Double Barreling Quiz

Barreling the turn has been a hot topic lately in the BC, so I'm acting appropriately by asking about a fairly easy-to-understand scenario that teaches a whole lot about barreling.

We raise pre-flop and Villain calls. We see a heads-up flop OOP. We c-bet and Villain calls. The turn comes. We have a gutshot to the nuts, but no other outs. Suppose the turn pot is $3. If we bet $2 as a second barrel, how often does Villain have to fold for our barrel to be +EV?

For this example, let's assume that we never get raised on the turn, but that we also never make any extra money on the river the times we hit.

More than 40%

n = %fold

EV(fold) = 3n
EV(call+lose) = (1-n)(42/46)(-2)
EV(call+win) = (1-n)(4/46)(5)

If we add up the 3 EV values and set the sum equal to 0, then solve for n, we get 31.7% (if I did my math right).

The 40% number is only right if your bet is a pure bluff (meaning that you have 0 equity on the river if called).

I'll rough math because why not.

gutshot is 8% but Ill call it 10% out of laziness.

EV when he calls is:

Lose $2 90% of the time = -$1.80
Win $3 10% of the time = +$0.30
= -$1.50

[edit] fail. We win $5 when he calls and we win. Final answer is smaller than I said first [/edit]

So If a call costs us $1.50 and a fold wins us $3 we need him to fold once for every 2 calls to break even => 33%.

Haven't looked at other responses yet because I want to try and do this on my own first.

EV = x * $3 + (1-x)[(4/46) * $7 - (42/46) * $2]

we set EV = 0 and solve for x:

1.2174 = 3x + 1.2174x

x = 28.87% of the time he needs to fold


Final conclusion: This really doesn't seem like that much, especially if he's the type of player who's going to peel flop wide.


Is this right? I had to look back at caddie's showdown thread to double check my equation but I think its correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JR9477

More than 40%

---

31.7% seems right to me (Stayed up a bit too late last night haha)

kfaess change the 7 into a 5 and you're good. x= 32/101 or 31.7%

yea just sorted that out in irc, thanks joe

The right answer is about 31.7%. If we had no equity when called, we would need our opponent to fold 40% of the time. Note the huge effect just 4 outs has on how often our opponent has to fold.

Now go into PT3 or HEM and find your turn c-bet success percentage. If you don't have it for PT3, you can download it here C-bet Turn Success Percentage.pt3stat, and then post your findings here in the thread.

34.7% only over around 20k tho new database

48.4% over about 18.5k hands (since moving to FTP)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfaess

48.4% over about 18.5k hands (since moving to FTP)

---

Seems a bit high. Make sure you're looking at turn c-bet success, and not turn c-bet or c-bet success.

Turn c-bet success is 40% this month, 30k sample

At 10NL FR, 55K hands, Turn c-bet success = 36.7%

38 % turn cbet success over 40k hands of 10nl

That...is really neat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philly and the phanatics

38 % turn cbet success over 40k hands of 10nl

---

lol wow wtf that seems a bit low

whats your river cbet success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfaess

EV = x * $3 + (1-x)[(4/46) * $7 - (42/46) * $2]

---

4/46 times you bet $2, and then won a pot of 7, so you netted +5.
Otherwise everything is neato.

EV = x * $3 + (1-x)[(4/46) * $7 - (42/46) * $2]


While this formula isn't high level math I couldn't possibly do this calculation during play.
I see the problem as lose $2 or win $5, or 40:100 without any outs.
Considering we have 4 outs, the rule of 4 or 2 (this is only one street so 2 in our case) gives us an improvement of 8%. 40% - 8% is 32%.
I could easily do this while playing the hand. Is this method valid or am I oversimplifying somewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

lol wow wtf that seems a bit low

whats your river cbet success?

---

When we were talking about this the other day, I think yours was similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ButtonMash

EV = x * $3 + (1-x)[(4/46) * $7 - (42/46) * $2]


While this formula isn't high level math I couldn't possibly do this calculation during play.
I see the problem as lose $2 or win $5, or 40:100 without any outs.
Considering we have 4 outs, the rule of 4 or 2 (this is only one street so 2 in our case) gives us an improvement of 8%. 40% - 8% is 32%.
I could easily do this while playing the hand. Is this method valid or am I oversimplifying somewhere?

---

No shit. The point isn't to try to do it during play. The point is that a 2/3 PSB needs your opponent to fold 40% of the time if you have no outs, and a bit less if you have as little as 4 outs.

Also your calculation is terribly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKDS

That...is really neat

---

You're welcome.

It seems I missed the point , but the result seems to be the same.
Ok... I accept what you say... but my question was... Is my reasoning valid or am I oversimplifying?

Please explain where my caculation was wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ButtonMash

Please explain where my caculation was wrong

---

You can't just randomly pick numbers and use an operation on them and if it happens to come up with something close to the right answer assume you have the right calculation.

If you were doing it right, then you'd get the exact answer, not just some number that's kinda-sorta close. Like if we changed some of the original parameters, it wouldn't work out like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Seems a bit high. Make sure you're looking at turn c-bet success, and not turn c-bet or c-bet success.

---

yea you're right I was looking at flop cbet success. My turn cbet success is 36.3%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ButtonMash

Please explain where my caculation was wrong

---

I can't believe this. You copy and paste the solution from someone else, and now you want someone to explain to you how it is wrong? When in the post right above I just pointed out what was wrong.

r u 4 real

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I can't believe this. You copy and paste the solution from someone else, and now you want someone to explain to you how it is wrong? When in the post right above I just pointed out what was wrong.

r u 4 real

---

Look closer. He didn't use the same calculation.

Forgive me if I being thick. Also, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.
@ Oskar. I copied a solution from someone else as an example of a calculation I couldn't do whilst playing a hand.
@ Spoon. I do get the point you made earlier that you didn't intend this to be done during play.
I didn't randomly pick numbers. I took the ratio between amount that might be lost v the amount to be won. $2 : $5. ie 40 : 100. He has to fold 40% of the time for this to be a good play for us of we exclude the four outs. The quick calculation for outs is 2% per out per street. Four outs = 8% chance. An 8% improvement on the 40% (in absolute terms, not relative). This means he must fold 32% of the time for our turn bet to succeed. I thought this seemed a reasonable (pretty close to 31.7%) way to answer your original question in the time permitted during a game. I'll be quite happy if someone can show me mathematically where I'm going wrong because I'm obviously missing a point that others find quite elementary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ButtonMash

Forgive me if I being thick. Also, I'm not trying to be antagonistic.
@ Oskar. I copied a solution from someone else as an example of a calculation I couldn't do whilst playing a hand.
@ Spoon. I do get the point you made earlier that you didn't intend this to be done during play.
I didn't randomly pick numbers. I took the ratio between amount that might be lost v the amount to be won. $2 : $5. ie 40 : 100. He has to fold 40% of the time for this to be a good play for us of we exclude the four outs. The quick calculation for outs is 2% per out per street. Four outs = 8% chance. An 8% improvement on the 40% (in absolute terms, not relative). This means he must fold 32% of the time for our turn bet to succeed. I thought this seemed a reasonable (pretty close to 31.7%) way to answer your original question in the time permitted during a game. I'll be quite happy if someone can show me mathematically where I'm going wrong because I'm obviously missing a point that others find quite elementary.

---

You can't just subtract 8% from 40% there. It doesn't work like that. You've randomly picked two numbers and decided to subtract them.

For example, let's say we have 12 outs instead. Then our EV is 3x + (1-x)(12/46)(5) + (1-x)(34/46)(-2) and x has to be greater than 4/73 (about 5.6%) for our bet to be +EV. If you tried to just say 40% - 24%, you'd get 16% which is way off.

Okay here's an example of what you're doing in practice:

There was a captain on a ship is 45 miles away from land has been at sea for 900 hours. How old is the captain?

43.8% over 100K @ 50NL FR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caddie444

43.8% over 100K @ 50NL FR

---

Seems a bit high. Make sure you're looking at turn c-bet success, and not turn c-bet or c-bet success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

You can't just subtract 8% from 40% there. It doesn't work like that. You've randomly picked two numbers and decided to subtract them.

For example, let's say we have 12 outs instead. Then our EV is 3x + (1-x)(12/46)(5) + (1-x)(34/46)(-2) and x has to be greater than 4/73 (about 5.6%) for our bet to be +EV. If you tried to just say 40% - 24%, you'd get 16% which is way off.

---

Thanks for your help. Even more thanks for your patience.
BTW the Captain is 20

Okay so my question is what frequency do we barrel at here? Like A lot of people say you should set up your frequencies based on the cards you have, so does that mean we're db'ing everytime in this spot??

Because I'm sure that out of all of the opportunities we have to bluff while playing, this is leaning towards the more marginal side- so like if we do this everytime that means we're bluffing a lot of more +EV times and then we're just bluffing too much and we get exploited.

I've never gotten a grasp of this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Seems a bit high. Make sure you're looking at turn c-bet success, and not turn c-bet or c-bet success.

---

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4149/...d5197393d4.jpg

played a bit more so it's a bit lower but there she is

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ButtonMash

Thanks for your help. Even more thanks for your patience.
BTW the Captain is 20

---

No he's not. You have no way to decide how old the captain is. That's the point: you can't just take random numbers and throw them together for no reason.

38.8% turn cbet success @10NL 23k hands in past month...
Thanks for getting my maths brain going with the calculations again before i start my studies next week :)
Also I think he might have actually been joking when he said the captain was 20, but the shoot down was safe.

32.6% over 27k hands this month 6m

35.5% over 550k hands this year 6m

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L_Clan_Sup3rMaN

32.6% over 27k hands this month 6m

35.5% over 550k hands this year 6m

---

Thanks for lending us your numbers. =]

26% over 17k hands