Good Bluff Line?

[PathFinder]

Hi Guys,

Do you feel this is a strong line to take and should get through a high percentage of the time or would you consider it spewy?

Seat 1: master382 (9,256)
Seat 2: gottapokka (11,582)
Seat 3: nesTinHo (7,845)
Seat 5: guigasviana (8,997)
Seat 6: SARGO32 (4,169)
Seat 7: strangehead (3,443)
Seat 8: IgorAgeev (6,600)
Seat 9: HERO (23,668)

IgorAgeev antes 50
HERO antes 50
master382 posts the small blind of 200
gottapokka posts the big blind of 400
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to HERO [ ]
nesTinHo folds
guigasviana folds
SARGO32 folds
strangehead folds
IgorAgeev folds
HERO raises to 800
master382 folds
gottapokka calls 400
*** FLOP *** [ ] (Total Pot: 2,200, 2 Players)
gottapokka checks
HERO bets 900
gottapokka calls 900
*** TURN *** [ ] [] (Total Pot: 4,000, 2 Players)
gottapokka checks
HERO bets 1,600
gottapokka calls 1,600
*** RIVER *** [ ] [] (Total Pot: 7,200, 2 Players)
LaiBin sits down
gottapokka checks
HERO bets 20,318, and is all in

[Honeybadger]

[/] This is a strong line.

[/] It will get through a high percentage of the time.

[/] It is spewy.

Ticks all the boxes!

[PathFinder]

All i wanted was Honey Badger to post on my PHA 

[Honeybadger]

Sorry it wasn't a detailed post. Too drunk.

[cambridgealex]

[/] This is a strong line.

[/] It will get through a high percentage of the time.

[/] It is spewy.

Ticks all the boxes!

LOL HONEYBADGER CHECKBOXES

[Honeybadger]

LOL HONEYBADGER CHECKBOXES

Did I do them right? I wanna be down with the kidz yo

Also, lol poshboy shouting.

[cambridgealex]

LOL HONEYBADGER CHECKBOXES

Did I do them right? I wanna be down with the kidz yo

Also, lol poshboy shouting.

Yeh you did them just fine...

[ ]

[stato_1]

get a room boys.

i like the line btw

[Honeybadger]

get a room boys.

i like the line btw

I dunno... can't do maths in my head when this drunk but he's gonna need to get folds almost 75% of the time just to break even on the jam, right? Villain's range is not fully capped - in the sense that he can have a variety of two pair hands as well as some slowplayed sets. Huge overbets are really dangerous vs uncapped ranges.

Even if it will get through a little more than 75% of the time and thus be marginally +EV, I still don't think this is a good play. The reason for this is that a different option (a smaller overbet, a 'normal bet', or even just checking) is likely to be higher EV.

As regards the overbet option, I would suggest that opponent's calling range is going to be pretty damn inelastic once the bet-size becomes anything more than the pot. And if this is the case, betting 8k dominates jamming for 20k. He will call with two pair or better, and fold everything else, regardless of whether we risk that extra 12k. I guess the full on jam might make a difference to some of his Ax hands, but that is only a small part of his range.

IMO even just checking back the river probably has a higher EV than a full on jam, since we will win the pot some of the time when we check.

Again, I really can't focus enough to do the maths. But let's imagine that we win the pot 20% of the time when we check back the river. If this is the case then for jamming to be better than checking our jam would have to succeed well over 75% of the time. EV of jamming is $0 (i.e. break even) if villain folds ~75% of the time. And EV of checking back is $1440 assuming we win 20% of the time when we check. And EV of checking is $720 assuming we win 10% of the time when we check etc...

Like I said, play around with the numbers because I literally cannot do it right now. But a maths wizard like you should easily be able to work out how often villain has to fold to a jam to make jamming better than checking. Do the maths assuming we win the pot 5%, 10%, 20%, and 30% of the time when we check... and see how often villain needs to fold to a jam in each case to make jamming better than simply checking. It will always be substantially bigger than 75% - because 75% has an EV of $0 and checking back is ALWAYS going to have an EV greater than $0.

[Honeybadger]

Just to make it really clear...

If we jam and opponent will call with ~75% of his range, then we have lost the pot.

There is 7200 in the pot. Our EV = 0. Therefore we have lost the pot. The entire pot.

I am guessing - off the top of my head - that villain needs to fold around 8-9 times out of 10 to make jamming better than other options, such as checking back or making a smaller bet.

[Honeybadger]

Just tried to do one maths example on a calculator, but I might well have made a mistake in my weakened state.

Anyway, for reference... if we build a model with the following assumptions:

1. Villain will fold 80% of the time to a jam
2. Hero will win 20% of the time when he checks

... then jamming is very slightly more +EV than checking.

[WotRTheChances]

get a room boys.

i like the line btw

As regards the overbet option, I would suggest that opponent's calling range is going to be pretty damn inelastic once the bet-size becomes anything more than the pot. And if this is the case, betting 8k dominates jamming for 20k. He will call with two pair or better, and fold everything else, regardless of whether we risk that extra 12k. I guess the full on jam might make a difference to some of his Ax hands, but that is only a small part of his range.

Assume you noticed villain in the hand only has just over 8.5k back on the river in this hand? He's not actually jamming 20k effective. Don't know if you're maths in future posts is based on it being a 8.5k or 20k river jam?

[Honeybadger]

Lol. No, obviously I did not notice this! Ooooopps.

I suspect this makes EVERYTHING I have written irrelevant and pointless. Even more so than usual.

I am going to sleep.

[Honeybadger]

Oh... and I like the jam with the actual effective stacks.

Good night.

[wazz]

I wonder how effective a drunk honeybadger is at fighting. Suspect I don't want to actually find out.

I like betting the river but feel like a slightly smaller bet will have similar fold equity. Villain calling $6k and losing leaves him with 5.5bbs from 29 to start the hand and he's liable to consider that in the same way he considers all-in. It's also slightly more consistent in my mind with wanting to get value as opposed to trying to get villain to fold.