K2s - FD - correct pot odds decision?

R flop is fine. C flop is also fine, too.

as played C turn (MDF, doh!).

dont be afraid to play bigger pots. true, sometimes you will draw dead to AA, A8, 99, 98s, but on the other hand you will still overflush villain w some frequency.

river Q♠ : leading small and XR all-in will have similar EV, more important is to take the same line w 7♥6♥.

Fold preflop. As played fold on flop. It's hard to play that hand OOP. When he is betting pot of flop and 80% on T you are only drawing to the flush witch you don't have pot odds. All In is to spewyon my opinion especially that deep there is a big SPR ratio there. when the pot on the T is 23bb

Originally posted by Maxu4ever
Fold preflop. As played fold on flop. It's hard to play that hand OOP. When he is betting pot of flop and 80% on T you are only drawing to the flush witch you don't have pot odds. All In is to spewyon my opinion especially that deep there is a big SPR ratio there. when the pot on the T is 23bb

This is a +EV call pre-flop for sure.

Originally posted by Maxu4ever
It's hard to play that hand OOP.

look, you cant fold everything, that is hard to play. this is not how edges are created. this is leading to a redline falling like a rock.

to verify my line, i have solved this hand for you. here are the results:

as expected the flop is a mix of calls and raises. folding is out of the question.

on the turn we have the same picture. our holding is way to good to be folded, as ranges are wide.

on the river i thought, the machine would lead w some frequency, but it didnt. as the board is paired raising is thin, so it calls most of the time. vs a weaker player i would consider raising w a way higher percentage.

Originally posted by Pokamon

Originally posted by Maxu4ever
It's hard to play that hand OOP.

look, you cant fold everything, that is hard to play. this is not how edges are created. this is leading to a redline falling like a rock.

to verify my line, i have solved this hand for you. here are the results:

as expected the flop is a mix of calls and raises. folding is out of the question.

on the turn we have the same picture. our holding is way to good to be folded, as ranges are wide.

on the river i thought, the machine would lead w some frequency, but it didnt. as the board is paired raising is thin, so it calls most of the time. vs a weaker player i would consider raising w a way higher percentage.

Very interesting, this is GTO? and applicable for NL2?

this is solver output, so this is as close as it gets to GTO.

you would certainly win w a decent WR at 2 NL playing GTO (i havent tried. also i am not able to play GTO as you have seen from my analysis above).

you could even boost your WR by understanding GTO and deviating in the right spots.

lets look at the flop:

the raising frequency is 7,5%. on 2 NL this frequency will be a lot lower and probably value (sets) and semi bluffs only. so here is a proper spot to deviate and overfold. on the other hand the c-bet frequency will be close (probably slightly higher). so defending GTO (or somewhat more) will be the right thing to do.

Originally posted by Pokamon
this is solver output, so this is as close as it gets to GTO.

you would certainly win w a decent WR at 2 NL playing GTO (i havent tried. also i am not able to play GTO as you have seen from my analysis above).

you could even boost your WR by understanding GTO and deviating in the right spots.

lets look at the flop:

the raising frequency is 7,5%. on 2 NL this frequency will be a lot lower and probably value (sets) and semi bluffs only. so here is a proper spot to deviate and overfold. on the other hand the c-bet frequency will be close (probably slightly higher). so defending GTO (or somewhat more) will be the right thing to do.

GTO is on my agenda, but not for now. First I want to apply play a lot more hands and really understand and apply the fundamentals

GTO actually is the fundamentals.

Originally posted by monteCarlol
GTO actually is the fundamentals.

this and how else do you want to figure out, whats right and wrong?

pot odds is dated, for instance. when you play according to pot odds, you will overfold a lot. so by picking up the old stuff, you will create bad habits, losing plays and a lot of headache.

Originally posted by Pokamon
pot odds is dated, for instance. when you play according to pot odds, you will overfold a lot. so by picking up the old stuff, you will create bad habits, losing plays and a lot of headache.

When considering pot odds, you also need to factor in implied odds, and while it may be an old concept, no amount of game theory will save you if you keep chasing draws that will lose money in the long term.

My problem with these "optimal" solver charts is that the level of detail isn't possible to memorize by human beings (at least this human being anyway).
Pot odds though -- and even implied odds -- can be done in your head as you play. When you adjust that for stack sizes and opponents tendencies you get awfully close to what is optimal.

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
My problem with these "optimal" solver charts is that the level of detail isn't possible to memorize by human beings (at least this human being anyway).

sure, you can not memorize to raise K2s w 16% frequeny and to call it w 84% frequency, especially as those numbers will change on any board, but when you look at those spots frequently, looking for patterns, you will find them. one pattern is to defend NFDs in the BB by raising w a low frequency and by calling the rest. you have to options to execute this: to use a randomizer, or to choose 2 combos to raise and call the rest. the solver usually wants to raise the combos w extra equity w a higher frequency, so i use them only. i would raise KTs and K7s and call the rest. when you backtest this w the optimal strategy, you will find out, that the EV loss is negligible.

when working w a solver usually the recommendation is not to learn the charts, but to understand them. raising c-bets has a lot of benefits, the most important being denying equity to random bluffs. when you lower the raising frequency, the c-bet percentage goes up dramatically. this is how a solver delivers answers to our questions.

using pot odds is like going to a butcher instead of a dentist to extract a tooth, cause thats what your ancestors used to do.

Deciding on the frequency is interesting.
For example, I will flat AA vs UTG if both my cards are "black" -- eg A♣:A♠:
Post-flop a lot of decisions are based on what I know of the other players.

Game theory also presumes that the other players actually notice what you do.
If they think that they have noticed what you do, change it.

If your solver recommends a particular play -- like the K♠:2♠: in this hand -- then I'm going to guess that this has correct pot odds for whatever action is recommended. So in a sense, you're still using

Originally posted by Pokamon
using pot odds is like going to a butcher instead of a dentist to extract a tooth, cause thats what your ancestors used to do.

Odd that you should use that analogy, since I had a tooth extracted a week ago, and judging by the way my face feels, it was a butcher that did it.

ouch, get well, Vorpal!