of the villain's range. Maybe having to split is hardly dirty, though I guess it does have a small negative impact on our overall EV. The Qs being far more dangerous than the Tc against the villains cbetting range OTT.

I'm still happy to defend my first impression - that this a snap call against this villain on that board. We could go further and do a full mathematical analysis of the ranges, possible results OTR and spend a while disagreeing on what range a 40/7 loose passive can fold for his last $2.16 at a $3.35 pot. Ultimately I think it would support my opinion that there is a clear enough edge to continue OTT.

Without going quite so deep, against a range of only two paired hands (but no 5x), AK, a little wider group of Acxc hands, sets and already completed straights we have 27.5% OTT. If the villain doesn't fold any of this range OTR we have a clear edge (only requiring 20%) that will easily account for the instances where we see Qs and still lose to a boat, or level ourselves into making a questionable call on a K or J river. Mind you, against that range, we still win 70% of the time with the Qs and 80% with the Tc. These outs are not even as dirty as they could in other spots. Kh we only win 15%, while Jh brings us to 55. Any hand we can still beat when Kh hits is probably giving us a check behind anyway.

Obviously this comes down to a pain point of how often the villain can fold. If this villain could x-f their weakest two pair here - with the river as played - then you would possibly have your mathematical fold. With this villain profile I would be absolutely stunned by a fold in that hypothetical. Many regs would struggle to let go of QJ in that spot.

What is really important today is that gravitational waves have finally been detected. Einstein's triumph is total:f_biggrin:

Was indeed again a great day for science

I was sent a link on youtube of a guy trying to make a coherent argument that it takes "more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in god".

He even kind of succeeded, if one wasn't scientifically literate enough to know when he was being a moronic pork chop