lots of outs... what now?

[SuuPRlim]

Just call the turn for reasons given, this raise size is a total trainwreck, because as you've played it I think you have to play guessing games vs turn re-raise and I think you're veyr nearly at a point where you have to shove the river, 310 back and 580 in the pot with the range you're now repping and the price you're getting on a river jam it's pretty close....

Obviously, shoving the river is gross because you're losing the pot AT LEAST half the time, I think it'd be a bad play to shove the river here, but I think raising the turn and not shoving the river COULD WELL BE EVEN WORSE...

Does that make sense?

Pads makes a gd point with the JJ hand, I remember on that live stream I played a hand where I just called a raise in the BB with TT and chk/snap folded KJ7 vs Walster's 24cc , just think how the hand is going to play out and if trouble seems iminent then just bailing is often the best way. Sometimes deep stacked you just have to let people have the pots, even when you have hands that are very likely to be favorite over the opposition range - I'd like folding the turn here way way more than what you did.

Jamming the turn might have some merit but I worry you're against the wrong players.

[wazz]

My first thought was that it reminded me a little of this hand - takes a while to get interesting, after like 50 or 60 posts where CF says what he has and his thought process.

If you have a 'break even call' you have lost the pot. I explained this to you a while back.

Can you explain this concept please?

[wazz]

In a bit more detail:

You don't have to play this hand preflop. I believe we make half as many straights as a pure connector and we get coolered by higher flushes sometimes where we want to be doing the coolering. I don't think I would play it more than like a quarter of the time and that's when I've been card-dead and quiet for hours (so bored and want to play hands, and have a tight enough image that I can get away with opening a suited 1-gapper in EP).

Flop call is fine, but the turn I'm afraid reeks of FBS - fancy bluff syndrome. I'm very familiar with it myself - it's a cognitive bias where you seek information that increases the likelihood of your opponents folding and discount information that suggests they have good hands. That might come in the form of made-up live reads, or a hand that you remember playing against them a few months ago, or reading something into his bet-sizing where he's not even thinking that deeply about it himself.

While selling a hand isn't as important against people who can't handread particularly well, you're still representing exactly 79 here; a 79 that may not open pre, that may not even call the flop unless it came with hearts, and when it has hearts it often raises the flop. Instead you look like a weak Kx with possibly the x of hearts. You're trying to get two guys to fold, one of whom has shown a propensity not to fold ever.

My main attempt in this post is trying to shine some light in your head to the idea that it's very easy to try to justify the thing that you like to do (fancy play, big bluffs etc) by looking for things that back you up and not looking for things that don't. Once you realise this, it becomes easier (though not painless) to recognise this in yourself after the fact, but it's still very difficult to internalise and avoid in the middle of hands. But it is necessary.

[SuuPRlim]

If you have a 'break even call' you have lost the pot. I explained this to you a while back.

Can you explain this concept please?

The "theoretical aim" in a poker hand is to present your opponent with a decision which leaves him in-capable of making an obviously good play, in affect leave him guessing, he way well stumble into the right decision for that one specific spot on that instance, but as he didn't know what the correct play was, its safe to assume that if you gave him the spot 1000 times he'd be making a LOT of "bad" decisions (for that vacuum)

If for example he has a situation where one decision breaks even for him, and another loses then it is, by theory, impossible foe him to win this hand - irrespective of the results the person who has laid the decision has "won"

Spose you;re in a spot vs me where the EV of a call is 0, and the EV of a fold is -£50, lets say 99 times out of 100 you call, but 1 time you fold, the EV of that spot for me is +£0.50p and the EV for you is -£0.50p - even the hands where you break even I'm still making 50p.

[Honeybadger]

If you have a 'break even call' you have lost the pot. I explained this to you a while back.

Can you explain this concept please?

It seems I have explained this concept to about ten different people over the last month. And I am surprised at how many people don't get it, and don't realise that being put in a spot where you have a break even call is a disaster.

Imagine there is £100 in the pot. I set you in for £100. You know that the equity of your hand against my jamming range is exactly 33.33% and so you are 'getting the right price' (2 to 1) to make a break even call. When this happens you have lost the pot, regardless of whether you call and (this time) win.

You are indifferent to calling or folding. The EV of folding = £0. The EV of calling = £0. But there is £100 in the pot! If your EV is £0 (no matter what you do) and there is £100 in the pot, then my EV = £100. Which means I have won the pot. And thus you have lost the pot.

If you can ever make your opponent indifferent to calling or folding then you have won the hand. And if you are ever put in a spot where your opponent has made you indifferent to calling or folding then you have lost the hand. Simple as that. Zero sum game.

[Honeybadger]

Spose you;re in a spot vs me where the EV of a call is 0, and the EV of a fold is -£50, lets say 99 times out of 100 you call, but 1 time you fold, the EV of that spot for me is +£0.50p and the EV for you is -£0.50p - even the hands where you break even I'm still making 50p.

The EV of folding is ALWAYS £0. It is the EV of calling which can sometimes be a negative number.

[rfgqqabc]

If you have a 'break even call' you have lost the pot. I explained this to you a while back.

Can you explain this concept please?

It seems I have explained this concept to about ten different people over the last month. And I am surprised at how many people don't get it, and don't realise that being put in a spot where you have a break even call is a disaster.

Imagine there is £100 in the pot. I set you in for £100. You know that the equity of your hand against my jamming range is exactly 33.33% and so you are 'getting the right price' (2 to 1) to make a break even call. When this happens you have lost the pot, regardless of whether you call and (this time) win.

You are indifferent to calling or folding. The EV of folding = £0. The EV of calling = £0. But there is £100 in the pot! If your EV is £0 (no matter what you do) and there is £100 in the pot, then my EV = £100. Which means I have won the pot. And thus you have lost the pot.

If you can ever make your opponent indifferent to calling or folding then you have won the hand. And if you are ever put in a spot where your opponent has made you indifferent to calling or folding then you have lost the hand. Simple as that. Zero sum game.

Obviously this is true in theory, however practise is a little bit different because of the ev of future decisions too. I'm 100% sure that you will agree that many people handle variance poorly,. Say I know you have QQ, and I have AK, if I call your 5bet and win, you hit monster tilt and lose X; If I lose, I reload with the same temperament. Current decisions have affects on future actions and ev.

I know and play with someone who tilts so hard after the first two allins, that it becomes essential to never double him up early. In fact, stack him twice in an hour and the fireworks begin.

[Honeybadger]

Of course, Implied tilt odds can be factored into every decision. But that's not really relevant to the point I was making.

The majority of players don't realise just how bad it is to be made indifferent to calling or folding. They think "I'll bet this as a semibluff, and it is fine if he jams on me since I will be just about getting the right price to call it off". This is such bad thinking and completely misunderstands the maths of what actually happens when you have 'just the right price' to make a break even call.

The correct thought process is this: "I will semi-bluff with my hand because I think my opponent will fold a decent chunk of the time. And when he chooses not to fold, I suspect he will usually call rather than jam all-in. However, I am making this semi-bluff whilst fully aware that the times he does jam all-in are a nightmare for me, even though I will just have enough equity vs his range to call given the price I will be getting"

[rfgqqabc]

Of course, Implied tilt odds can be factored into every decision. But that's not really relevant to the point I was making.

The majority of players don't realise just how bad it is to be made indifferent to calling or folding. They think "I'll bet this as a semibluff, and it is fine if he jams on me since I will be just about getting the right price to call it off". This is such bad thinking and completely misunderstands the maths of what actually happens when you have 'just the right price' to make a break even call. The correct thought process is this: "I will semi-bluff with my hand because I think my opponent will fold a decent chunk of the time. And when he chooses not to fold, I suspect he will usually call rather than jam all-in. However, I am making this semi-bluff whilst fully aware that the times he does jam all-in are a nightmare for me, even though I will just have enough equity vs his range to call given the price I will be getting"

Post more please. (pm coming post scoop)

[Honeybadger]

Say I know you have QQ, and I have AK, if I call your 5bet ...

You have given this as an example of an 'indifference point' when in fact it is not. If you 4bet AK and I jam then flip over QQ then you are not indifferent between calling and folding. You have a very profitable call given the overlay from the pot.

[rfgqqabc]

Say I know you have QQ, and I have AK, if I call your 5bet ...

You have given this as an example of an 'indifference point' when in fact it is not. If you 4bet AK and I jam then flip over QQ then you are not indifferent between calling and folding. You have a very profitable call given the overlay from the pot.

Stacks and overlay were coincidentally at the point of indifference no matter how bizarre.

[Honeybadger]

1000 big blind stacks you mean?

There, I bit

As regards whether we should call or fold when facing a jam that we are indifferent to calling or folding versus if opponent has balanced his range correctly... GT says we should call with a frequency that prevents opponent profitably jamming the lowest equity parts of his range. However, obviously we may choose to embrace variance and make as many zero EV calls as possible in order to create extra chances of stacking an opponent who is prone to tilt.

[Joe Platten]

Personally I dont like this raise ott as if z or y call then what are you going to do otr when you miss? 3 betting ott then cf the river is never a good play IMO so i just feel as though this is not the right line to take for this hand...