|
poonjoe
|
 |
« Reply #14 on: October 01, 2009, 04:28:39 PM » |
|
Is this player capable of playing a flush draw this aggressively? Does is utg range include hands like 74s or TQs??
Unless the answer was yes to both these questions I would have said fold here personally. The bet sizing of his flop lead, raise and turn shove tell me that he is the one with a made hand, very scared of the draw he perceives you to have.
Then I actually sat down and did the maths. I got a bit carried away with this and look forward to having my mistakes corrected....
When he shoves the A its unlikely he has TT-KK so whats his range?
88 & 99 - 6 combos (very likely to have raised utg and played the hand like this)
AhKh & JhTh - 2 combos (very likely to have raised utg and played the hand like this)
67s - 4 combos
QhJh - 1 combo
Ah8-6h - 3 combos
Kh8h - 1 combo
AhQ-Th - 3 combos
AA - 6 combos
67o - 12 combos (unlikely to have raised utg)
6h3h,6h4h,7h4h,Th7h,Jh7h,QhTh - 6 combos (unlikely to have raised utg)
KhQh,KhJh,KhTh,A2-4h - 6 combos (unlikely to have played the hand like this)
T7, JT (one or no hearts) - 30 combos (unlikely to have played the hand like this).
OK so we have 8 combos as prime suspects, 18 combos as moderately likely culprits, and 54 unlikely explanations. Lets also make an allowance for wild bluffs of, say, another 12 combos. So thats 92 total combinations.
Weight the range by increasing the number of prime suspects and decreasing the unlikelies + wild bluffs. Lets say he holds the prime suspects three times more often than the moderately likely combinations, and lets also say that he holds the unlikelies and wild bluffs three times less often than the moderates. So multiplying the 8 x 3 gives 24 and dividing the 54 by 3 gives 18, and dividing the 12 by 3 gives 4. So now we have 24 + 18 + 18 + 4 = 64 total combinations.
Yes the 'three times more likely' bit has been plucked out the air but we can play around with that later to find our break even point. If the shove on the turn is a pot-sized bet we need 33.3% equity to call.
Finally the pokerstove bit
24/64 times he has (88,99,AhKh,JhTh) and on that turn we have 20.7%
18/64 times he has (67s,QhJh,Ah8h,Ah7h,Ah6h,Kh8h,AhQh,AhJh,AhTh,AA) and we have 48%
18/64 times he has (67o,6h3h,6h4h,7h4h,Th7h,Jh7h,QhTh,KhQh,KhJh,KhTh,Ah4h,Ah3h,Ah2h,JTo,JcTc,JsTs,JdTd,T7o,Tc7c,Ts7s,Td7d)
and we have 68%
4/64 time he has a random hand and we have 92.7%
So (24/64 x 20.7) + (18/64 x 48%) + (18/64 x 68%) + (4/64 x 92.7%)
= 7.76% + 13.5% + 19.13% + 5.79%
= 46.18%.
Looks like the set of fives is massive, but obviously its a matter of guesswork as to how you weight his range. Even if we assume that he is SEVEN times more likely to have the sets and the AhKh/JhTh, than his moderately likely hands, AND seven times less likely to have the unlikely hands, we STILL have almost 33%.
Change his range so he has a set or AhKh or JhTh 80% of the time and the equity of a set of fives drops to 29.4%.
This is only becomes a clear fold if this guy is basically a very straightforward or very tight player.
Obviously if you have good stats on his utg opening range you can make a much more accurate estimation.
Its a familliar concept against any kind of tricky/bluffy player - you have to call because there are many more ways for him to have a semi-bluff or bluff than there are ways for him to have a massive hand.
|
Author