Calling for a split at best?

[BulldozerD]

Would you also consider the rake in your calculations as a reason for folding Dave?

[pleno1]

risking $89 to win $7.50 so there must be about 12x more combos of Ax than QQ, which there obviously is.

1) not to win 7.50 because of rake

2) he has more combos of Ax that get to the river, but it doesn't mean he plays them like this on the river

[cambridgealex]

but there's like 45 combos of Ax and 1 of QQ. Even if he plays only half of them like this it's still a nobrainer call.

[pleno1]

as a standard people jam this river less than 1% of the time, so we cant give him 45 combos.

[SuuPRlim]

its not even close to being a nobrainer call imo, I think my exact response to this would be to go "lol, ok" shake my head a little and click the fold btn without much thought at all.

I always get slammed for making these points but there is mental affects of the HU game to consider, its HU so people HnR/lock up all the time, you give your oppo the momentum, you put yourself under additional pressure being the first to lose a buyin etc, risking all this for a long term profit of like $1? Seems pretty pointless to me.

throwing away the odd bit of immediate EV in a bid to stay on top of the battle mentally is a very important part of HU play.

[pleno1]

yep.

[cambridgealex]

its not even close to being a nobrainer call imo, I think my exact response to this would be to go "lol, ok" shake my head a little and click the fold btn without much thought at all.

I always get slammed for making these points but there is mental affects of the HU game to consider, its HU so people HnR/lock up all the time, you give your oppo the momentum, you put yourself under additional pressure being the first to lose a buyin etc, risking all this for a long term profit of like $1? Seems pretty pointless to me.

throwing away the odd bit of immediate EV in a bid to stay on top of the battle mentally is a very important part of HU play.

agree

[Ironside]

I often find that players shove here with qx but maybe that's just at micro.levels

[pleno1]

why would they ever shove qx ? :S

[SuuPRlim]

I mean if we find ourself vs someone who has a 7x pot jam here with Qx in him then we defo wanna be calling

You thinking tournaments Iron? Defo different as the stacks are way shallower/people tend to click buttons way more randomly in MTT's than Cash (as a general rule)

[Beaver808]

I often find that players shove here with qx but maybe that's just at micro.levels

I agree, hence my "is this a level comment".

Down in the micros you've got "the next Phil Ivey" trying to bluff you off the pot with 5 high 99% of the time and showing up with QQ <1% of the time - I think in this situation the stakes become quite an important factor for the most part.

[SuuPRlim]

Well if you think he's bluffing/has a Q then click that middle button!

[rfgqqabc]

If we fold here we lose through reciprocality though, because we wouldn't play ace x this way. Or does it not matter here cos its such a rare spot. If we were playing this guy for 50k hands and this hand is 689th do we fold?

[DMorgan]

If we were playing this guy for 50k hands and this hand is 689th do we fold?

It would depend how he had been playing for the previous 688 hands.

Standard fold unless he's show that he's capable of spazzing around imo.

[Pinchop73]

Is the following theoretical statement true?...

'he needs to be bluffing more than X% for us to call'

Where X is the percentage of QQ combos (one) he has in relation to every other combination of hand he gets to the river with. (which incidentally for this specific hand, I feel is wider than simply Ax as its difficult to find case cards, and in a thinking players mind that river makes the probability of us actually having Ax having check called twice all the more unlikely, therefore its a decent card to bluff)

I totally get the momentum thing in a HU battle and understand that its a fold even though mathematics says differently, but curious to see if people think this statement has any validity. Ta