Are these bet sizes and EV calc correct.

[seven-deuce]

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.02 BB (6 handed) - PokerStars Converter Tool from http://www.flopturnriver.com/

Hero (Button) ($1.88)
SB ($1.43)
BB ($2.26)
UTG ($1.49)
MP ($0.96)
CO ($1.85)

Preflop: Hero is Button with J, Q
2 folds, CO raises to $0.04, Hero calls $0.04, 2 folds

Flop: ($0.11) 9, A, 10 (2 players)
CO bets $0.06, Hero raises to $0.18, CO raises to $0.30, Hero raises to $1.84 (All-In), CO calls $1.51 (All-In)

Turn: ($3.73) 8 (2 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($3.73) 5 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $3.73 | Rake: $0.13


No stats as was playing on laptop.

Fairly early on in session, no reason to believe villain was betting the flop with a wider range than you'd expect from a standard 2nl villain also no reason to believe he'd be checking any of his strong hands. When he 3bets me on the flop I have no reason to think he's got a weak range I think it's very strong but I still think I have fold equity, folding out the bottom of his raising range.

Villain's calling range when I shove: AA,TT-99,ATs-A9s,T9s,AhKh,8h7h,ATo

This gives me 46.52% equity according to Equilab.

I thought villain was 3betting 44 combos and calling 27 so his fold% is 38%

Outcomes:

I shove villain calls I win: (62/100)(0.465)(2.14)

I shove villain calls I lose: (62/100)(0.535)(-1.51)

I shove villain folds I win: (38/100)(0.63)

EV = 0.62 + -0.5 + 0.24 = +$0.36

I always get confused adding up the bets, I assumed my shove was for $1.51 since that's what villain called, and I added the blinds 0.03 and his 3bet and my call, 2x0.30 for a total of 0.63 of a pot I'd win if he folded.

Is that right also is the mechanics of the ev calc correct?

The %'s add up so I assume it is right - 0.2883 + 0.3317 + 0.38 = 1


Thoughts?

[OngBonga]

My first thought is - why isn't hero fullstacked?

My next thought was - uh numbers. At the table I'm drooling with a huge draw and raising / stacking is obviously +ev and nice and easy. I think at 2nl that thought process is fine. I think 25nl and above I need to start thinking more in numbers and less uh.

[seven-deuce]

My first thought is - why isn't hero fullstacked?

I think 25nl and above I need to start thinking more in numbers and less uh.

Because I was bored and downloaded PS on my laptop because I couldn't be assed getting up and turning on the desktop, when I started playing I realized the auto-rebuy etc wasn't set up, they are now.

You should be thinking in terms of EV regardless of stake.

[OngBonga]

You should be thinking in terms of EV regardless of stake.

Yes I should. But here's something to consider - how much ev is time and effort worth? If it takes me a few seconds of lazy thought to conclude raising and stacking is +ev, but maybe 30 seconds of intense maths to figure out that raising to x is the most ev, which is better? The intense maths is gonna be metally tiring if we're applying it to every situation, whereas maybe I can play lazy +ev poker for many more hours.

That said, I'm taking the same line as you here. So you did all that maths, and I just think "holy shit raise and shove", and we get to the same place. I pretty much take this line as standard with oesd+fd because we have 17 outs from 47 cards, meaning we hit a winner 2/3 times. We're already favourite against everything but his sets, we don't need any fold equity at the flop, we want all the money in now because right now it's value. Getting it in on flop is the most +ev thing we can do here against any reasonable range.

Maybe this example isn't the best. I don't think much thought is necessary here. How do you play the nuts? Because that's what I see when we hit this flop.

[Savy]

That's really idiotic thinking ong and will just stop you ever getting good.

You don't win 63c when he folds you win 30+18+11 = 59c (I think)

You also need to work out how much you shoved. It's more than $1.51 because villain already had more money in the pot that you so it's 1.51 + 0.12 = 1.63 you're shoving (i.e what you stand to lose)

And you win $1.51 + 0.30 + 0.18 + 0.11 = 1.74 when he does call.

[OngBonga]

Come on savy, if you're gonna insult people (which I have no problem with), explain why it's idiotic thinking. I don't even know if you're referring to my lazy poker vs intense poker, or me treating this hand on this flop as the nuts.

[Savy]

This isn't intense EV calculations its' really basic EV calculations.

Just because you stumbled upon what might be a +EV option by chance doesn't mean you understand why it was +EV or what would stop it being +EV or might make another option more +EV.

All good players do loads of work away from the tables because it gives you a much better abillity to make decisions at a table. If you never do any of the work you're just making horrible guesses at what you think might be good, probably based off short term outcomes swaying your opinion.

[OngBonga]

Just because you stumbled upon what might be a +EV option by chance doesn't mean you understand why it was +EV or what would stop it being +EV or might make another option more +EV.

But I know why raise / shoving is +ev, I did explain that in my post. And I agree this hand is basic, I more or less said that too. There's no need to go through a labourious process in this spot. That's kind of the point I was making. Lazy poker tells me that raise / shoving is good here. Best? Well at 2nl I can't be bothered to figure out what the most +ev bet amount is, because we're talking cents, a couple of bb's here and there over what is intended to be a small sample of 2nl hands before I move up. I start taking those few bb's a little more seriously then. I feel at 2nl I can play a lot more hands playing lazy than I can playing as mathematically correct as I have in me, thus my time and effort has value too.

[seven-deuce]

Yes I should. But here's something to consider - how much ev is time and effort worth? If it takes me a few seconds of lazy thought to conclude raising and stacking is +ev, but maybe 30 seconds of intense maths to figure out that raising to x is the most ev, which is better? The intense maths is gonna be metally tiring if we're applying it to every situation, whereas maybe I can play lazy +ev poker for many more hours.

That said, I'm taking the same line as you here. So you did all that maths, and I just think "holy shit raise and shove", and we get to the same place. I pretty much take this line as standard with oesd+fd because we have 17 outs from 47 cards, meaning we hit a winner 2/3 times. We're already favourite against everything but his sets, we don't need any fold equity at the flop, we want all the money in now because right now it's value. Getting it in on flop is the most +ev thing we can do here against any reasonable range.

Maybe this example isn't the best. I don't think much thought is necessary here. How do you play the nuts? Because that's what I see when we hit this flop.

Regarding the 30secs of intense maths, you don't do these calculations in play. You do EV calcs away from the table so you can get a feel for what is the most +EV play in a certain situation. For instance, if my above calc is correct, I now know that raise/gii is a profitable line in this situation against a calling range as strong as villains.

I was asking if my EV calc was correct and the bet sizes in the calculation since I tend to get them wrong. I wasn't too concerned about my line especially since it was +EV according to my calculation.

[OngBonga]

That's really idiotic thinking ong and will just stop you ever getting good.

I do think you're right here though savy. I can fly through 2nl and 5nl because my lazy methods are profitable at these stakes, but I hit a brick wall at 10nl because suddenly my lazy methods are merely break even. I'm still making money thanks to mtts, but that's possibly a dangerous shortcut to 25nl. It's clear I need to work on my game to improve.

seven-deuce, I must admit I'm somewhat surprised you're still at 2nl. Your thought process is methodical, a lot more so than mine. You should be at a higher level than me.

[seven-deuce]

Thanks Savvy I always get the bet sizes muddled up somehow.

I think this is it now:

Outcome 1: (62/100)(0.465)(2.1)

Outcome 2: (62/100)(0.535)(1.63)

Outcome 3: (38/100)(0.59)

EV = 0.60543 + -0.540671 + 0.2242 = $0.288959


@Ong - I was at 10nl a while back but I had a nuclear meltdown with regards to tilt, I'm planning on playing short 30-40min sessions at 2nl just for fun more so than building a roll and doing some ev calcs and proper HH reviews when I'm not playing, something I never did when I was taking the grinding seriously. If I feel I'm improving enough I might try and clear a bonus and make some money that way, but for now I just want to improve my thought process thinking in terms of EV and enjoy playing at the same time.

[Lukie]

My first thought is - why isn't hero fullstacked?

My next thought was - uh numbers. At the table I'm drooling with a huge draw and raising / stacking is obviously +ev and nice and easy. I think at 2nl that thought process is fine. I think 25nl and above I need to start thinking more in numbers and less uh.

Since it was your first thought and also was the first reply of the thread, I have to ask, why does it matter if hero isn't full stacked? (assuming that by full stacked, you mean the quasi standard 100bb full stack)

Granted, I almost always want as much money on the table as possible but it's rare that I'm not the best or second best player at the table, but that doesn't mean that I can't play shorter. Sometimes I do. More importantly, in games with mixed stack sizes, you're constantly adjusting to players with different stack sizes so a 'full stack' player who doesn't know 'short stack' strategy is really missing out on some low hanging fruit.

Sitting short at a table with different stack sizes (and it's not just 20bb or 100bb or 300bb, there is a continuum thing going on here) is an advantage. It's amazing how infrequently this is recognized. Short stack can play more or less ideal strategy vs everyone while full stacker has to adjust and probably ends up playing a bit too loosely vs the short stackers and a bit too tightly vs the full stackers. Obviously that is a very basic, perhaps oversimplified comment that doesn't always apply.

In this specific hand hero is sitting with 94bb. Is there really much of a difference between playing 94bb deep and 100bb deep? Besides maybe pointing out that there is a rebuy feature that might make for slightly more efficient multitabling. And it's worth pointing out that he is actually the second deepest player at the table; only BB covers. I would argue that he is actually very slightly better off playing the 94bb stack than a 100bb stack unless BB is a drooler.

This should make for some interesting discussion. Stack size considerations are always an underappreciated aspect of no limit strategy.

[GeorgeB]

Hi, i saw online stores selling steroids, do you think this is legal in USA? Do these steroids work? For example search in google for - prohormones factory - they sell decca legally ! WTF?

[Lukie]

Hi, i saw online stores selling steroids, do you think this is legal in USA? Do these steroids work? For example search in google for - prohormones factory - they sell decca legally ! WTF?

[anabolic] steroids are not legal in the USA under most circumstances. There are exceptions like HRT with a prescription.

Steroids definitely work. Even a relatively moderate dose of test will give far better results than every legal/over the counter supplement combined. People who take steroids and don't lift weights have been shown to add significantly more lean body mass than people who do train but don't take anabolics. Keep this in mind when you see a supplement ad featuring some roided up mass monster telling you that such and such product is the key to his results.

(Mods can go ahead and delete my post as well )