Hey, do you think there is any way we can fold the river here? The guy had been super tight all match, so I really thought I was behind on the river. However I ended up calling because there was already so much in the pot, and I would have been left with ~ 8bbs if i fold. Also he only had a sharkscope ability rating of 52.
No Limit Holdem Tournament • 2 Players
$6.71+$0.29
Hand converted by the official HUSNG.com hand converter
| BB | kkadafyy23 | 1445 | |
| SB | Hero | 1555 |
Effective Stacks: 18bb
Blinds 40/80
Pre-Flop (120, 2 players)
Hero is SB
Hero raises to 160, kkadafyy23 calls 80
Flop (320, 2 players)
kkadafyy23 checks, Hero bets 160, kkadafyy23 calls 160
Turn (640, 2 players)
kkadafyy23 checks, Hero bets 480, kkadafyy23 calls 480
River (1600, 2 players)
kkadafyy23 goes all-in 645, Hero calls 645
Final Pot: 2890
kkadafyy23 shows a pair of Sixes
Hero shows a pair of Kings
Hero wins 2890 ( won +1445 )
kkadafyy23 lost -1445
You only need to be good here 22% of time. There's a missed FD on the board and it's hard to see how he can get to the river without raising anything you're behind. I think your odds are too good to fold. I'd be readjusting that nitty read after this hand though - nits don't flat 65o vs open @ 18BB.
the pot was 2245, 645 to call. So that makes it 645*100/2245 = 28.7% right?
So I would have to be right around 29% of the time for it to be a + EV call? And yeah I adjust the read after a hand like that if he had of rematched, he wasn't playing like that most of the match though, he must have just had enough. I guess I just wasn't sure whether that's going to be a bluff 29% of the time, just because it's such a bad spot to bluff into me after I have bet every street and it's pretty tough for me to fold with the odds i'm offered - As played out he was just a moron, but I still feel like more often than not in that situation that bet is not going to be a bluff (Just because it's such a horrendous spot to bluff shove) and if it's not a bluff i'm not ahead of much at all. Maybe against a good player it's possible to fold, but against someone who I thought was quite bad, with those odds - I do agree I have to call.
On another note - sometimes in these kind of situations, it is my belief that even if you don't have the correct odds to call, sometimes it can still be the correct decision to do so. Let's say like this hand, we work out with pot odds we need to be correct 29% of the time for it to be a profitable call, however lets say I believe i'm only going to be good about 25% of the time against his range, the maths would say to fold, right? I'm 4% short of the odds I need. But what I think people sometimes just don't look at is the alternative, if you fold and leave yourself with only say 600 chips to his 2400, what percentage of the time are you going to win the match from this spot? I would say it is usually going to be less than 50% even with a skill edge (based on the fact you only win matches 60% of the time starting on even chips against a less skilled opponent), therefore you can say that folding is also -EV, so maybe calling the river shove with slightly less odds than you need to call could be the better of the two positions. That is what I see as a difference between cash games and SNGS.
It's 645 to call.
So the pot after you call will be (2245 + 645) = 2890
Hence pot odds required are (645 / 2890) = 22.3% ~ 22%
The other way to think of it is:
EV(call) = e * P - C
where:
e = equity in pot = ?
P = pot AFTER you call = 645 + 2245 = 2890
C = cost to call = 645
breakeven when EV(call) = 0, solve for equity required (e)
e = (EV(call) + C ) / P = 645 / 2890 = 22%
So if you have 22% equity, you are indifferent between calling and folding.
with e > 22%, you are better calling than folding.
Regarding accepting -EV plays on one hand because you think you'll be flipping on the next hand:
There are no ICM considerations in heads up tournaments.
The payout is equal to the double the buyin minus the rake.
The rake is a fixed sunk cost of playing and so it is correct to make +EV plays in heads up tournaments.
Consider the example you gave:
Accepting 4% less equity than you require in a 2890 pot.
0.04 * 2890 = 115.6 chips
This is pretty significant - EV.
Consider next hand, how much of a negative edge you would accept to be indifferent?
(2* 600 * e) - 600 = -115.6
e = 40.3 %
Accepting a -4% edge on the river on this hand is the same as folding and then accepting a coinflip next hand with a -9.7% edge.
So folding here and getting it in flipping next hand would have much better expectation, and consequently improve your long term results than getting it in here with 4% less equity than required.
Note that this is not a technically robust analysis because it doesn't consider chips changing in value relative to the blinds over the tournament but it's close enough to make my point.
There are of course exceptions:
Technically it would be correct to pass on really close spots if you knew you had a large edge on your opponent for the remainder of the tournament because your statistical edge in the future makes up for passing on a small edge here. Conversely, if your opponent has a large edge on you, you would be correct to accept slighty -EV gambles.
But for the most part, you should not be passing up +EV spots or accepting -EV plays in HUSNGs.
"On another note - sometimes in these kind of situations, it is my belief that even if you don't have the correct odds to call, sometimes it can still be the correct decision to do so. Let's say like this hand, we work out with pot odds we need to be correct 29% of the time for it to be a profitable call, however lets say I believe i'm only going to be good about 25% of the time against his range, the maths would say to fold, right? I'm 4% short of the odds I need. But what I think people sometimes just don't look at is the alternative, if you fold and leave yourself with only say 600 chips to his 2400, what percentage of the time are you going to win the match from this spot? I would say it is usually going to be less than 50% even with a skill edge (based on the fact you only win matches 60% of the time starting on even chips against a less skilled opponent), therefore you can say that folding is also -EV, so maybe calling the river shove with slightly less odds than you need to call could be the better of the two positions. That is what I see as a difference between cash games and SNGS."
- Though you don't really need to win 50% of time to do better than winning 25% of time.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is something that I have been thinking about, there is more to think about than just pot odds alone because it is not a cash game.
Lets take this for example - Forget the original hand posted here - Lets say you start a hand with 1500 chips each
We get to the river and you have 600 chips left each
Meaning you have already invested 900 each
Villain goes all in for 600
Pot = 2400
To call = 600
sooo that means the pot odds are 600*100 / 3000 = 20
you only need to be good here 20% of the time to call says maths and the pot odds. However, if you are only good here 20% of the time, if you repeat this scenario over and over, you will lose this sit and go 4 out of 5 times. Thus losing money in the long run, 3 buy ins every 5 games.
And that is why I'm saying - If i fold here and leave myself with 600 chips, I need to consider the %% of time I think I can win from this shortstack position, vs the percentage of time I think I can win if i call the river, whichever is greater would be the optimal play imo.
It's well accepted that cEV = $EV in HUSNGs and therefore we should make the play with the best expected value.
That said, you may be interested in an article regarding maximising growth:
http://www.husng.com/content/optimizing-growth-not-bankroll-article
A bit tongue in cheek that the author coined a poker application Skates law given finance academics have been exploring these mathematical risk-return relationships for years but a thought-provoking read none-the-less.
For example, a common risk-reward metrics used in financial markets is the Sharpe ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_ratio
Consider a poker application: your opponent open jams with range [R] against which you have 'e' equity @ effective stacks S.
This is easily solved (simple pot odds problem) and we can determine whether we have the pot odds to call or not (ie. is it more +cEV to call or fold).
We can also calculate our expected return relative to our expected edge vs our opponent and the variance of the binomial probability distribution underlying the problem.
It is conceivable we could answer the question, am I being adequately compensated for the risk I am taking?
^^ (Note in practice where hands are not exposed and we don't have reliable data most of these variables are difficult to estimate accurately)
The problem is, in equilibrium, this risk aversity is a leak.
Players that are prepared to push smaller edges than you will gain an edge over you.
The edges in poker are relatively small to begin with relative to the variance of returns for profitable players and by passing up on these positive expectation plays you reduce your long term expectation. Ironically, by trying to reduce your short term variance, it will decrease your win rate and correspondingly increase your expected variance of returns.
Theoretically, in order to maximise your long term profits, you need to play a risk-netural game with an adequate bankroll.
If you have 23% equity and are offered an all in where you need 20% only, you've got the pot odds to call. However, if your expectation is bigger by folding, you should still fold. The problem is, that most players fold for the wrong reasoning. Math can prove that this call would be +EV, your sense of taking back the chips while being a shortstack is just a "gut feeling". That is, why it would be a bad trade off.
There are many situations where we trade in a +EV move for a better +EV move (e.g. you can open shove AA 25 bb deep, but unless your opponent is a total moron who calls 25bb way to often, you will not maxmize your expectation with this shove), but if your opponent is a total moron who calls with every hand, you should do whatever maximizes your expectation and in this spot that would be openshoving your AA.
You need a very good reason in order to throw away +EV moves..so, yes, if you got them, take them...but do not act out of a gut feeling.
Hi.
If you're jammed on and layed 20% odds with 23% equity: calling has better expectation than folding.
Imagine a 5 sided dice.
The fair price for gambling on one side would be $5.00 return for every $1 wagered.
4/5 times you lose your $1.
1/5 times you get $5 back for a $4 profit.
EV = 0.8 * -1 + 0.2 * 4 = 0
But what if someone offered you the same gamble on a loaded 5 sided dice where you knew that one side landed 23% of the time?
Now,
EV = 0.77 * -1 + 0.23 * 4 = 0.15
We make 0.15 in expected profit by taking this gamble.
Assuming we have a risk-neutral utility function (because we are playing the game with an adequate bankroll for the variance in the game), we will take this gamble all day long.
Poker is challenging because there is so much unknown information, odds and equities change from street to street and players don't have to be honest with each other . But if you distill all available information down to estimate you have 23% equity and you're shoved on, being layed 20% odds: do your long term expectation a favour and call.