Hey Guys,I have just a short question relating to the Chapter of Mersenneary eBook "Small Blind Play 11-14bb": I don't know how to go on with those hands, limped first in (e.x. Q7s; K6o ...), faced a minraise or a push from the Bigblind. Do I have to fold in these Situations - or do i have to call a Minraise or a Shove?Thanks for your reply's.Nash Pusher P.S. Sorry for my bad english!
1. Wow! This looks so cool. Is it a new equilibrium? Is it balanced?Some aspects of our range are definitely balanced – our minraising range, for example, despite having allof our monsters, also has a ton of junk in it. Similarly, while the openjamming range has a lot of suited connectorsin it, it also has a good amount of Ax and pocket pairs. The biggest thing that makes this not close to an equilibriumis our limping range – it’s all stuff that’s folding to a shove.Source: Ebook - page #36 (the page after the ROFL chart)
Hi.
... and facing a minraise - i also have to fold my limping Range?
Readless, folding to the minraise with most of those hands is probably best. You just don't know enough about your opponent in many cases to call with a lot of these hands which are weaker. However, there are some hands, like Q9, J9, T9, that I would call a minraise with. They can flop good pairs and equity draws and it's worth putting an additional BB in the pot at 14bb with these readless.If your opponent minraises a lot against limps you'll need to further adjust your calling range (and likely limping range as well, open folding some of the hands you would fold to a minraise is probably the biggest adjustment there).
I'm not folding those hands to minraises.
Yea, to be honest I'm not sure what I was thinking. Even the weaker limping hands in the chart make sense for an OOP call to a minraise in many situations. Readless is kind of a weird term to use since we're rarely readless in this spot, at least in any relevant way (if the guy is limping his first 3 hands and you get down to 12bb, then you wouldn't call all of these hands vs his minraise 12bb deep, but otherwise I think you're calling when you're relatively readless).
Hi there,
I am ROFL noob and have a question: limping shows 0.3 negativ EV. So why do we limp it? Other plays worse? Cant be folding is EV = 0 ...hmmmm
Executive Summary
EV number shown is the open shoving EV from start of hand. Because folding will yield an EV from start of hand of -0.5 BB, if we can do better than that by taking another line we should not fold.
Details
It's EV from start of hand.
Folding has an EV of zero but considers your 0.5BB SB a sunk cost.
If you calculate it including the sunk cost, then folding has an EV of -0.5 BB.
The chart shows the EV of open shoving vs a static assumed range (defined elsewhere - I think in his ebook from memory).
He uses the EV of open shoving as a reference point for allocating hands into different actions.
When he says that it has an EV of -0.3, this is NOT the EV of limping.
It is the EV of open shoving, which he used as a reference point to compare to folding.
Because calculating the EV of limping requires a multitude of assumptions about how your opponent reacts to limps as well as how you expect your opponent to play on future streets, Mers preference was to allocate his range around a benchmark of the EV of open shoving instead.
If a hand has an open shove EV of > - 0.5 from start of hand, then it is better to open shove than to fold.
But he allocated hands into other buckets (raise call, raise fold and limp) where he thought that line would yield better expectation based on how people tend to play vs those lines.
Imo there is scope to further optimise such a range based on making more explicit assumptions about how people play vs each line + you should almost certainly have some reads which you can incorporate by the time you get to 12BB.
But the ROFL chart's approximation using open shove EV as a reference point + Mers intuition is a fairly good starting point for thinking about how you want to allocate your ranges.
thx for this detailed description.
Im not getting the "sunk cost" principle. In 2007 I learned that fold = 0 (pot = dead money, not yours). Now you can say the fold is -0,5bb, that is the point confusing me a lot.
I reread the article after I posted and realised all the info is explained there.
http://www.husng.com/content/small-blind-play-11-14bb-deep-raise-opensho...
To better understand sunk costs consult wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs
Truly understanding the sunk cost fallacy will change your life. Seriously.
But I digress ...
You start the hand with effective stack S.
In the SB, you have to post 0.5BB so if you fold, from the start of hand you lose your SB and end up with a stack of (S-0.5).
If you open jam your opponent can either call or he can fold.
We expect he will call with a range [C] and fold with a range [F] where the frequency of [F] + [C] = 1
If we let the amount of times he folds be 'f' (probability of [F] net of card removal effects of the hand we are considering open jamming) and we let the equity vs [C] be e then:
- when he folds we win the pot of 1.5 BB but 0.5BB was the SB we posted so from the start of hand we simply win the BB and end up with a stack of (S+1)
- when he calls, we end up in a pot worth 2S and will win on average our equity in the pot, ending up with a stack of 2Se
So our expected stack after open jamming will be:
E(S) = f(S+1) + (1-f)(2Se)
and remember when we fold, our E(S) = (S-0.5)
So we are better open jamming than folding when
f(S+1) + (1-f)(2Se) > (S-0.5)
Villains tendencies (his [F] & [C] ranges) will determine the f & e values so you can solve whether open jamming is profitable vs this opponent or not.
You probably have calculated before the EV of open jamming from the reference point that you have already posted the blinds.
In which case you are effectively referencing the S value after blinds being posted and the equation (following the same logic above) will become:
f(S+1.5) + (1-f)(2Se) > (S)
But you will notice these are mathematically equivalent - both sides of the equation have simply had the 0.5BB dead money added to them.
As such the (f,e) data set and subsequently range of hands for which open jamming is preferable to open folding remains the same regardless of which reference point you use.