50nl Horribluff??

[Robb]

UTG1 is 15/10 and BB is 20/15, both mediocre TAGG-regs. BTN just sat down and hasn't played a hand until now.


$0.25/$0.5 No Limit Holdem
6 players
Converted at weaktight.com

Stacks:
Hero (UTG) ($76.65)
UTG 1 ($50.00)
CO ($10.00)
BTN ($50.00)
SB ($61.20)
BB ($13.10)

Pre-flop: ($0.75, 6 players) Hero is UTG
Hero raises to $1.75, UTG 1 calls $1.75, 1 fold, BTN calls $1.75, 1 fold, BB calls $1.25

Flop: ($7.25, 4 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $5 ??


When the Ace flopped, I estimated the chance of an Ace being in one my opponents hands to be 25%. It's actually 22.8% if you consider random hands. I rounded up to 33% to account for the fact that hands like AQ and AJ are more likely to be in a TAGG-reg's calling range. And there's obviously 77 to worry about. On review, I think the probability of Hero getting snap-called is higher.

TAGG's might flat w/ AQ, AJ, ATs and 22 - JJ, in which case the probability of one of the 3 TAGG's having an Ace or 77 would be ~50%.

My image is ~11% UTG PFR, and overall I run about 21/17. The TAGG-regs probably have decent HUD reads on me. The big question is if they will ALL believe I have an Ace and fold often enough when they don't have one.

I bluff into 3 opponents just about never, but this seemed a good idea at the time. Thoughts?

I don't think it's a great idea to call here with any PP because your UTG range should be at its strongest, but I definitely see 88+ calling here

but I'd just bet 3.5 or something if I was going to bet

[Luke999]

I'd imagine you'd have to double or triple barrel this one.

[jjbish]

I'd imagine you'd have to double or triple barrel this one.

+1

I think many players would expect you to check an Ace here and look to c/r or wait till turn to bet it out. Because if you had an ace, you so crush the board that you'd want them to catch up some.
Unless they know/think you play most hands fast.

[griffey24]

I agree that you'll have to fire a few barrels to take this one down so it's probably not worth it. I'd rather at least have a bd FD or something. UTG+1 prob has a pretty strong pair here given his nittiness, but might fold given players behind.

I'd imagine you'd have to double or triple barrel this one.

+1

I think many players would expect you to check an Ace here and look to c/r or wait till turn to bet it out. Because if you had an ace, you so crush the board that you'd want them to catch up some.
Unless they know/think you play most hands fast.

As for players "catching up" on this board. There is no such thing as catching up on this board. The only catching up people will do is hitting their 2 outer boat, so there's no reason to slow play any strong ace here.

[oskar]

I wouldn't make it too small... 3.5 should work just as well if you're planning to barrel the turn, but you're denying yourself a lot of value if make half or under half pot sized bets your standard - like I know you do, iopq .

I'd bet flop, turn and re-evaluate river.

< -- Spewmonkey

[golfguy37]

You raised the flop so that will make some people think you have an ace. I think the odds your opponents fold are good unless they hold an ace.

[Parasurama]

Is betting a little over half pot on the flop and giving up if called/raised bad?

[dsaxton]

Where are you getting these figures, Robb? For one thing, your opponents don't have "random hands" after they call a preflop raise.

I wouldn't make it too small... 3.5 should work just as well if you're planning to barrel the turn, but you're denying yourself a lot of value if make half or under half pot sized bets your standard - like I know you do, iopq .

I'd bet flop, turn and re-evaluate river.

< -- Spewmonkey

I actually bet a lot on drawy flops, I just pot with any hand I decide to bet with and probably 2/3 is my "default" bet sizing

I don't half pot as much as I used to, but this is the board to do it on

[Marshall28]

Is this a joke? You're wondering if you should c-bet here as a bluff?

[Robb]

Where are you getting these figures, Robb? For one thing, your opponents don't have "random hands" after they call a preflop raise.

Yes, the first set of numbers (~25% against random hands) were just a quick estimate I made at the table. Didn't have time for anything elaborate. And apparently I made a calculation error the first time I did the calculations away from the table. Here's my process + patchup of the math involved.

When you count all the likely combos in a narrow flatting range, the chances of some TAGG showing up with an Ace (or 77) is higher. So, as a worst case scenario we can assume all 3 were TAGG's and come up with a specific calling range for all 3, then redo the math. I know the villain's calling ranges are slightly different, but assuming they're identical simplifies the math:

TAGG's might flat w/ AQ, AJ, ATs and 22 - JJ, in which case the probability of one of the 3 TAGG's having an Ace or 77 would be ~50%.

Combos are AQ (8), AJ (8), ATs (2), 77 (3) and other pp's (9x6 = 54). So 75 combos of which 21 are Ax/77, 54 of which aren't.

The easier probability to calculate is that of zero villains having Ax/77:

P (no Ax/77) = ( 54 choose 3 ) / ( 75 choose 3 ) = 36.7%

Thus, the probability AT LEAST one villain has Ax or 77 is 1 - .367, or 63.3%.

That estimate is intended to be a worst case scenario, using the range with the highest ratio of Ax hands to other hand. Obv, KQ being in there reduces the chances of villains' having aces. Also, assuming the unknown has a narrow TAGG calling range is dubious, but errs on the safe side. Finally, even given the problems of these assumptions being off, what generally happens with poker is that tweaking the estimates won't change the underlying probabilities all that much. As we add KQ and KJs to the calling range, we add in more Axs, so the proportions don't alter radically. So while this estimate isn't perfect, it's probably not too far off.

My final thoughts: Against these players, we can probably expect to see an Ace/77 from one of them ~50-60% of the time, and be forced to fire multiple barrels against KK or QQ type hands often enough that this is -EV.

[Robb]

Is this a joke?

No, it wasn't.

You're wondering if you should c-bet here as a bluff?

Not any more.

like their ranges are so much wider than that, but they can also peel with so much more than trips/boat
let's start with the MP (UTG1 doesn't sound as good)

he's probably only cold-calling here with a super narrow range
I'd say KQs, AQs, 22-JJ, sooted connectors with possible AK/QQ thrown in for a good measure

so let's put him on the widest range possible
22,AcKc,AsKs,AcQc,AsQs,KQs,QJs,JTs,T9s,98s,8d7d,8h 7h,8s7s,7d6d,7h6h,7s6s,65s,54s,AcKs,AsKc
7.8% of hands
he continues with
88,7d7h,7d7s,7h7s,AcKc,AsKs,AcQc,AsQs,AcKs,AsKc 2.9%

so we see he hits 37% of the time
I'd venture to guess button and BB have SUPER wide ranges

22,AcQc,AsQs,AcJc,AsJs,AcTc,AsTs,Ac9c,As9s,Ac8c,As 8s,Ac7c,As7s,Ac6c,As6s,Ac5c,As5s,Ac4c,As4s,Ac3c,As 3s,Ac2c,As2s,KTs+,Q9s+,J9s+,T9s,98s,9d7d,9h7h,9s7s ,8d7d,8h7h,8s7s,86s,7d6d,7h6h,7s6s,7d5d,7h5h,7s5s, 64s+,54s,AcQs,AsQc,AcJs,AsJc,AcTs,AsTc,QJo,J9o+,T9 o,98o
16.1%

and calling range is
88,7d7h,7d7s,7h7s,AcQc,AsQs,AcJc,AsJs,AcTc,AsTs,Ac 9c,As9s,Ac8c,As8s,Ac7c,As7s,Ac6c,As6s,Ac5c,As5s,Ac 4c,As4s,Ac3c,As3s,Ac2c,As2s,9d7d,9h7h,9s7s,8d7d,8h 7h,8s7s,7d6d,7h6h,7s6s,7d5d,7h5h,7s5s,AcQs,AsQc,Ac Js,AsJc,AcTs,AsTc
4.6%
that's a calling rate of 28.5%

so the chance of them all folding is 35%, which is shit odds for you if you bet this big

but let's say they only call with an ace or TT+, 77
2.0% for the MP, 3.2% for the bu/bb
25.6% of MP's total range, 19.9% of BU's/BB's total range
47.7% fold total which is a worthy stab

so decide whether they are calling with any pair or just TT+ or better

[Robb]

Thanks for proving my point, IOPQ.

Thanks for proving my point, IOPQ.

if we bet half pot, we're risking 0.5x to win 1x so we need them to fold 33% of the time for us to break even

they'll fold 35% of the time so it's a breakeven bluff that will give us more action when we hit (breakeven due to rake)

[dsaxton]

This seems like a lot of mathturbation for sort of a trivial spot.

[Marshall28]

This seems like a lot of mathturbation for sort of a trivial spot.

it would take more than our lifetimes to do this for every situation I think

[bode]

This seems like a lot of mathturbation for sort of a trivial spot.

spot on.

[Robb]

This seems like a lot of mathturbation for sort of a trivial spot.

spot on.

True. I felt like my "off the cuff" estimate at the table was off.
I did some mathturbation (really like that one, btw!!!) to try to sort it.
Generally, I can do ranges and math for more common spots quickly enough while at the table, so this was just to check an odd spot.

Thanks for glancing at this and setting me straight.

[dsaxton]

Generally, I can do ranges and math for more common spots quickly enough while at the table

Somehow I doubt that a human could do this (statistically determine approximate hand ranges, then use this information to calculate the probability of a joint hand range hitting a random flop in different ways) without having a special microchip installed in his / her brain. That's why we conveniently have an intuition that helps us make decent guesses in situations like this. If someone actually tried to crunch numbers like this over the table, they'd be mentally exhausted after 10 minutes of play.

This seems like a lot of mathturbation for sort of a trivial spot.

well after x years of doing this hopefully I can estimate similar spots in my head

[Fnord]

Bobbo taught me the answer to this one.

Bet like $3-$4ish on the flop to maximize the range that peels the flop. Then brush them off on the turn.

[Da GOAT]

Ok let's see a turn