Hand reading at 1/2 NLHE 400+bb deep (1 Viewer)

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
they can also have hands like A4ss, A7ss and KTss.
"Can" is much different from how often they realistically have those. BB can just call those and close the action. In live 1/2 I think the chance that they 3bet and call a 4bet with A4ss, A7ss, KTss, 44, 77 is less than 1%. Those get called basically always. At least often enough that completely discounting them from the villain's range is a tiny mistake.

And I think the chance they jam AKss in turn is pretty small given the action. That's a pretty big spew as they have to assume they are getting called almost always. Not that some people won't do it, but it's again a really rare play.

You have to look at common realistic lines and not the outlier lines villain could take and the outlier hands they could have. It's not worth the mental energy to think about the weird things villains will do unless you know them well. And taking lines to combat possible weird plays or hands a villain MAY have some small % of the time is not going to win you the most money in the long run.
 

Moxie Mike

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Messages
2,493
Reaction score
2,649
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Suits are far from irrelevant.
I meant suits are irrelevant after the river card hits.

If you want to know exactly what I think Villain was holding, it's AKo with the ace of spades. I guess I need to call out the king too then? Call it the king of diamonds :)
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
"Can" is much different from how often they realistically have those. BB can just call those and close the action. In live 1/2 I think the chance that they 3bet and call a 4bet with A4ss, A7ss, KTss, 44, 77 is less than 1%. Those get called basically always. At least often enough that completely discounting them from the villain's range is a tiny mistake.

And I think the chance they jam AKss in turn is pretty small given the action. That's a pretty big spew as they have to assume they are getting called almost always. Not that some people won't do it, but it's again a really rare play.

You have to look at common realistic lines and not the outlier lines villain could take and the outlier hands they could have. It's not worth the mental energy to think about the weird things villains will do unless you know them well. And taking lines to combat possible weird plays or hands a villain MAY have some small % of the time is not going to win you the most money in the long run.
i'm not saying the two hands are equivalent but there're a lot of unlikely hands out there for them to spazz out with and they add up pretty quickly even if individually the probability is low. an often overlooked point is that - because the people who are frequently 3betting oddball hands are going to be 3betting so much more often, there's a much higher likelihood (knowing nothing about the player) that when you face a 3bet that it's from one of them than a nit.

would you really be shocked if someone 3bet and called any of those hands? this happens all the time, even if it doesn't get to showdown. i think people imagine it being more common online because they see so many more hands and are able to look at hand histories to see what other people are mucking - it happens live for sure, at all stakes. you just usually don't see it that often because people get sheepish about showing their hand unless they have to. the only time they cant resist showing is when their big pair gets cracked.

with any kind of a read it could alter the hand significantly but we have what we have here, and a random average 3bet in that spot is often not bladed.

wrt whether he'd bluff the turn - if you always have an overpair and are never folding them then he definitely shouldn't be bluffing, but that's not how a lot of people play. if old man coffee back raised 3x in position? i'd probably just fold preflop with AKs. but against an unknown 1/2 player i would credit there as being a decent number of wacky hands in there that don't make sense, a lot of them paired, and a lot of them folding to a big turn bet.

and even if it was against someone who was really nitty - the fact that it looks like such a hard spot to be bluffing is why people will consider making big folds. i'm not even sure what i'd do in that spot if i had kings and he donked all in on the turn. it doesn't make any sense, but the whole speech about wanting to take his money back on the flop makes it look WAY stronger overall. if someone knows that they've shown a sign of weakness to the whole table (even if it wasn't contrived/insincere) they're going to have some major reservations about making a bluff that requires you to think they're strong. which is why they probably are strong.
 
Last edited:

khp

Two Pair
Joined
May 18, 2021
Messages
425
Reaction score
307
Location
Have US and Singapore shipping addresses
So, it's very unlikely villain has 44, 77, any of the 2 pair combos given the preflop 3 bet and call of the 4 bet. While people at 1/2 aren't the best, they don't tend to 3 bet except for value.

If we assume villains "fold" comment is genuine, then villain can't have KQ, AQ, QQ, or KK. And generally, most spots like this are genuine. 98% of the time people aren't going this far to angle.

Villain can sometimes have JJ, but given there was only 400 behind into a 1100 pot, they would jam turn the vast majority of the time.

HERO has red AA, Ac came on the river. So VILLAIN almost certainly had AsKs and some occasional JJ.

VILLAIN does indeed end up having AsKs. Was going to fold to the large flop bet, but would call the small one with overs and back door nut draws.
This is interesting! I much prefer this format than the typical 20-30m video/podcast, keep posting them!
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
not saying the two hands are equivalent but there're a lot of unlikely hands out there for them to spazz out with and they add up pretty quickly even if individually the probability is low
If we assume he "spazzes" with 44, 77, A4ss, A7ss, and KTss and maybe some other pairs and suited As, how often would you think the average random 1/2 player is doing that from the BB against a player they basically know is going to be all in? Against a player they know it's going to be all in and a person that called in between? Now how about doing that and calling a 4bet back raise? Now how about doing all that AND playing to the river the exact way the hand went down? So you see the problem yet?

While you say the probability adds up, the multiplicative probability of all the things starts to diminish quickly. Let's say he can do this with one of those goofy hands 10% of the time, and I think that's generous for a random 1/2 player. And let's assume the flop mistake is not an angle, because it usually isn't. Then he decides to not raise turn with the sets only 30% of the time and it's basically always calling with the nut flush draw hands. For sets of 4s and 7s we are at like 3% of the time. And for nut nut flush draws we are at 7-10%. But the other 90% of his range are reasonable hands. It's not worth taking weird lines against these 10% kind of things. And I still think 10% is overestimating.
would you really be shocked if someone 3bet and called any of those hands?
Yes, unless I've seen something to the contrary.
this happens all the time
It really doesn't. Not in a 3bet and 4bet spot
wrt whether he'd bluff the turn - if you always have an overpair and are never folding them then he definitely shouldn't be bluffing, but that's not how a lot of people play.
Even a fish knows a 4bet is strong. They will almost always assume it's at worst AK. So if he thinks the HERO has something like AQ+ and JJ+ at the most generous, you still think they are going to just blast off with the nut flush draw on the turn? You are being very unrealistic.

Again, you don't do hand reading by thinking about the outliers. That week lead you to all sorts of bad decisions overall. Of course people are going to show up with some weird stuff some small % of the time, but that doesn't mean you should plan for it.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
If we assume he "spazzes" with 44, 77, A4ss, A7ss, and KTss and maybe some other pairs and suited As, how often would you think the average random 1/2 player is doing that from the BB against a player they basically know is going to be all in? Against a player they know it's going to be all in and a person that called in between? Now how about doing that and calling a 4bet back raise? Now how about doing all that AND playing to the river the exact way the hand went down? So you see the problem yet?

While you say the probability adds up, the multiplicative probability of all the things starts to diminish quickly. Let's say he can do this with one of those goofy hands 10% of the time, and I think that's generous for a random 1/2 player. And let's assume the flop mistake is not an angle, because it usually isn't. Then he decides to not raise turn with the sets only 30% of the time and it's basically always calling with the nut flush draw hands. For sets of 4s and 7s we are at like 3% of the time. And for nut nut flush draws we are at 7-10%. But the other 90% of his range are reasonable hands. It's not worth taking weird lines against these 10% kind of things. And I still think 10% is overestimating.

10% is high for a random player, i agree. but let's go through with details...

let's pretend 80% of players are pure nits and only 3bet AK and JJ+, and they always 5bet with AA. in fact they often don't even 3bet here with TT/JJ and AK, choosing to call half the time, and sometimes folding AKo and JJ to the 4bet. their initial 3bet range is about 2.5%.

- KK (6 combos) is not snap calling the river or giving that speech on the flop so we'll eliminate that.
- QQ (3 combos) queens will give this speech infrequently but could be as high as 1 in 6 times, ill say. call it 0.5
- AKss (1 combo diluted to 0.5 pre) is doing this most of the time on the flop and turn but not always since it may fold the flop, will once in a rare while bluff with a monster draw on the turn (barely impacts the math either way), and most importantly is much less likely to snap call on the river than the others. we'll call it 0.25
- AKs not spades (3 combos, diluted to 1.5 pre) likely to float flop, but still highly unlikely to call turn and probably won't snap river. 0.25
- AKo (12 combos diluted to 4 pre) makes no sense to call the turn, so we dilute that again and might not snap the river, so we'll call it 1.
- JJ (3 combos diluted to 1 pre) plays it like this every time on the flop, and about half the time on the turn. so we'll call it 0.5
- TT (3 diluted to 1.5) which never calls the turn or snaps river so zero

a total of about 2.5 weighted combinations, of which AKss i'd say is about 1 in 6.

so when you said "Suits are far from irrelevant. In fact, the whole point of the exercise is that you can actually almost narrow down the exact hand based on the suits in play."
... this isn't really true even if you're only looking at straight forward nits.


the broader point though - when you filter in the small number of spazz players,

there're about 20 combos of hands like nut flush draws (paired or otherwise), sets, QJs or other wonky two pairs that could reasonably play in this manner. only 1 in 5 players is ever 3betting these, and they're only doing it about half the time, and calling the 4bet about half the time they raise. that still leaves you with about 1 weighted combo. and they may not play the streets all like this, so again you're dwindling it down to maybe 0.75x (i think the nut draws, the wonky aces up and especially the paired nut draws play like this very often, the sets only about half the time).

but my point isn't that they're common, just that they comprise a non-trivial percent of the overall range when all these things are taken into account. if we're sticking with the 2.5 combos of nit hands, then these spazz hands are about a quarter of a random players range given these assumptions. or about 3 times the overall representation of AKss.
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
10% is high for a random player, i agree. but let's go through with details...

let's pretend 80% of players are pure nits and only 3bet AK and JJ+, and they always 5bet with AA. in fact they often don't even 3bet here with TT/JJ and AK, choosing to call half the time, and sometimes folding AKo and JJ to the 4bet. their initial 3bet range is about 2.5%.

- KK (6 combos) is not snap calling the river or giving that speech on the flop so we'll eliminate that.
- QQ (3 combos) queens will give this speech infrequently but could be as high as 1 in 6 times, ill say. call it 0.5
- AKss (1 combo diluted to 0.5 pre) is doing this most of the time on the flop and turn but not always since it may fold the flop, will once in a rare while bluff with a monster draw on the turn (barely impacts the math either way), and most importantly is much less likely to snap call on the river than the others. we'll call it 0.25
- AKs not spades (3 combos, diluted to 1.5 pre) likely to float flop, but still highly unlikely to call turn and probably won't snap river. 0.25
- AKo (12 combos diluted to 4 pre) makes no sense to call the turn, so we dilute that again and might not snap the river, so we'll call it 1.
- JJ (3 combos diluted to 1 pre) plays it like this every time on the flop, and about half the time on the turn. so we'll call it 0.5
- TT (3 diluted to 1.5) which never calls the turn or snaps river so zero

a total of about 2.5 weighted combinations, of which AKss i'd say is about 1 in 6.

so when you said "Suits are far from irrelevant. In fact, the whole point of the exercise is that you can actually almost narrow down the exact hand based on the suits in play."
... this isn't really true even if you're only looking at straight forward nits.


the broader point though - when you filter in the small number of spazz players,

there're about 20 combos of hands like nut flush draws (paired or otherwise), sets, QJs or other wonky two pairs that could reasonably play in this manner. only 1 in 5 players is ever 3betting these, and they're only doing it about half the time, and calling the 4bet about half the time they raise. that still leaves you with about 1 weighted combo. and they may not play the streets all like this, so again you're dwindling it down to maybe 0.75x (i think the nut draws, the wonky aces up and especially the paired nut draws play like this very often, the sets only about half the time).

but my point isn't that they're common, just that they comprise a non-trivial percent of the overall range when all these things are taken into account. if we're sticking with the 2.5 combos of nit hands, then these spazz hands are about a quarter of a random players range given these assumptions. or about 3 times the overall representation of AKss.
I still think you are assuming more people do this than actually do. 1 in 5 is very high. And you'd also have to assume such a player is capable of getting a stack up to almost 1k in 200cap buy in 1/2. That's just a REALLY small subset of people. And even IF they do, they don't do it all the time. Thus the weird hands represent a very small portion of the range. They have to be that type of player, have the hand, 3bet it pre, and pay it like they did post. While the reasonable hands will play this way WAAAAAY more often. It's small enough % that they have a weird hands on the river that taking it into consideration when hand reading and structuring your play isn't worth it if you don't know the player well. I don't know what people you have played with in your life, but I've not seen nearly the amount of bizarre hands you apparently have show up in spots like this.

And there aren't 3 combos of AK suited once the river comes. There is only 1. Pre, there are only 2. And only 8 combos of AKo pre.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
We’re rounding here to simplify. 1 in 5 is maybe too high for your most table LAGs but zero percent is too low for the other 80%. And there is a small subset who will 3bet those hands much more often than 1 in 5 dragging up the average.

You initially used 10% overall which I agree is high but, table spazzes 3betting these hands at that frequency translate to an overall frequency of less than 5%. Which is probably still high for hands like 44 but also low for hands like ATs.

ultimately this is all speculation because unlike online where we could run a basic query on population data. And it probably varies from one casino player pool to the next.

And there aren't 3 combos of AK suited once the river comes. There is only 1. Pre, there are only 2. And only 8 combos of AKo pre.

fair enough I wasn’t counting your cards being removed because I was ranging it purely based on action and flubbed AKo combos by a couple.

So sure from your perspective there should be about 1.5 total weighted combos for nits, of which AKs is about 0.25. So 1/6th as opposed to 1/8th of the range.

and then the “other” hands like two pair, top pair with nut flush draw etc. are a much higher proportion, representing closer to 40% of what you should expect to be shown from a random average player.
 
Last edited:

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
We’re rounding here to simplify. 1 in 5 is maybe too high for your most table LAGs but zero percent is too low for the other 80%. And there is a small subset who will 3bet those hands much more often than 1 in 5 dragging up the average.

You initially used 10% overall which I agree is high but, table spazzes 3betting these hands at that frequency translate to an overall frequency of less than 5%. Which is probably still high for hands like 44 but also low for hands like ATs.

ultimately this is all speculation because unlike online where we could run a basic query on population data. And it probably varies from one casino player pool to the next.



fair enough I wasn’t counting your cards being removed because I was ranging it purely based on action and flubbed AKo combos by a couple.

So sure from your perspective there should be about 1.5 total weighted combos for nits, of which AKs is about 0.25. So 1/6th as opposed to 1/8th of the range.

and then the “other” hands like two pair, top pair with nut flush draw etc. are a much higher proportion, representing closer to 40% of what you should expect to be shown from a random average player.
The whole point of this was that card removal and the flop mistake made narrowing down his exact hand by the river fairly easy. Especially when you give extremely small weight to the nonsense hands.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
It’s not just AKs by a long shot though. Not even if you give zero weight to the oddball hands.
Its still JJ much more often thank AKs based on your own assumptions, and not by a small margin.

Again no way to test the true frequency of weird hands being mixed in and ymmv but here’s an interesting prop bet to that point that could actually be tested (at least in theory if two people played in the same game) without needing a monster sample size…

Of hands where there’s an early position open and one or two flats, what percent of the time do you think the big blind will 3bet? You seem to be arguing it’ll be around 2.5-3%. I would bet even money on over 5%
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
It’s not just AKs by a long shot though. Not even if you give zero weight to the oddball hands.
Its still JJ much more often thank AKs based on your own assumptions, and not by a small margin.

Again no way to test the true frequency of weird hands being mixed in and ymmv but here’s an interesting prop bet to that point that could actually be tested (at least in theory if two people played in the same game) without needing a monster sample size…

Of hands where there’s an early position open and one or two flats, what percent of the time do you think the big blind will 3bet? You seem to be arguing it’ll be around 2.5-3%. I would bet even money on over 5%
No it's not JJ more often because of how the turn was played. The amount of time he is check calling JJ on the turn there is not very often. Certainly less than the 3 times as many combos there are of JJ than AsKs. There is only 400 behind into a 1.1k pot. If say upwards of 90% of the time he just jams JJ on the turn. So now on the river, JJ is far less likely.

And in a live game, the BB is just not going to 3 bet hands like A4, A7, 44, 77, etc because they can just close the action. Plus it's not like they are just going to win preflop there in this hand, the UTG guy is going to call nearly 100% of the time on the short stack. So whatever they 3 bet will have to win at showdown.

Again, I don't know how much live casino 1/2 you've played, but 3 betting is not very common. So little, it's shocking.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
No it's not JJ more often because of how the turn was played. The amount of time he is check calling JJ on the turn there is not very often. Certainly less than the 3 times as many combos there are of JJ than AsKs.

JJ has 3x as many combos raw, and i can't really argue with you that people aren't always shoving with sets - i mean, they clearly aren't ALWAYS doing it, but if you just say that you think the 'vast majority' are then what can i really say other than "i don't think so based on my experience"? but even if it was 80%,

do you not think that AK is less likely to call the riverbet? it's 40% pot, i think AKss considers a fold here. i sure as hell fold. it's a little bit convenient to not give consideration to that when you've been eager to rule out other possibilities.

let's say that they fold river with AK 1 in 3 times. and they shove JJ 80% of the time on the turn.
in that case AK and JJ are about equally likely.

maybe you think they never fold though. there seems to be a pretty big disconnect here in terms of what we see players doing at local games.

what you're describing sounds more to me like a $20 home game at a seniors center.
 

Talrem

Pair
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
209
Reaction score
150
Location
Staten Island, NY
Here is where the hand goes off the rails. VILLAIN thinks the bet is $75 and tosses out the $75 to call. He is corrected on the amount and then VILLAIN says he would fold if it was $175. Floor is called and rules the $75 must stay in the pot, and VILLAIN has option to fold or complete the call.
As soon as Villain said he would fold if it was $175 after being corrected, I would have argued that it was his move and argued with the floor to have their hand folded since he voiced his intent/action.

After reading the whole post I would have initially put the Villain on X-7 or pocket 8s, 9s, or 10s. Calling a $75 bet on flop but not a $175 means they have hit (not top pair) or a draw (but who would call a big pre-flop raise with low suited/off-suit connectors?…I do, sometimes :LOL: :laugh:).
To call and chase with AK is such a donk play.
 
Last edited:

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
As soon as Villain said he would fold if it was $175 after being corrected, I would have argued that it was his move and argued with the floor to have their hand folded since he voiced his intent/action.

After reading the whole post I would have initially put the Villain on X-7 or pocket 8s, 9s, or 10s. Calling a $75 bet on flop but not a $175 means they have hit (not top pair) or a draw (but who would call a big pre-flop raise with low suited/off-suit connectors?…I do, sometimes :LOL: :laugh:).
To call and chase with AK is such a donk play.
A few things:

Villain called the $75 indicates a call regardless of the bet amount. But the floor can and should be considerate to players that misunderstand action unless it's habitual. So forcing them to fold their hand is out of the question to me.

Calling AsKs for 25-33% pot bet is pretty standard on that flop in a 3bet/4bet pot. Calling $175 is a bit iffy as he is out of position. But once the turn comes and Hero bets 33% pot, Villain just can't fold for that price. There is only 40% pot left after that bet, and it's likely if he hits he gets all the money against any hand Hero is playing this way.
 

Talrem

Pair
Joined
May 20, 2021
Messages
209
Reaction score
150
Location
Staten Island, NY
A few things:

Villain called the $75 indicates a call regardless of the bet amount. But the floor can and should be considerate to players that misunderstand action unless it's habitual. So forcing them to fold their hand is out of the question to me.

Calling AsKs for 25-33% pot bet is pretty standard on that flop in a 3bet/4bet pot. Calling $175 is a bit iffy as he is out of position. But once the turn comes and Hero bets 33% pot, Villain just can't fold for that price. There is only 40% pot left after that bet, and it's likely if he hits he gets all the money against any hand Hero is playing this way.
I’m not saying the floor shouldn’t be considerate, I‘m just saying that if the guy said he would fold to the larger bet then that should have dictated his decision to complete or fold after his error.
If it were me I would have asked the floor if him saying that justified the folding of his hand. I‘d even let him take his $75 back just because he made the mistake.
I wouldn’t want him to stay in if he had a low pair with a chance to suck out on me with top pair.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
A few things:

Villain called the $75 indicates a call regardless of the bet amount. But the floor can and should be considerate to players that misunderstand action unless it's habitual. So forcing them to fold their hand is out of the question to me.

Calling AsKs for 25-33% pot bet is pretty standard on that flop in a 3bet/4bet pot. Calling $175 is a bit iffy as he is out of position. But once the turn comes and Hero bets 33% pot, Villain just can't fold for that price. There is only 40% pot left after that bet, and it's likely if he hits he gets all the money against any hand Hero is playing this way.

but is it really?

i think you said earlier that a 4bet is almost always a big pair (could be mistaken) but if you did, i think we'd at least find some common ground there. especially when the 3bet comes out of the blinds and action starts in early position. and if your 3bet ranging is correct then they really shouldn't be 4betting all that much. even with my liberal estimates for an 'average' players 3bet range it's not like you'd want to go that much wider. you're never 4betting here with tens, that's for sure. probably not jacks either. maybe some bluffs - but i think the subset of players who will 4bet here as a bluff is way, way smaller than who will 3bet light.

which is why I'd just be folding AK pre. and if im folding AK pre it's because i think, on this flop, that i generally have at most 3 outs and a bd flush draw, and sometimes only a bd flush draw - which is definitely not a great float against a 33% pot bet.
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
but is it really?

i think you said earlier that a 4bet is almost always a big pair (could be mistaken) but if you did, i think we'd at least find some common ground there. especially when the 3bet comes out of the blinds and action starts in early position. and if your 3bet ranging is correct then they really shouldn't be 4betting all that much. even with my liberal estimates for an 'average' players 3bet range it's not like you'd want to go that much wider. you're never 4betting here with tens, that's for sure. probably not jacks either. maybe some bluffs - but i think the subset of players who will 4bet here as a bluff is way, way smaller than who will 3bet light.

which is why I'd just be folding AK pre. and if im folding AK pre it's because i think, on this flop, that i generally have at most 3 outs and a bd flush draw, and sometimes only a bd flush draw - which is definitely not a great float against a 33% pot bet.
It's only a 25% pot bet. Villain is getting 5 to 1 with overs and two back door nut draws. Granted a lot of those are going to be ties, but still. Villain has almost 20% equity vs KK. He has this against a range of QQ+ and AK. And if he ever thinks Hero can have JJ or possibly AQ, then I don't think he can fold on this flop.

Screenshot_20210807-044747_Holdem Lab.jpg


Now if you want to make the argument that he should fold pre, I'm open to that. And I generally agree that a back raise is very strong in absence of specific reads. But you'd still have to be pretty sure it was only KK+ to fold AKs pre getting 2.6 to 1. But that's not what this exercise was all about.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
Sure, you’re trying to figure out the range of what an average person who flatted the 4bet would have given all lines. And that person is looser than we would be, and we disagree by how much.

still an interesting side discussion what they should have or how we’d play it, and what exact range we’d end up with

I think we agree AK/JJ is not “usually” 4betting here it’s just a matter of how rare it is. Do you weight those combos by 25%? 50%? 10%? I don’t know how to guess and this is a spot where you’d really benefit from any info to make a read because there are definitely a lot of people who 100% have kings + and some who always have exactly aces, and then a small number who will have AK, a smaller subset who will have JJ/TT/AQ and a tiny number who went completely nuts with something random. So sometimes you have 30%+ but mostly you have closer to 15%.

the problem from your perspective then, is that even if the weighted average produced an equity of around 20% … getting 5:1 you’re getting immediate odds (you only need 4:1) but you realize that equity so poorly out of position that it likely becomes a fold.

run a sim in pio and you’ll see that the equity needed to call out of position (especially when you have a significant range disadvantage) is higher than what you’d expect based on immediate odds. On a lot of runouts you’re forced to either put more in as a significant equity dog or are folding out whatever equity you have.
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
run a sim in pio and you’ll see that the equity needed to call out of position (especially when you have a significant range disadvantage) is higher than what you’d expect based on immediate odds.
Agreed. But this is a live game with average competition. The average player is likely not going to fold AsKs for $75 in this flop. Which is why I said it's pretty standard. It's standard for most live players, and even some decent players. I'm not saying I'd have played it like this if it was $75, but again the whole thing was hand reading based on an average live player. We've gotten pretty far from that now as we are really getting into the weeds in a way that doesn't make much sense for most live 1/2 games.

I still think it's pretty easy to put him in specifically AsKs and occasionally JJ on the river given the way the hand played out. And Bart Hanson who had this hand on his show and plays almost exclusively live right the same thing. He also essentially completely discounted the 2 pair, sets, and AKo. Because live players just about never have those hands in this spot.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
864
Location
Toronto
Something being standard and common are different things. Standard generally means you think it’s the correct play. ;)

As for barts analysis, do you have a link?

bart usually adds caveats to his predictions - would not expect him to completely rule out a lot of the other hands unless there was other info provided that wasn’t posted.
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
Something being standard and common are different things. Standard generally means you think it’s the correct play. ;)

As for barts analysis, do you have a link?

bart usually adds caveats to his predictions - would not expect him to completely rule out a lot of the other hands unless there was other info provided that wasn’t posted.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0G...2517wU_5vJww&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1

2nd episode of his free CLP podcast.
 

Legend5555

Full House
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Messages
2,851
Reaction score
3,793
Location
Georgia
I haven't listened to it since like Wednesday. I don't recall any significant caveats. I said essentially ruled them out as I'm not sure he 100% ruled them out. But I remember him saying it's just not a hand you expect to see very often. He goes as far as to say even JJ is really unlikely by the river.
 
Top Bottom