+EV?

[Cocco_Bill]

Notice that button has only $81 left after his flop bet.

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($198)
Hero ($365)
UTG ($199)
MP ($261.60)
CO ($161.65)
Button ($127.25)

Preflop: Hero is BB with J, J.
UTG raises to $8, 2 folds, Button raises to $24, 1 fold, Hero calls $22, UTG folds.

Flop: ($57) 7, A, 9 (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets $22, Hero raises to $341

[dan]

i dont think so.

[Renton]

nope, me neither

[Cocco_Bill]

Why not? I am thinking that his most probable pre flop re-raising hands with an ace on the flop are QQ KK. The bluff only needs to work 50% of the time to be profitable.

[Renton]

he has aces a lot, and since hes a shortstack donk he probably doesn't lay down kings and queens very much.

[Cocco_Bill]

He bets less on the flop than he did pre flop. Kinda looks like he is scared of the ace or trying to suck me in. If he has AA I think he is slowplaying instead of betting small and AK is usually betting more than under half the pot, many nits on Pokerstars don't even re-raise AK pre flop.

[johnny_fish]

I kinda like it if AK isn't in his reraising range and/or you've seen him c-bet weak before.

[Miffed22001]

if he had more behind it might work

[johnny_fish]

if he had more behind it might work

I think it's enough to make him fold non-ace hands 80-90% of the time.

[Lukie]

Bill,

What kind of range are you putting this guy on preflop given his 3-bet?

[Cocco_Bill]

Bill,

What kind of range are you putting this guy on preflop given his 3-bet?

Pre flop call is questionable, folding is probably better here. I wasn't using a HUD, button seemed to play like the standard TAG.

Pre flop I put him on:
1 combo JJ, 6 X AA, 6X KK, 6 X QQ, 50% of 16 X AK = 8 combo AK because I estimate the average opponent only reraises AK like this 50% of the time.

After the flop:

1 X JJ, 3X AA, 6X KK, 6X QQ, 9X AK

I estimate that I can bluff out 13 of these 25 holdings about 80-90% of the time. With the added tell I get from his weak flop bet I think a push here is at the very least not a clear mistake.

[Cocco_Bill]

Also, I feel that this should not be viewed in a vacuum. When this play works and you show, it creates a false wreckless table image. Afterwards, continue to play your strong made hands fast and watch the $ roll in.

[jackvance]

Also, I feel that this should not be viewed in a vacuum. When this play works and you show, it creates a false wreckless table image. Afterwards, continue to play your strong made hands fast and watch the $ roll in.

Heh, that was kind of what I was thinking too.. a huge plus if you can really find spots in which it isn't -EV to do so.

[Miffed22001]

I think it's enough to make him fold non-ace hands 80-90% of the time.

I agree with the thinking but
1. Button isnt sat with a full buy in, so donkish?
2. He has zero behind anyway and add that to if hes a donkey then meh.
3. Board texture (small but not mute point)

I dont dislike the play,even in isolation, ive been there done that i just dont think it was the best spot to do it.

[krimson]

The bluff only needs to work 50% of the time to be profitable.

Actually, you're risking $103 to win the $79 in the pot, so the bluff has to work 57% of the time to be profitable.

[Cocco_Bill]

The bluff only needs to work 50% of the time to be profitable.

Actually, you're risking $103 to win the $79 in the pot, so the bluff has to work 57% of the time to be profitable.

Fair enough, I dont think you factored in the times I suck out with hitting another Jack though.

[mcatdog]

I'm not sure whether this is a good play or not, but let's say it's bad. Does that mean that if you raise with Ax and get re-raised by someone with a tight re-raising range, you should always call because you'll usually stack them on an ace-high flop?

[Greedo017]

The bluff only needs to work 50% of the time to be profitable.

Actually, you're risking $103 to win the $79 in the pot, so the bluff has to work 57% of the time to be profitable.

this cannot possibly be true ducy

ok well if you can't, you can't ever need to win more than 50% of the time to win money. the way to calculate this would be 103 / (79 +103 + 81) = 39%

[jackvance]

this cannot possibly be true ducy

ok well if you can't, you can't ever need to win more than 50% of the time to win money. the way to calculate this would be 103 / (79 +103 + 81) = 39%

I think you're confused by pot odds. With pot odds, you can never go over 50%. When calculating bluff success rates, you can.

It's very simple here, you wager $103 to win $79.. should be intuitively obvious that you need to win more than half the time..

If I win it 39% of the time, then my EV is negative:
(0.39)*($182)-($103)=-$32

'm not sure whether this is a good play or not, but let's say it's bad. Does that mean that if you raise with Ax and get re-raised by someone with a tight re-raising range, you should always call because you'll usually stack them on an ace-high flop?

I think you need to factor in card probablilities. In this case, Bill's calculations were with JJ. If you have an ace in your hand, they change. And the point was kind of that they'll probably lay down their KK/QQ/JJ to an A-high flop when you go very aggressive.. so I don't think you can draw the conclusion you did.

[krimson]

Fair enough, I dont think you factored in the times I suck out with hitting another Jack though.

OK, I stand corrected. If we assume that your two outs are good when you're called the bluff only needs to work 50.5% of the time to be profitable.