First of all sorry to post this hand in such a primitive method. This is my first post on hand history.
Your feed back is appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blinds are 40/80 and it is end game.
Starting Chips Hero:915
Starting Chips Villain:2085
Hero has 5d, 4d and is on the button.
Hero Posts SB 40.00
Villain Posts BB 80.00
Hero Raised to 160.00
Villain Calls 80.00
Flop: Ks 4h 7d
Villain Checks
Hero Bets 160.00
Villain Calls 160.00
Pot is now 640
Turn= Qd
Villain Bets 320.00
Hero is All In 595.00
Villain Calls 275.00
Hero Shows 4d,5d
Villain Shows 6c,Kh
Is my play on the flop and turn considering the depth of stacks correct? Was I pot committed?
Should I have called the Villain turn lead?
Please advice.
Best,
Villain's most likely holding is Kx & 7x when he c/c this flop.
When he leads on the turn when it brings FD & a card that improved your range his value holdings are reweighted to Kx as 7x would likely check to you.
So assuming we are up against Kx, what is our play?
Villain bets 320 into 640 and you have 595 behind.
When you jam villain only has to call 275 for his equity share of 915.
You give him pot odds of (275/915) = 30%
We can assume he is never folding Kx when you jam.
How much equity do you have vs Kx?
Likely outs:
[4] = 2
[5] = 3
[FD] = 9
Total = 14
Factor down by say 20% to account for times you hit but still lose.
Outs = 15 * 0.8 = 11
Estimated equity in hand with one card to come = 2 * 11 = 22%
When you jam it in, how often does he need to be bluffing (& folds to jam) for you to be good?
EV(jam) = f * 960 + (e * 1830 - 595)
where f = % folds
e = equity when called = 22%
Breakeven when EV(jam) = 0
0 = f * 960 + 0.22 * 1830 - 275
f = 127.6 / 960 = 13%
If villain folds more than 13% to your jam, the jam is +EV.
But after such a value -line, he probably isn't.
When you're up against Kx can you call his lead here (including implied odds)?
He bets 320 into 640 laying you odds of (320/960) = 33%.
You don't have direct odds to call based on the estimated equity above.
Consider implied odds you will call 320 to end up in pot of 915*2 = 1830
Implied odds = (320/1830) = 17%
Therefore you probably have the implied odds to call here vs Kx but it's really close.
If we hit and lose more than the assumed 20% then this quickly becomes a losing call even with implied odds because our equity would be less than the calculated 22% and we need > 17% to profitably realise the implied value.
Very solid analysis. Thank you a lot.
Best,
Thanks but I just realised there are a couple of errors.
I'll repost when I'm back on my computer.
yes please do that. since I am trying hard to digest the reasonings.
Villain's most likely holding is Kx & 7x when he c/c this flop.
When he leads on the turn when it brings FD & a card that improved your range his value holdings are reweighted to Kx as 7x would likely check to you.
So assuming we are up against Kx, what is our play?
Villain bets 320 into 640 and you have 595 behind.
When you jam villain only has to call 275 for his equity share of 1830.
You give him pot odds of (275/1830) = 15%
We can assume he is never folding Kx when you jam.
How much equity do you have vs Kx?
Likely outs:
[4] = 2
[5] = 3
[FD] = 9
Total = 14
Factor down by say 20% to account for times you hit but still lose.
Outs = 14 * 0.8 = 11
Estimated equity in hand with one card to come = 2 * 11 = 22%
When you jam it in, how often does he need to be bluffing (& folds to jam) for you to be good?
EV(jam) = f * 960 + (e * 1830 - 595)
where f = % folds
e = equity when called = 22%
Breakeven when EV(jam) = 0
0 = f * 960 + 0.22 * 1830 - 595
f = 192.4 / 960 = 20%
If villain folds more than 20% to your jam, the jam is +EV.
But after such a pot-committing value-line, he probably isn't.
When you're up against Kx can you call his lead here?
He bets 320 into 640 laying you odds of (320/1280) = 25%.
Therefore you don't have direct odds to call based on your equity (22%) estimated above.
Consider implied odds you will call 320 to end up in pot of 915*2 = 1830
Implied odds = (320/1830) = 17%
So including implied value on the river, you are being layed 17% odds and have 22% equity.
Therefore given the assumptions we made, you have the implied odds to call here vs Kx.
But it's close because our estimated equity is very sensitive to the assumptions we made about our reverse implied odds (assumed 20% hit and still lose).
If we hit and lose more than the assumed 20% then this quickly becomes a losing call even with implied odds because our equity would be less than the calculated 22% and we need > 17% to profitably realise the implied value.
I think jamming the turn is a losing play and the expectation of calling and folding are really close.
I really don't think there is any doubt that this is a clear fold. His call on such a dry flop suggests having hit a card better than the four. So going into the turn you are most likely behind. I suppose ace high could have called the flop. But then he leads out when the flush draw arrives on the turn. This narrows his hand down to Kx ( or a set) which is now betting for value given the flush draw has become a threat or Ax which has also made a flush draw.
So, given the former is most likely then you are behind and a big chunk of the time when you get luckly and make your flush you are still behind given that if he makes a flush it will be better (not to mention boats).
It is a fold. Why not just open cbet shove with bottom pair and a back door flush draw? He will fold more often and it avoids the temptation on the turn to continue when you make the flush draw. I'm not suggesting that is right thing to do just using it as an example of a possibly better thing to do.
I don't think it's a clear fold in this situation.
It's actually so close you're just about at an indifference point.
The analysis above covers this pretty well (in my obviously biased opinion)
But also from a fundamental theorm of poker point of view, consider villain's actual hand.
On the turn hero had 31.8% equity.
http://www.propokertools.com/simulations/show?b=Ks+4h+7d+Qd&g=he&h1=5d+4d&h2=6c+Kh&s=generic
Villain's bet was pot committing so we can see how close the situation was by solving to see if we had enough equity to call if villain had shoved:
Villain shoves 595 into 640.
It's 595 to call for our equity share of 595 + 595 + 640 = 1830
We need (595/1830) = 32.5% equity to call.
We had 31.8% equity in the hand so would have been almost mathematically indifferent between calling and folding had villain shoved.
So as played, a very marginal fold to save yourself a few Sklansky $$.
That said, at this stack depth, probably best to jam or fold low suited connectors preflop rather than find yourself in these difficult post flop spots.
I agree that mathematically it is a marginal fold given the hand he has. But when we consider how it is played the number of much stronger hands that he could have such as K7, 77 and Kd xd far out-weigh the very few times he is bluffing on the turn which is why if feels so much like a fold to me.
I think open jam as standard without reads that villain will call off wider than top 40% of hands.
Expectation of open jamming 5x4x @ 11BB vs top X % call [C] ranges:
[C]
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
S = 11.0
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1.1
But would you really open shove with 43s at 11Bb?
The problem is that by open shoving this deep you are saying that I don't want to min raise induce you with this hand and furthermore I'm not too keen on having you call me either. What you are saying is that this hand is a bit better than nothing but not very good and the only plus ev play I have is to shove it. In which case hands like 33 are going to call and if you do it constiently hands like A2 will call making it an -ve play. Limping might be better.
I would assume the general population calls with both A2o & 33 @ 11BB as standard vs an open jam.
The expectation of open jamming 4x3x @ 11BB vs top X% call range [C]:
[C]
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
S = 11.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
-0.2
-0.5
-0.9
-1.2
-1.5
Unless villain calls open shoves very tight, jamming is not much better than folding.
I would think limping would have the worst expectation as we let hands that fold to a raise realise their decent equity for free and we always set ourselves up for difficult postflop decisions.
4x3x is close between raise-folding for the pure preflop fold equity and open folding.
I'd probably mix it up between the two options based on gameflow: raise-fold if I've been inactive and fold if I've been active.
I don't think playing 5x4x the same way would be a large error because they have very similar properties.
Sorry I didn't mean to confuse the issue by introducing a different starting hand.
Thanks for your feed back 3onthego. Note that you mentioned he might have floated out of position with Ace high or may have 77. Most villains in $215 3bet shove any ace and pocket pair. Therefore Ax or set is not in his range for sure.
Good point. What is your min-pfr% at this depth out of interest? If you are mostly open-shoving and then min-raise I'm not sure i would 3bet shove with 44 @11bb.
Limping pre is probably best. Minr/fold ok tho. 11bb it's something like Limp>=minr/fold>OS>OF, but all will be close and depend a fair bit on our opponent.
As played, it's a clear check on flop. Population tends to x/r a lot on flops this shallow and so we just don't get value cbetting. You can usually bluff catch turns too. As played yeah it's fine to shove there. Pretty close though as cdon correctly points out. I almost think we can flat and fold rivers, but people do weird stuff and will incorrectly b/f turn sometimes so we can maybe fold out some equity share and avoid getting bluffed off of ours on rivers. But overall, more to think about pre and on flop then on turn imo.