Required equity to call bluff catcher on Flop, Turn

    • GingerKid
      GingerKid
      Black
      Joined: 05.08.2007 Posts: 5,530
      Hi,

      I am not sure, how much equity for given pot odds in HU spot a bluff catcher requires to have +EV call? On river it is easy, we simply call if equity > pot odds, but on flop and turn this cant be applied since there are more streets to bet.

      Example:

      Hero has: A :club: K :club:
      Preflop hero open raises from CO, BU unknown reg calls, all fold.
      Flop : 8 :spade: 4 :spade: 2 :heart:
      Hero checks, BU bets 3/4 Pot, Hero?


      Since pot odds are 30%, what is the required equity vs villians range, to have +EV call? Can we simply say, if a hand has > X% equity, we call, otherwise fold? Or we need to factor in, how often is villian going to continue barreling on turn and river?
      Can we use for this EV estimation, the floating equation, with the modification that we dont have to bet unimproved when villian checks?

      does someone know some reference where I could read about this, or video?

      Thanks.
  • 6 replies
    • mbml
      mbml
      Black
      Joined: 27.11.2008 Posts: 20,694
      different hands have different playability.

      AK is much easier to play than 33 for example.

      You probably want to divide the pot equity by around 0.6-0.7 with most marginal hands
    • GingerKid
      GingerKid
      Black
      Joined: 05.08.2007 Posts: 5,530
      Originally posted by mbml
      different hands have different playability.

      AK is much easier to play than 33 for example.

      You probably want to divide the pot equity by around 0.6-0.7 with most marginal hands
      I am not sure if I understand what do you mean by "divide the pot equity". Does it mean we require 30-40% equity?

      I understand that playability is important. But for example, ATo have 45% equity vs villian bet range, and I am not sure if it is a call?
    • Tackleberry
      Tackleberry
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 05.05.2006 Posts: 1,668
      It´s impossible to convert equity into EV. That said it doesn´t make too much sense to take your equity or the pot odds on the flop as the guideline for constructing your defense-range.
    • GingerKid
      GingerKid
      Black
      Joined: 05.08.2007 Posts: 5,530
      Originally posted by Tackleberry
      It´s impossible to convert equity into EV. That said it doesn´t make too much sense to take your equity or the pot odds on the flop as the guideline for constructing your defense-range.
      It is not possible to estimate EV using purely equity, but it is possible if using equity + villians postflop stats, and range. off course it cant be accurate since equity and stats are inaccurate, but also using purely playability of hand is far away from accurate.

      For example, we can say 9hTh or AhKx has good playability, but if villian bets very tight we shouldnt call it.

      If we are analysing "optimal villian" then for that we make range and stats assumptions
      (as you were doing for 1 hour in your video nemesis using CREV), then from that we can convert equity into EV.
    • Tackleberry
      Tackleberry
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 05.05.2006 Posts: 1,668
      Originally posted by GingerKid
      If we are analysing "optimal villian" then for that we make range and stats assumptions
      (as you were doing for 1 hour in your video nemesis using CREV), then from that we can convert equity into EV.
      Certainly you can do that, but that´s not really a "conversion". :P

      As you likely remember, at no time I considered our equity, right? I just counted combos and took the ones with the highest EV, but I never compared pot odds to equity of different combos. That´s what I wanted to point out. ;)
    • GingerKid
      GingerKid
      Black
      Joined: 05.08.2007 Posts: 5,530
      I watched your video on a laptop screen where I couldnt see all details due to font size and too many details in CREV software, so I will watch it once again when I come home on bigger screen. I just understood the idea, but couldnt see the real implementation of those. Anyway, thanks for explaining this.