No Limit Holdem Tournament • 2 Players
$1.40+$0.10
Hand converted by the official HUSNG.com hand converter
| SB | Hero | 1515 | |
| BB | a.r.s.e.n310 | 1485 |
Effective Stacks: 37bb
Blinds 20/40
Pre-Flop (60, 2 players)
Hero is SB
Hero raises to 80, a.r.s.e.n310 goes all-in 1485, Hero folds
Final Pot: 160
a.r.s.e.n310 wins 1565 ( won +80 )
Hero lost -80
villain is interesting，before this hand he 3bet shove me twice with so many effective stacks on early game
i dont think his hand is monster，i would like to call his 3bet shove，and my hand is better than his 3bet shove range
but the risk is too high，
after all ，this is the early game。and， i am sure i can find better spots to beat him
"i dont think his hand is monster，i would like to call his 3bet shove，and my hand is better than his 3bet shove range but the risk is too high"
"after all ，this is the early game。and， i am sure i can find better spots to beat him"
Suggest you reframe your analysis into a more rational framework:
Does calling have better expectation than folding?
We min raise and get jammed on @ S = 37.0 BB
SB = 0.5 BB
BB = 1.0 BB
P0 = 1.5 BB
R = 1.5 BB
P1 = 3.0 BB
J = (S - 1.0) = 36.0BB
P2 = 39.0 BB
C = (S - 0.5 - 1.5) = 35.0 BB
P3 = 74.0BB
If we have > (35/74) ~ 47% equity vs his [3b jam] range we do better calling than folding from this decision point.
(*Note you need slightly less if you consider the problem from-start-of-hand reference point)
So if you fold here, it should be because you determine you have less than 47% equity vs villain's 3b jamming range.
If you actually think "my hand is better than his 3bet shove range" then this is the "better spot" you have been waiting for.
I'd guess you're probably not ahead vs a 3b jamming range @ 37BB with A8o and this was a correct fold, but your logic was fuzzy.
if this was the 3rd hand out of 3 that he had done this with [you dont make it clear that it is] i'd call in game and then analyse this specific situation post. what sort of a sample do you think we'd need before we can confidently draw meaningful infrences about his 3bet shoving range?
Cdon, i posted in another thread that you should produce content for this site. an article on how to solve situations like these, what the terms mean in your equations and how to apply them, how to solve expecations of shoving or minraising a hand at 10bbs, 3bet shoving math etc. any kind of strat etc would go down a storm imo.
your posts are a real goldmine of info. thanks.
+1.
Q. Could you Cdon make it possible for lazy retarded math heads, like myself, understandble, how to put it into practice. That would be gold !
Q. I know its for post game analasis, but... Is it possible for you to calculate this on the fly, or by perfoming the math on a regular basis, does it becomes kind of second knowlegde after time.
Rgds.
C.
Go forth and CRUSH !
Thankyou for your kind words.
I'm glad you appreciate my posts.
To be clear, I'm a begginner poker player. I have no misconceptions that I have a lot to learn. I just have a bit of a head start because I came into the game with an overkill analytical skillset.
I think I would be better incentivised to write articles if forum participants were more critical of my posts. Currently people either don't respond or totally agree with me. Neither of these outcomes personally help me develop my game. That said, I plan to consolidate my analysis for common spots in hyper turbos into something akin to an engineering design standard at some point.
I suspect it would be a mistake to call a jam A8o @ 37BB.
We need 47% equity vs villain's 3b jamming range to call.
Take a crude approximation of top X% of hands which villain jams and we find that Ax8y has 47% equity vs the top 26% of hands.
http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/show?g=he&h1=Ax8y&h2=26%25&s=generic
FYI the top 26% hands used by ProPokerTools as default corresponds to:
[AA-44,AxKx-Ax2x,AxKy-Ax7y,KxQx-Kx5x,KxQy-KxTy,QxJx-Qx8x,QxJy,QxTy,JxTx-Jx8x,JxTy,Tx9x,Tx8x,9x8x]
This is crude because top X% hand is not neccessarily consistent with how villain values his holdings.
But it does give you a rough feel for how wide villain needs to be 3b jamming for a 3b call to be profitable here.
For example, to be fist pump snapping this off, we'd like to believe villain is 3b jamming > 30% of the time. This deep, I don't think this is the case.
If we give villain a range of Ax + PP <= TT, [AxKx-Ax2x,AxKy-Ax2y,TT-22]
Ax8y has 46% equity.
http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/show?g=he&h1=Ax8y&h2=AxKx-Ax2x%2CAxKy-Ax2y%2CTT-22&s=generic
But a lot of our equity comes from the dominated Ax.
Without these A7-A2 holdings we revise the range to: [AxKx-Ax8x,AxKy-Ax8y,TT-22]
We are totally crushed with only about 35% equity.
http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/show?g=he&h1=Ax8y&h2=AxKx-Ax8x%2CAxKy-Ax8y%2CTT-22&s=generic
We are deep enough that calling here could be a huge mistake.
If we get it in with 35% equity, we are costing ourselves (0.47 - 0.35) * 2 * 37 = 8.88 BB in expectation.
Regarding meaningful inferences from 3b jamming ranges. From a statistical perspective, they're never going to be very reliable (lol).
Villain's 3b jam range is often a function of [effective stacks, his perception of your opening range and postflop tendencies, gameflow, tilt effects etc].
You're always going to be working in a very guesstimatey decision making space.
Practically, if you know the approx frequency of what a fundamental value range would look like, you can identify when villain is deviating heavily from this.
You can combine other information to piece together what his 3b range might look like.
For example, if you belive a value oriented range @ effective stack S is [X] but villain is actually 3b jamming [2X], we can postulate he may:
- Have an expanded value range
- Have 3b bluffs in his range
Then you see a show down with villain where he checks down a marginal hand that fundamentally is somewhere between a [X] range and [2X] range which he did not 3b jam.
THIS OBSERVATION DOESN'T JUST AFFECT YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT HIS CALLING RANGE.
It also CONDITIONALLY AFFECTS your perception of his 3b jamming range.
You should now be thinking, he flats with hand H which is fundamentall between [X] and [2X] but is 3b jamming with a frequency consistent with [2X]. Therefore I am going to reweight my perception that he is actually 3b jamming a polarised value/range.
The practical approach is to think about what typical value-oriented 3b ranges look like, calculate the frequency that villain holds this.
This becomes your benchmark for observing when villain is deviating heavily from it.
You should be able to piece together other information to work out what villain's ranges are composed of in different spots.
And more importantly, where these behavioural tendencies have created exploitable frequencies :)
Your brain is officially 2 kilos heavier than mine.
:-)
Go forth and CRUSH !
thanks for your help
but i dont understand your words:Note you need slightly less if you consider the problem from-start-of-hand reference point)
and i used equilab software :
equity range
MP2 52.48% { 55+, A2s+, K6s+, Q8s+, J8s+, T8s+, A7o+, K9o+, Q9o+, JTo }
MP3 47.52% { A8o }
in other words：
villain‘s 3b jam range must wider than 55+,A2s+,K6s+,Q8s+,J8s+,T8s+,A7o+,K9o+,Q9o+,JTo，my calling is +EV
BUT i think he cant play so loose
what do you think??
^^ I think we posted at the same time.
Your thinking was similar to mine.
As discussed above, he's probably not jamming wide enough here to call the 3b jam with A8o @ 37 BB.
From start of hand explained.
When i did the calculation of how much equity you needed:
EV(call) = e . P - C
where
e = equity in pot after you call = ?
P = pot after you call = 74 BB
C = cost of call = 35 BB
Solve for breakeven point EV(call) = 0
0 = e * 74 - 35
e = 35 / 74 ~47.3%
FROM START OF HAND
If you were to fold from the SB, you would lose -0.5 BB per hand, so people often consider the EV from start of hand
Solve for EV(call) = -0.5
-0.5 = e * 74 - 35
e = 34.5 / 74 ~ 46.6%
So from start of hand reference point you only need 46.6% equity to call here.
Hence comment : "Note you need slightly less if you consider the problem from-start-of-hand reference point"
Changing reference frames does not change any analysis our outcomes. Your second one that leads to 46.6% is incorrect because in the reference frame from start of hand folding is losing 2bb and your investment is your whole stack.
-2 = e*74 - 37
e = 35/74 = 47.3%
nothing changes :) your decision will not depend in reference frames as long as you compute them correctly. pick one that you're comfortable with and use it consistently.
as for the previous maths everything else looks fine. However from a poker point of view you could definitely do better with putti villain on an approximate range than using too X%. Top x% only models calling ranges well for the most part. In particular you should definitely drop big pocket pairs from your 3b shove range- that will change things a ton and make is a pretty clear call I think. More ax too, less suited middle hands, less kq. In general maybe check out the population 3b shove ranges and see what they look like?
In addition to covering all this kind of maths and showing how to use software to compute this kind of stuff, my math in husng pack goes through building a population alias in order to use the hand range visualizer to see population ranges. At that point you can even set up a Bayesian estimator to get a really good model 3b shove range using the techniques in the pack if you want to be very precise :)
What I was trying to do was consider the EV of the entire hand.
My thinking was that whenever we decide to play a hand from the SB, it needs to yield better than -0.5 BB in EV because that is the fixed cost of playing from the button.
As such, I reduced the breakeven point from EV = 0 to EV = -0.5.
What I meant by reference points was from which point you are making the decision as opposed to which point you are determining the value of each variable.
1. I have raised and been jammed on, am I better calling or folding?
to
2. If I can yield better than -0.5 BB from this hand, I should take it
Does this make sense?
Or am I totally misapplying the concept of aiming to yield > -0.5 BB from the SB?
^^ I've given this some thought and the comparison to -0.5 BB from folding is not relevant because our decision is between raise calling and raise folding.
The original analysis holds, less the note about from which point you're analysing the decision.
Thanks for pointing this out, it was conditionally affecting my thinking about other spots :)