88 Call or Fold?

[adiman999]

Equity: Rexas could you explain to me why we need to 40% and not 60% to call.  I agree with the 1.5:1 ratio which I translated into 3:2 or 3/5 so 60%? If you could show me where I'm going wrong that would be much appreciated

Hi exiled, welcome to blonde. Hope you get out of this forum what you are looking for.

Can you please explain how you went from 3:2 to 3/5?

The correct way to do it as I understand it is what Rexas has mentioned already. Which is to look at what you have to call as a % of the entire pot after you have called. In the case of getting 1.5/1 odds, we all agree this is equivalent to 3/2. Here the pot can be seen as being of size 3 and our call is of size 2. Resulting in the overall pot after to call to be 5, therefore our call as a percentage of the total pot will be our call, 2, divided by the pot, 5. So 2/5 which is 0.4 or 40%.

Hope this helps you

[Rexas]

Equity: Rexas could you explain to me why we need to 40% and not 60% to call.  I agree with the 1.5:1 ratio which I translated into 3:2 or 3/5 so 60%? If you could show me where I'm going wrong that would be much appreciated

Hi exiled, welcome to blonde. Hope you get out of this forum what you are looking for.

Can you please explain how you went from 3:2 to 3/5?

The correct way to do it as I understand it is what Rexas has mentioned already. Which is to look at what you have to call as a % of the entire pot after you have called. In the case of getting 1.5/1 odds, we all agree this is equivalent to 3/2. Here the pot can be seen as being of size 3 and our call is of size 2. Resulting in the overall pot after to call to be 5, therefore our call as a percentage of the total pot will be our call, 2, divided by the pot, 5. So 2/5 which is 0.4 or 40%.

Hope this helps you

Sorry mate, tl;dr  

[ExiledDub]

Equity: Rexas could you explain to me why we need to 40% and not 60% to call.  I agree with the 1.5:1 ratio which I translated into 3:2 or 3/5 so 60%? If you could show me where I'm going wrong that would be much appreciated

Hi exiled, welcome to blonde. Hope you get out of this forum what you are looking for.

Can you please explain how you went from 3:2 to 3/5?

The correct way to do it as I understand it is what Rexas has mentioned already. Which is to look at what you have to call as a % of the entire pot after you have called. In the case of getting 1.5/1 odds, we all agree this is equivalent to 3/2. Here the pot can be seen as being of size 3 and our call is of size 2. Resulting in the overall pot after to call to be 5, therefore our call as a percentage of the total pot will be our call, 2, divided by the pot, 5. So 2/5 which is 0.4 or 40%.

Hope this helps you

Hi Adiman,

Cheers for the welcome.

I see my mistake from your workings. When I got to 3:2 I mistakenly took the pot size (i.e. the 3) and put it over the denominator (the 5) and hence got 60% not 40%. Many thanks for breaking down the workings for me.

[ExiledDub]

Thanks all for the welcome and the feedback on my thoughts.

Range: Rexas I get what you're saying re the range that I assigned being way too wide without any additional information...think I have been reading too much of the more advanced stuff here and got ahead of myself...equally I like the more standard range that you put on the villain.  Do you not think that - given his shove over our iso  as you accurately described it - it is okay to include some bluffs in their range or am I levelling myself by trying to get too clever with my analysis.

Personally, I think the short stack in the big blind makes it a little harder for the small blind to jam complete airball stuff. I mean, he effectively should be coming along with any two cards, and there isn't a side pot if the BB calls and everyone else folds, so this should make him shy away from jamming the 56ss type hands. Just seems like a totally unnecessary thing to do. That being said, hands like low suited Axs are basically bluffs, as well as the lower broadway hands, since you're unlikely to get called by a hand worse than these, but they are doing very well against the sort of hands the BB should be getting in.

As a general rule of thumb, if we are readless in a situation, I tend to shy away from putting my opponents on random bluffs. I like to see proof that they are capable of doing so before I start including random bluffs in their ranges, especially in situations like this, so I stick to thinking of an ABC, sensible range. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the villain won't look down at a pair and fold, and won't look down at say QJ ss and fold, but those hands are a lot different to 56 ss. Basically I'm assuming he's competent and standard until I am given a reason to think otherwise. In relation to this hand, I've given what I think are realistically the best and worse case scenarios for us in terms of the villains range. In game, I'd probably be thinking any suited broadway, most suited Ax hands, and any pair as a reasonably standard jamming range. Maybe even a little tighter than that.

Cheers Rexas makes a lot of sense